Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is WV372 in the Bray video, but it is not the same sequence.
Lomcevak, very good point about the two visual illusions. And well explained.
Lomcevak, very good point about the two visual illusions. And well explained.
Last edited by Mach Two; 6th Feb 2016 at 19:19.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,627
Received 298 Likes
on
166 Posts
There are many aspects of aviation about which I know nothing and if I ever get drawn into discussions about them I very quickly hold my hand up, apologise and exit!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOMCEVAK:
Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. I'm not an expert on aerobatics, though I have a lot of training and experience in safety, quality, and process control.
If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver, as opposed to simply starting the maneuver from a safe altitude and airspeed. Similarly, the Flying Display Director would need a protractor and some elaborate mechanism to determine if the minimums had been busted. And technically, a loop doesn't include the entry or the crucial exit, where the pitch is less than 60 degrees. (Odd. The entry and exit are scored for levelness in aerobatic competitions.)
May I say if true, that's insane?
Also, if I understand you correctly, it was permissible to cross that highway at 100 feet AGL. Silly me, I thought a "flypast" referred to flying along the runway, safely within the confines of the airfield. Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.
I wondered how a terrible tragedy like this could happen. Say no more, I've got it down to a one word explanation.
It is permissible to commence an aerobatic manoeuvre from what is technically a 'flypast' from the minimum DA height for flypasts so long as the manoeuvre is not technically 'aerobatic' until passing the DA aerobatic minimum. Therefore, pulling up for a looping manoeuvre from straight and level at 200 ft agl would have been within the regulations so long as the pitch attitude was such that it would not have been considered 'aerobatic' before climbing through 500 ft agl. There are many definitions of what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre but in general 60 deg of pitch is probably the most restrictive.
If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver, as opposed to simply starting the maneuver from a safe altitude and airspeed. Similarly, the Flying Display Director would need a protractor and some elaborate mechanism to determine if the minimums had been busted. And technically, a loop doesn't include the entry or the crucial exit, where the pitch is less than 60 degrees. (Odd. The entry and exit are scored for levelness in aerobatic competitions.)
May I say if true, that's insane?
Also, if I understand you correctly, it was permissible to cross that highway at 100 feet AGL. Silly me, I thought a "flypast" referred to flying along the runway, safely within the confines of the airfield. Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.
I wondered how a terrible tragedy like this could happen. Say no more, I've got it down to a one word explanation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot will be pulling a g amount on the pull-up. That will give a fairly consistent curve.
Added to that, if he did indeed have to do that, then so what? Do you think that display pilots are not constantly monitoring many parameters whilst displaying? It's called being a pilot.
Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.
It's just that I used to regularly fly over highways at an authorised height of 150'. Was the extra 50' sufficient to confer sanity, or was I unknowingly crazy all along?
Also, I still regularly overfly a busy 4-lane arterial at about 80' and descending. With about 300 passengers on board. Presumably this is completely bonkers?
Tourist is correct.
Now you're catching on, finally. Yes, it's something pilots do.
It would be a bit difficult to stay "safely within the confines of the airfield" at Shoreham - and most other airfields - in a Hunter. As for overflying the A27, aircraft do it all the time on the approach to 20 there - a lot of airfields that have main roads crossing close to the main runway. In this case the display axis crosses the road. Have you not looked at the display maps for Shoreham before pontificating about it?
Originally Posted by PrivtPilotRadarTech
If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver, as opposed to simply starting the maneuver from a safe altitude and airspeed.
Originally Posted by PrivtPilotRadarTech
Also, if I understand you correctly, it was permissible to cross that highway at 100 feet AGL. Silly me, I thought a "flypast" referred to flying along the runway, safely within the confines of the airfield. Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.
Courtney:
You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.
So, if what we saw (with the exception of the final seconds) was the PLANNED and APPROVED manoeuvre, it was unsafely executed, unsafely planned, and unsafely approved. The result was slaughter, which is why some people are quite angry about it.
You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.
It would be a bit difficult to stay "safely within the confines of the airfield" at Shoreham - and most other airfields - in a Hunter. As for overflying the A27, aircraft do it all the time on the approach to 20 there - a lot of airfields that have main roads crossing close to the main runway. In this case the display axis crosses the road. Have you not looked at the display maps for Shoreham before pontificating about it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney:
You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.
You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.
There is every comparison.
Firstly, the 100ft pass was straight and level. Very low risk.
Secondly, even at "200kts" (your speed not mine) the energy in the hunter is infinitesimal compared to the energy in an airliner landing over a busy road.
Thirdly, risk is all about chance of something happening as well as effect if it does.
History shows that despite decades of this sort of thing happening, I believe this is the first time one has spanked into a road.
Even one in a million risks happen occasionally. That does not mean it is sane to try to remove one in a million chances.
Aviation is already safer than normal life. The drive to the airport is the dangerous bit it's just humans are awful at risk assessment.
You are an exceptional human.
idlebystander,
It was not my intention to be disingenuous, merely to demonstrate the position of the road relative to the 20 threashold means that it is overflwn at low altitude very frequently. As Tourist rightly points out risk is the combination of effect AND likelihood. Shoreham is home to private aircraft, a flying school, bis jets, helicopters, scheduled flights and pleasure flights totalling 57,000 annual movements in recent years (2014 figure). The frequency of aircraft landing over the road is far greater than overflights generated by the annual airshow, the future of which may be in doubt.
So when you say,
I do not believe that is correct. There is an element of risk, but it is not unsafe. Perhaps you are trying to use a single incident to prove a broader statistical probability - stats don't work like that.
A quick glance at the fixed wing pattern below (there is also a helo pattern to superimpose on that) gives an idea of just how crowded the area around the airfield really is. It's not just a road at the end of the runway. But before jumping to the conclusion that it is "unsafe" for displays or even to remain an operating airfield, you need to look at the entire aviation business in the UK (probably in very many countries) and consider how many other airfields are similar to this.
Mostly, the safety record is extremely good and the risks exceptionally well managed. Whatever way you look at it, the additional risk of the airshow is not terribly significant compared to daily operations. I certainly see no evidence that the planning, approval and execution were "unsafe".
It was not my intention to be disingenuous, merely to demonstrate the position of the road relative to the 20 threashold means that it is overflwn at low altitude very frequently. As Tourist rightly points out risk is the combination of effect AND likelihood. Shoreham is home to private aircraft, a flying school, bis jets, helicopters, scheduled flights and pleasure flights totalling 57,000 annual movements in recent years (2014 figure). The frequency of aircraft landing over the road is far greater than overflights generated by the annual airshow, the future of which may be in doubt.
So when you say,
Originally Posted by idlebystander
it was unsafely executed, unsafely planned, and unsafely approved
A quick glance at the fixed wing pattern below (there is also a helo pattern to superimpose on that) gives an idea of just how crowded the area around the airfield really is. It's not just a road at the end of the runway. But before jumping to the conclusion that it is "unsafe" for displays or even to remain an operating airfield, you need to look at the entire aviation business in the UK (probably in very many countries) and consider how many other airfields are similar to this.
Mostly, the safety record is extremely good and the risks exceptionally well managed. Whatever way you look at it, the additional risk of the airshow is not terribly significant compared to daily operations. I certainly see no evidence that the planning, approval and execution were "unsafe".
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Just looking at the airfield map shows that the display line used is the least risk option. There are few dwellings on the 02/20 line, to the NE is the Adour and a potential escape route. It is obvious looking at the 02 line that it was extremely bad luck hitting the road.
On that map, what was the actual flight path to the impact point. Is it possible to mark the track and IP on that map?
On that map, what was the actual flight path to the impact point. Is it possible to mark the track and IP on that map?
PN,
The BBC produced this graphic soon after the crash, viewed from the northish.
Someone (American by the looks of it) later added some more lines - BEFORE ANYONE STARTS TRYING TO USE THIS GRAPHIC TO DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE MANOEUVRE WAS EXECUTED, THIS IS NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE - IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF AN ASSUMPTION.
The BBC produced this graphic soon after the crash, viewed from the northish.
Someone (American by the looks of it) later added some more lines - BEFORE ANYONE STARTS TRYING TO USE THIS GRAPHIC TO DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE MANOEUVRE WAS EXECUTED, THIS IS NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE - IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF AN ASSUMPTION.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 7th Feb 2016 at 12:11.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
So, without doubt, the least risky display line.
The only obvious way to reduce risk further would be traffic lights. Considering other airfields I know with traffic lights, the road in each case runs along the perimeter fence. Other roads where the aircraft height would be about 200 feet do not have lights.
In the case of Shoreham the road is sufficiently far from the airfield such that lights could not be justified.
The only obvious way to reduce risk further would be traffic lights. Considering other airfields I know with traffic lights, the road in each case runs along the perimeter fence. Other roads where the aircraft height would be about 200 feet do not have lights.
In the case of Shoreham the road is sufficiently far from the airfield such that lights could not be justified.
I think he means why didn't he just turn right a bit rather than fly a modified quarter clover, PN.
Answer: because it wouldn't be much of a display if he just flew turns, I guess. I see your point about it being away from the crowd, but still visible there.
Answer: because it wouldn't be much of a display if he just flew turns, I guess. I see your point about it being away from the crowd, but still visible there.
Courtney Mil
That's correct. It just seems like the loop/cloverleaf was more for the pilot's benefit than the crowd. Certainly if you ask any keen airshow photographer they'd prefer two straight passes to one loop...
Was there a pre-planned sequence...?
That's correct. It just seems like the loop/cloverleaf was more for the pilot's benefit than the crowd. Certainly if you ask any keen airshow photographer they'd prefer two straight passes to one loop...
Was there a pre-planned sequence...?
PPRT,
Re your post #1097. My previous points to which you refer regarding entry height related purely to the vertical plane and I made no reference to Shoreham specifically nor crossing roads. FYI, I fly frequently at Air Shows at one airfield that has major roads close to two of its sides and the minimum heights for overflight are always specifically briefed and closely monitored by the Flying Control Committee. Also, please note that in my post prior to yours I had said that my comments on 60 deg pitch were not factually correct and that there are, to my knowledge, no pitch or roll attitude values quoted that define aerobatic manoeuvres flown in accordance with CAP403.
To you and all on this thread, there seems to be a great interest (almost obsession) in the practice and regulatory aspects of entering looping manoeuvres from flypast minima. For those of us who display under CAP403 this is totally normal, as is the permitted flying down to flypast minima once the aerobatic minima has been captured. So let us put this into the context of this discussion (although not specifically related to Shoreham):
Much of the discussion has been on regulations which, in this age of wanting a regulation to cover every eventuality, is hardly surprising. But why do we have/need regulations? In my opinion, it is to establish a considered framework that enhances safety. BUT ... there will ALWAYS be a requirement for pilots to exercise sound judgement and common sense, qualities that were once called 'airmanship', a word which nowadays is used far too infrequently. The same applies to Flying Display Directors and Flying Control Committees. You can follow regulations and be unsafe or break them and be safe (although I am not condoning this latter scenario). With respect to loop entry heights and minimum heights on recovery, the manoeuvre must be flown safely. During the pull-up, a FDD or FCC member will have the expertise to assess this visually. Any suggestion that optical devices are needed to assess the pitch attitude on passing the aerobatic minimum height are fatuous and would add nothing to safety.
Regulatory numbers are not everything, just part of a safety culture. Sound judgement and common sense are still essential as well as regulations. Let us not forget that.
Re your post #1097. My previous points to which you refer regarding entry height related purely to the vertical plane and I made no reference to Shoreham specifically nor crossing roads. FYI, I fly frequently at Air Shows at one airfield that has major roads close to two of its sides and the minimum heights for overflight are always specifically briefed and closely monitored by the Flying Control Committee. Also, please note that in my post prior to yours I had said that my comments on 60 deg pitch were not factually correct and that there are, to my knowledge, no pitch or roll attitude values quoted that define aerobatic manoeuvres flown in accordance with CAP403.
To you and all on this thread, there seems to be a great interest (almost obsession) in the practice and regulatory aspects of entering looping manoeuvres from flypast minima. For those of us who display under CAP403 this is totally normal, as is the permitted flying down to flypast minima once the aerobatic minima has been captured. So let us put this into the context of this discussion (although not specifically related to Shoreham):
Much of the discussion has been on regulations which, in this age of wanting a regulation to cover every eventuality, is hardly surprising. But why do we have/need regulations? In my opinion, it is to establish a considered framework that enhances safety. BUT ... there will ALWAYS be a requirement for pilots to exercise sound judgement and common sense, qualities that were once called 'airmanship', a word which nowadays is used far too infrequently. The same applies to Flying Display Directors and Flying Control Committees. You can follow regulations and be unsafe or break them and be safe (although I am not condoning this latter scenario). With respect to loop entry heights and minimum heights on recovery, the manoeuvre must be flown safely. During the pull-up, a FDD or FCC member will have the expertise to assess this visually. Any suggestion that optical devices are needed to assess the pitch attitude on passing the aerobatic minimum height are fatuous and would add nothing to safety.
Regulatory numbers are not everything, just part of a safety culture. Sound judgement and common sense are still essential as well as regulations. Let us not forget that.