Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Old 6th Feb 2017, 20:51
  #1701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,746
Received 79 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.
They have in the past, CFS Vintage Pair springs to mind, plus of course Vulcan Display Flight, and the Seahawk operated sporadically by the RNHF until its last and maybe final grounding.

Sadly, the Vintage Pair incidents back in the day prove even this isn't foolproof.

MOD aren't going to fund vintage jets - period.

And its all possibly a moot point post-Shoreham. I doubt we'll be seeing too many civvie owned/operated vintage jets flying again (and the Hunter grounding might never be lifted by CAA?) as I think the insurance premiums will likely go through the roof, and make it virtually operationally cost prohibitive...aside from any legislation or rule changes that are put in place.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 06:31
  #1702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"BBMF style squadron..." Really? Even if there was the remotest chance of that happening, do you suppose the aircraft would suddenly become "crash-proof"? Both the RAF Vintage Pair and the RNHF (Firefly) suffered fatal display crashes. And does this tragedy really support the notion that the CAA is unfit to regulate this area? Do then, previous display crashes and near-crashes (Fairford Typhoon 2005?)of service aircraft "prove" the unfitness of the RAF to regulate?

Last edited by ShotOne; 7th Feb 2017 at 08:02.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 08:19
  #1703 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).

To scale up such an operation for multiple types would be a massive undertaking as outside the display season your professional pilots would still need paying.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 10:23
  #1704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Well, Shot One, thank goodness for that. It's dangerous and everything's OK. Phew…….
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 12:01
  #1705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I've previously posted my views concerning this accident, which I maintain.

That said, after a discussion with other ex-aviators in my pub last evening, nobody was able to offer an explanation as to what processes are outstanding and any relative timescales. We've all read the AAIB and CAA reports highlighted in the forum, and opinions concerning police activity; but are at a loss with respect to further procedures that are/might be necessary to bring about a conclusion.

Can anybody provide us with some clarity?

Many thanks.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 12:24
  #1706 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,696
Received 342 Likes on 188 Posts
Jindabyne, this reason was given for the further delay on 30th November:

"The final report into the Shoreham air crash will not be published before Christmas as hoped, a spokesperson from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch has confirmed. On the first anniversary of the crash in August, it was announced that the final report would be delivered before Christmas, confirmed the spokesperson.

"But due to one party being consulted having now asked for an extension, the report will not be published until after Christmas..."
Shoreham Airshow tragedy report delayed - Shoreham Herald
treadigraph is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 12:29
  #1707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Squalor
Posts: 175
Received 27 Likes on 17 Posts
As I implied earlier, maybe the way to show these aircraft is a resticted manoeuvre display. - or static.

I can nod sagely at all the plans for increasing currency/recency for more advanced demos, but for a hunter that would be start, taxi t/o, climb to 5000ft invert for loose article, 5 min aeros at 150 lb/min, cct land taxi back - 1500lb of motion lotion plus airfield fees. I guess too dear for 3 times a week practice, too demanding of service time

Shuttleworth seem to manage without combat ready Fokker Triplane pilots.

Can somebody confirm the Shoreham accident (yes, I talk about it) was the first manoeuvre? So off a controlled run-in, plenty of speed, presumably cool and collected pilot, a pull-up resulted in a crash?

...not sure you can practise for that.
Wetstart Dryrun is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 12:42
  #1708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks Tready ---
jindabyne is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 13:04
  #1709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 668
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would seem like there's a lot of hand wringing going on behind closed doors on how to deal with the outcome of the AAIB investigation?


The owner of the aircraft would seem to have admitted 'some liability' according to newspaper reports?


That MAY indicate a particular conclusion to the inquiry which means that some sort of legal proceedings may be in the offing.


If so, how this is all announced to the World in general would potentially affect any legal proceedings?
Treble one is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 13:09
  #1710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Wetstart,
The Fokker Triplane issue is simple. Small lightweight aircraft are mostly a danger to themselves. Heavy and fast aircraft become a great danger to others, in direct proportion to their weight and at the square of their speed. Additionally, the complexity and low tolerance of system malfunctions of vintage mil jets counts against them when it comes to private operation. Just my opinion.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 14:26
  #1711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Squalor
Posts: 175
Received 27 Likes on 17 Posts
OAP,

Thanks. I was citing Shuttleworth ref minimal hours, no 2-seaters, yet fairly benign manoeuvres, strict weather limits and experienced pilots facilitate safe displays.

You don't have to pull the wings off to please the public.
Wetstart Dryrun is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 16:31
  #1712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"It's dangerous and everything's OK..." No, Arfur, that doesn't remotely reflect what I wrote. Just that your "solution" wouldn't necessarily solve anything.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 19:49
  #1713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,126
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Harry Heathrow:-

As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing
..and as regard to the pilots currency that is precisely what was not required here. Those granting the privileges for this pilot DA's would/could have known absolutely what his currency was. So at some point beyond the accident you can take two paths.

Either suggest that the pilot was perfectly qualified to perform at Shoreham and then you defend the process that put him in that position, OR you capitulate and throw much of the process in the bin. The second option might be valid but it surely comes with intelligent reasoning for the revised thinking and why that thinking hadn't taken place before. (and clearly simply saying "we now have multiple fatalities" doesn't say much for the risk management).

I'm not sure that throwing a few hundred hours extra at things really adds much value given we were talking a quarter clover and a pilot who not only has performed the same display in the same aircraft previously but has some years of success in competition aerobatics which go way way beyond a simple figure being flown at the time.

Unfortunately unless the pilot himself can shed light on the rational on the event then beyond perhaps simply displaying one aircraft per DA, per display season I can't see things being very effective as a solution and I think the hours total alone path seems flawed. Certainly there are other issues around process but how material they have been, well one awaits the final report. Of course should it turn out they have had no influence at all in this accident then the delays around final report publication would point to people's interest in PR.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 22:28
  #1714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe practise and currency are very relevant. Hundred of hours of 'previous' experience is not relevant, unless backed up by strict supervision and authorisation.
theonewhoknows is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 09:32
  #1715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Mr Shot
My "solution" would not stop aircraft from being "crash proof" as you so disdainfully suggest. The RAF, over the years" has suffered many fatal crashes when fully combat ready, current pilots have either made mistakes or some external influence such as the weather (going into cloud at the top of a loop for instance) or aircraft problems have tragically intervened. That did not alter the fact that the system was basically sound and the pilots were combat ready and properly current at both their operational tasks and their display work - for which they had been specially selected.
It occurs to me, as an ex FJ QWI with 2 tours behind me, that the CAA is (was) allowing pilots who are not current to attempt similar displays when some of them should perhaps be either flying something a little less dynamic or even hanging up their kit and joining the audience. My suggestion of a BBMF type Squadron was exactly that - a suggestion. The fact that nobody would fund a few pilots to operate a display Squadron of vintage jets (they may still be in the RAF) does not mean that it's a bad idea - it means that nobody will fund it.
So, my final word is - if you want to fly fast jets carrying out low level displays - do it properly or don't do it at all. Whether the RAF or the CAA is "in charge" is irrelevant.
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 10:15
  #1716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 628
Received 236 Likes on 134 Posts
There was one private Hunter display pilot who seemed to be doing enough flying to maintain a proper level of currency, and was apparently covering his costs too, so it does appear to be possible do do it properly as an amateur. That said, I rather suspect he treated the whole enterprise (including marketing, getting bookings etc) as a full time job rather than a weekend hobby...
pasta is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 11:16
  #1717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aircraft owner automatically accepts liability and his insurance pays out. However, I would imagine that should there be indication that there were other factors involved, then the insurance company will make a claim on the other 3rd parties insurance policy.


With regard to the consultation, my understanding is that the AAIB complete a Final draft copy which is then sent to each individual (or their representatives) and also any person/s or organisations whose reputation n may be adversely affected by the findings. They then have 28 days to make representation before the finalised report is completed and published.


Therefore, it would appear according to reports in the media that one party has asked for an extension to this timescale presumably to provide additional information or seek further advice.


However, in view of the fact that the prelim inquest hearing is scheduled in March I think the AAIB should now say to the party you have had enough time now. They can always make amendments after, as this has happened before, if it really needs to be done.


With regard to the police investigation I expect the are stuck in limbo too, as they have no further leads to follow until the AAIB report is published as this will contain all the other facts such as expert calculations, condition of aircraft etc that they have not been able to access.
Hebog is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 11:49
  #1718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).
Apologies for the drift off topic, however...

If by 'failure' you are referring to the end of flying, then I'm not sure this stacks up. There were seven possible reasons for the end of flying operations. Funding was one of them, but there was no sign that the funding model would not continue to work (in fact, the proportion of income received from 'trading' as opposed to donations gradually increased). As you will be aware, it was the withdrawal of OEM support that was the actual reason for the 'failure', which no amount of money could fix.
wonderboysteve is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 13:22
  #1719 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
WBS, the Vulcan is in a shed earning not a penny I understand. That is what I term ultimate failure. Even had it had OEM support it would still have needed further major servicing at cost.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 13:34
  #1720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I guess I am flogging a dead horse, but to repeat what I wrote shortly after the accident, I still feel the title of this thread to be inappropriate, suggesting as it does that the loss of the Hunter outweighs the loss of 11 lives. I appreciate that the thread may well have been started before the OP was aware of the consequences of the crash, but perhaps the title could have been amended in the light of events. 'Nuff said.
Wander00 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.