Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Experience on manual reversion requested
Jazbag made a post on the R&N forums about Hunter manual reversion. He is interested in others who experienced the same malfunction.
During one of my flights on the Hawker Hunter I had a manual reversion of the controls. One of the two switches in front console just tripped off. This was due to a momentary drop in hydraulic pressure ...
I was wondering how and when this could be linked up to this accident. If anyone else has had such an incident please do post your experience.
I was wondering how and when this could be linked up to this accident. If anyone else has had such an incident please do post your experience.
The Hunter's hyd pump wasn't capable of maintaining pressure to the hydroboosters if other services were operated at the same time at low throttle angles. So idle thrust, airbrake in and landing gear down at the same time when rolling out downwind off the break would invariably cause manual reversion until the airbrake and landing gear had completed their operation.
VERY unusual for a 'momentary drop in hydraulic pressure' for any other reason, apart from inadequate maintenance, possibly?
VERY unusual for a 'momentary drop in hydraulic pressure' for any other reason, apart from inadequate maintenance, possibly?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ has hit the nail on the head with his comments, such as the aircraft ran out of height, was the display to risky and what were the margins.
For those professional pilot's on here, we all know about factoring in margins for take off and landing performance (1.33/1.43). There are number distractions which can happen at critical moments during displays, such as bird strikes, loose items, sun in your eyes, malfunctions and of course an engine malfunction.
In the case of the later, whether a total or partial loss of power, would it no be reasonable to always have the energy to position the aircraft away from congested area? I'm really not sure what the display philosophy is here.
Regarding the other post regarding 'pilot error', this is an outdated term used by the media, the preferred term is human error, as no one factor in isolation causes an accident. As as we may find that the humans responsible for display authorisation may be one of the factors in this accident. I think a review in display authorisation was well overdue, the argument that there hasn't been a display accident involving civilians for 63 years is flawed statistically.
I can think of two well documented fatal air accidents in the UK, a B737-400 in the 80's and Viscount in the 90's where the FOI (CAA Flight Operations Inspector) were identified by the AAIB as one of the causal factors.
I think I'm right in thinking that the FOI, in the aftermath of the B737-400 accident was redeployed by the CAA to be a CAAFU Examiner and ironically then she became a CRMI Examiner!
For those professional pilot's on here, we all know about factoring in margins for take off and landing performance (1.33/1.43). There are number distractions which can happen at critical moments during displays, such as bird strikes, loose items, sun in your eyes, malfunctions and of course an engine malfunction.
In the case of the later, whether a total or partial loss of power, would it no be reasonable to always have the energy to position the aircraft away from congested area? I'm really not sure what the display philosophy is here.
Regarding the other post regarding 'pilot error', this is an outdated term used by the media, the preferred term is human error, as no one factor in isolation causes an accident. As as we may find that the humans responsible for display authorisation may be one of the factors in this accident. I think a review in display authorisation was well overdue, the argument that there hasn't been a display accident involving civilians for 63 years is flawed statistically.
I can think of two well documented fatal air accidents in the UK, a B737-400 in the 80's and Viscount in the 90's where the FOI (CAA Flight Operations Inspector) were identified by the AAIB as one of the causal factors.
I think I'm right in thinking that the FOI, in the aftermath of the B737-400 accident was redeployed by the CAA to be a CAAFU Examiner and ironically then she became a CRMI Examiner!
Last edited by athonite; 25th Aug 2015 at 19:22.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintaining currency and experience relevant to the type..display pilots who are able to maintain both fitness and recency are going to become rare birds; even in the RAF, in order to save money, they say HMG has cut down on flying hours...can this be true?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM - I think your indignation is misplaced. If AH was the only casualty I would agree with you entirely that any premature comment is insensitive and unnecessary. But he wasn't. And scrutiny will encompass all factors, to include, sadly, those aspects that we all hope are proven to be unfounded. But I'm afraid that your reluctance - indeed refusal - to contemplate human error is clouding your objective assessment of what evidence is already available, incomplete though it may be. Before I found myself saying that Capt Brown was making stupid and unsubstantiated comments, I might question what he had seen that I had missed...
I do, however, agree with you insomuch as I wish that we did not have to endure what definitely is wild speculation from those who are not qualified, in any shape or form, to comment - much less give them the oxygen of publicity and, with it, apparent authority. The public - and decision makers - will not be able tell the difference. But it was ever thus so there is no point in getting too bent out of shape. And hence my view that some authoritative statements need to be released early - earlier than normal perhaps.
I'm going to sign off now, but you are actually drawing more attention to the very issue that you are seeking to suppress. I genuinely hope that my own conclusions - which I have no intention of posting - are proved to be wrong, or at least incomplete. But I very much doubt it because they are based upon a clinical assessment of the indisputable facts to steadily rule out the least likely occurrences, allied to professional experience - which, incidentally, includes an insidious but total loss of thrust in a Hunter. And, sadly, I have had some practice at joining the dots in similar circumstances, so this is not 'wild speculation'.
Beam me up...
I do, however, agree with you insomuch as I wish that we did not have to endure what definitely is wild speculation from those who are not qualified, in any shape or form, to comment - much less give them the oxygen of publicity and, with it, apparent authority. The public - and decision makers - will not be able tell the difference. But it was ever thus so there is no point in getting too bent out of shape. And hence my view that some authoritative statements need to be released early - earlier than normal perhaps.
I'm going to sign off now, but you are actually drawing more attention to the very issue that you are seeking to suppress. I genuinely hope that my own conclusions - which I have no intention of posting - are proved to be wrong, or at least incomplete. But I very much doubt it because they are based upon a clinical assessment of the indisputable facts to steadily rule out the least likely occurrences, allied to professional experience - which, incidentally, includes an insidious but total loss of thrust in a Hunter. And, sadly, I have had some practice at joining the dots in similar circumstances, so this is not 'wild speculation'.
Beam me up...
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Athonite
Preferred by whom? Human error and Pilot error have different meanings. If the "human" involved was the pilot in question, pilot error is still a valid term. Human error has a broader meaning. I think you are probably talking specifically about UK GA training speak?
Regardless of the relevance of the term, does it really matter? I think we all understood the meaning here. Given that all your previous posts in the past five months (17 in all) have been solely on accident threads, I wonder what your motive is here.
Regarding the other post regarding 'pilot error', this is an outdated term used by the media, the preferred term is human error, as no one factor in isolation causes an accident.
Regardless of the relevance of the term, does it really matter? I think we all understood the meaning here. Given that all your previous posts in the past five months (17 in all) have been solely on accident threads, I wonder what your motive is here.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Petersfield
Age: 66
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think this has been posted here before: contains a sensible and well written precis from someone well qualified to comment:
https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial?fref=nf
https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial?fref=nf
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several here have suggested that all is ok in the UK because there hasn't been an accident involving "civilians" since Farnham 1952. If that implies disregarding air show accidents outside the UK, it does not strike me as a prudent approach to safety (and this is nitpicking, but one could also argue that the passengers who died in the 1977 Biggin Hill sightseeing helicopter-Tiger Moth crash were indeed "civilians", or "spectators"). "It can't happen here/to me" is a dangerous way of thinking, and usually there are lessons to be learned. Likewise, disregarding air show rehearsal accidents just because no spectators were present seems equally unwise (athonite I noticed you edited out the reference to the 1982 Thunderbirds accident 
- I thought it was interesting). I'm almost certain the CAA will consider the question of altitude minima for high-energy downward trajectory maneuvers, and for me, that is one of the most interesting questions in this context.
- I thought it was interesting). I'm almost certain the CAA will consider the question of altitude minima for high-energy downward trajectory maneuvers, and for me, that is one of the most interesting questions in this context.
Last edited by deptrai; 25th Aug 2015 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APG you miss the point.
In any accident, loss of life or assets, are never down to a a single person, hence pilot error does not exist, was Three Mile Island 'operator error', was Herald of Free Enterprise 'ship's captain error' and when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'. We need to consider the wider framework within errors occur, hence I suggest you read some of James Reason's books. Pilot error is a thing of the past.
I should add Human Error is not UK GA speak, read the ICAO directives!
In any accident, loss of life or assets, are never down to a a single person, hence pilot error does not exist, was Three Mile Island 'operator error', was Herald of Free Enterprise 'ship's captain error' and when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'. We need to consider the wider framework within errors occur, hence I suggest you read some of James Reason's books. Pilot error is a thing of the past.
I should add Human Error is not UK GA speak, read the ICAO directives!
Thank you for the link, J1N. Jonathon Whaley, the author, has given me his permission to post his article. Worth reading from an actual expert in this area:
Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, I’m breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
What follows must be read in the context that on Saturday an aircraft crashed and not beyond that. I would have written almost the same words if the pilot had walked away from something other than a normal landing and no one had been injured, fatally or otherwise.
The AAIB will take what time is necessary to gather all relevant and perhaps what others might think irrelevant information, before even starting to piece together events. Only then will they go on to draw conclusions. Following that, they will undoubtedly make recommendations in the wake of their enquiry.
In the following I have used the expression “they will” but it is only my assumption of would seem logical, so take it as “they PROBABLY will”.
The AAIB will look at the operator’s Organisational Control Manual, (OCM) which sets out how an organisation operates its aircraft.
(At the end of this post, you’ll see the sections in the OCM for Miss Demeanour.)
They will look at the maintenance records, the After Flight and Before Flight (AF/BF) records which will show amongst other things, the pre-start fuel state, oxygen levels, Anti-G system nitrogen gas levels, etc.
The Flight Authorisation sheet will show the details of the planned flight, such as where the pilot intended to land after displaying. They will rebuild his planned flight as if they were flight planning it themselves. I would hope they would use an experience Hunter display pilot to do this, someone not connected to the organisation.
They will listen to the chain of radio communications from the departure airfield to starting his display. Just listening to what is said and how it was said will be factors, ranging from absolutely normal to there being intimations of other factors at play.
They will look at radar tracks along side those communications. Tracking around London from North Weald is flying in some of the most congested areas in UK General Aviation. Everyone else is also “going around” London but at less than half the Hunter’s speed.
They will analyse in great detail and probably develop a computer model of the display flight profile, from his positioning for the run in until moments after impact. This they can do using combinations of primary and secondary radar information together with photos and video from the general public. There is the possibility that any GPS in the aircraft will have recorded the flight profile. Nothing near a Flight Data Recorder but it could give track, speed and height information. They will look at everything they can which is external to the aircraft. Such factors such as visibility, birds or other aircraft that could have been in the pilot’s view. Anything that could have distracted the pilot or physically affected the aircraft. Photos and video of the jet exhaust, its heat haze etc can provide them with information. There will be things which even I haven’t thought of.
They will look at the pilot’s log book and any video they can get showing his previous displays in Hunters. They will look at displays he has flown in other aircraft. They will talk to people regarding personal details, medical history, occupational flying and to his Display Authorisation Examiner, etc. They will interview other Hunter display pilots to get an understanding as to what we do and the different ways in which we might go about displaying. They might even present those pilots with the information they have gathered and ask for second by second comments. They will obviously want to interview the pilot himself as soon as he is medically fit to be interviewed.
All this will take some months and can not be rushed. They may come up with an interim finding if there is something that can not wait for the full report.
The CAA also has to play its part by way of immediate and future actions. I can not fault what they have done so far.
As I write this is the status:
No flights by Hunter aircraft.
Vintage jet displays OVER LAND will be ..... “limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.”
They are actively reviewing air show safety.
See
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx…
I was just typing “ you’d think they’d give a simple link!” when this link came through:
SN-2015/003: Restricting the Operation of Vintage Jet Aircraft at Flying Displays | Publications | About the CAA
That is the LEAST they could do. They might easily have applied the ruling to all aircraft over certain horsepower and weight, warbird or otherwise. They might even have stopped all air shows pending their review.
The UK has the Gold Standard when it comes to do with everything related to air shows.
Every year, the CAA holds seminars for Display Pilots and seminars for Display Authorisation Examiners (DAEs) such as myself. It is compulsory for DAEs to attend at least two out of three seminars. Display organisers may also attend these seminars.
The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) likewise holds annual seminars, to which civilian display pilots are welcome to attend. Senior officers from the MAA also attend the CAA seminars.
Finally we have the British Air Display Association ( British Air Display Association) who bring together civilian operators & pilots, military senior officers & pilots and display organisers, not only from the UK but Europe. BADA also arrange seminars.
Display Safety is the foundation stone of all these gatherings.
Apart from reviewing the previous year’s display activities and any incidents, safety procedures are reviewed both in terms of compliance and coverage. Whilst these events might have lectures on a wide range of air show aspects, they are also an interactive event where everyone can have an open discussion.
The British aviation community has been and continues to be world leaders when it comes to openness and examination of anything to do with aviation. Even the medical fraternity has taken lessons from this ability for introspection.
Comments about Hunters in general.
I’m often asked if they are difficult to fly. The answer is absolutely not. They are one of the most delightful and simple aircraft to fly. Yes, more demanding that a light aircraft because things happen more quickly. Their weight and speed makes inertia a big factor compared to a light aircraft. From a systems aspect, you could loose all hydraulic and electrical supply (they have two generators and batteries) and fly safely to land. In a Hunter in the UK, a suitable runway is no more than five or ten minutes away. I would go so far as to say that the skill level required to fly a Hunter is not as great as say flying a Spitfire. In a Spitfire or other big piston warbird, a pilot must have a definite feel for aircraft, an affinity for flying. In fact the further you go back in warbird aircraft age, the more difficult they become. The Hunter is at the peak of simplicity for all military jets of any type before moving on in time to later military aircraft.
With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.
Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.
It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.
Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.
There is a public outcry for “something to be done”. It is natural. The question is where is the line drawn?
Accidents, at the most banal, it is not golf balls that kill people, it is the golfers who hit the ball. Why else do most Golf Clubs insist that their members have indemnity insurance? It must happen enough times that this is deemed necessary. It’s not cars and lorries that kill it’s the people driving. I am NOT saying pilot error, I’m saying that wherever there is an inanimate object under the control or lack of control by a human, accidents happen. Ban flying, driving and golf, problem solved.
There will be lessons learnt and things will change. Whether there is an over reaction we will have to wait and see.
You will have been disappointed if you were expecting comments or views on what happened on Saturday. It is human nature to speculate but such speculation should not be made public where others might take it as gospel. It doesn’t help if that person’s speculation was based on the fact that they looked in their log book and saw they once flew a Hunter forty years ago.
Again, as in my previous post, my heart goes out to all the families and friends of those innocent people who were traumatised, injured or died as a result of the crash.
Jonathon.
Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, I’m breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
What follows must be read in the context that on Saturday an aircraft crashed and not beyond that. I would have written almost the same words if the pilot had walked away from something other than a normal landing and no one had been injured, fatally or otherwise.
The AAIB will take what time is necessary to gather all relevant and perhaps what others might think irrelevant information, before even starting to piece together events. Only then will they go on to draw conclusions. Following that, they will undoubtedly make recommendations in the wake of their enquiry.
In the following I have used the expression “they will” but it is only my assumption of would seem logical, so take it as “they PROBABLY will”.
The AAIB will look at the operator’s Organisational Control Manual, (OCM) which sets out how an organisation operates its aircraft.
(At the end of this post, you’ll see the sections in the OCM for Miss Demeanour.)
They will look at the maintenance records, the After Flight and Before Flight (AF/BF) records which will show amongst other things, the pre-start fuel state, oxygen levels, Anti-G system nitrogen gas levels, etc.
The Flight Authorisation sheet will show the details of the planned flight, such as where the pilot intended to land after displaying. They will rebuild his planned flight as if they were flight planning it themselves. I would hope they would use an experience Hunter display pilot to do this, someone not connected to the organisation.
They will listen to the chain of radio communications from the departure airfield to starting his display. Just listening to what is said and how it was said will be factors, ranging from absolutely normal to there being intimations of other factors at play.
They will look at radar tracks along side those communications. Tracking around London from North Weald is flying in some of the most congested areas in UK General Aviation. Everyone else is also “going around” London but at less than half the Hunter’s speed.
They will analyse in great detail and probably develop a computer model of the display flight profile, from his positioning for the run in until moments after impact. This they can do using combinations of primary and secondary radar information together with photos and video from the general public. There is the possibility that any GPS in the aircraft will have recorded the flight profile. Nothing near a Flight Data Recorder but it could give track, speed and height information. They will look at everything they can which is external to the aircraft. Such factors such as visibility, birds or other aircraft that could have been in the pilot’s view. Anything that could have distracted the pilot or physically affected the aircraft. Photos and video of the jet exhaust, its heat haze etc can provide them with information. There will be things which even I haven’t thought of.
They will look at the pilot’s log book and any video they can get showing his previous displays in Hunters. They will look at displays he has flown in other aircraft. They will talk to people regarding personal details, medical history, occupational flying and to his Display Authorisation Examiner, etc. They will interview other Hunter display pilots to get an understanding as to what we do and the different ways in which we might go about displaying. They might even present those pilots with the information they have gathered and ask for second by second comments. They will obviously want to interview the pilot himself as soon as he is medically fit to be interviewed.
All this will take some months and can not be rushed. They may come up with an interim finding if there is something that can not wait for the full report.
The CAA also has to play its part by way of immediate and future actions. I can not fault what they have done so far.
As I write this is the status:
No flights by Hunter aircraft.
Vintage jet displays OVER LAND will be ..... “limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.”
They are actively reviewing air show safety.
See
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx…
I was just typing “ you’d think they’d give a simple link!” when this link came through:
SN-2015/003: Restricting the Operation of Vintage Jet Aircraft at Flying Displays | Publications | About the CAA
That is the LEAST they could do. They might easily have applied the ruling to all aircraft over certain horsepower and weight, warbird or otherwise. They might even have stopped all air shows pending their review.
The UK has the Gold Standard when it comes to do with everything related to air shows.
Every year, the CAA holds seminars for Display Pilots and seminars for Display Authorisation Examiners (DAEs) such as myself. It is compulsory for DAEs to attend at least two out of three seminars. Display organisers may also attend these seminars.
The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) likewise holds annual seminars, to which civilian display pilots are welcome to attend. Senior officers from the MAA also attend the CAA seminars.
Finally we have the British Air Display Association ( British Air Display Association) who bring together civilian operators & pilots, military senior officers & pilots and display organisers, not only from the UK but Europe. BADA also arrange seminars.
Display Safety is the foundation stone of all these gatherings.
Apart from reviewing the previous year’s display activities and any incidents, safety procedures are reviewed both in terms of compliance and coverage. Whilst these events might have lectures on a wide range of air show aspects, they are also an interactive event where everyone can have an open discussion.
The British aviation community has been and continues to be world leaders when it comes to openness and examination of anything to do with aviation. Even the medical fraternity has taken lessons from this ability for introspection.
Comments about Hunters in general.
I’m often asked if they are difficult to fly. The answer is absolutely not. They are one of the most delightful and simple aircraft to fly. Yes, more demanding that a light aircraft because things happen more quickly. Their weight and speed makes inertia a big factor compared to a light aircraft. From a systems aspect, you could loose all hydraulic and electrical supply (they have two generators and batteries) and fly safely to land. In a Hunter in the UK, a suitable runway is no more than five or ten minutes away. I would go so far as to say that the skill level required to fly a Hunter is not as great as say flying a Spitfire. In a Spitfire or other big piston warbird, a pilot must have a definite feel for aircraft, an affinity for flying. In fact the further you go back in warbird aircraft age, the more difficult they become. The Hunter is at the peak of simplicity for all military jets of any type before moving on in time to later military aircraft.
With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.
Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.
It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.
Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.
There is a public outcry for “something to be done”. It is natural. The question is where is the line drawn?
Accidents, at the most banal, it is not golf balls that kill people, it is the golfers who hit the ball. Why else do most Golf Clubs insist that their members have indemnity insurance? It must happen enough times that this is deemed necessary. It’s not cars and lorries that kill it’s the people driving. I am NOT saying pilot error, I’m saying that wherever there is an inanimate object under the control or lack of control by a human, accidents happen. Ban flying, driving and golf, problem solved.
There will be lessons learnt and things will change. Whether there is an over reaction we will have to wait and see.
You will have been disappointed if you were expecting comments or views on what happened on Saturday. It is human nature to speculate but such speculation should not be made public where others might take it as gospel. It doesn’t help if that person’s speculation was based on the fact that they looked in their log book and saw they once flew a Hunter forty years ago.
Again, as in my previous post, my heart goes out to all the families and friends of those innocent people who were traumatised, injured or died as a result of the crash.
Jonathon.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mos Eisley
Age: 48
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Pilot error is a thing of the past[QUOTE]
Bull****.
[QUOTE]when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'[QUOTE]
Could be.
It is right and proper that all the factors are considered when assessing why something has gone wrong, including organisational failings, culture, poor equipment etc etc. But in those (few) cases where a properly trained individual does simply make a mistake, it is also right and proper that this sole cause is laid bare.
Please note I am in no way commenting on the cause of Saturday's tragic events. I prefer to leave the investigation to experts. Who appear to be in short supply on this forum...
Bull****.
[QUOTE]when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'[QUOTE]
Could be.
It is right and proper that all the factors are considered when assessing why something has gone wrong, including organisational failings, culture, poor equipment etc etc. But in those (few) cases where a properly trained individual does simply make a mistake, it is also right and proper that this sole cause is laid bare.
Please note I am in no way commenting on the cause of Saturday's tragic events. I prefer to leave the investigation to experts. Who appear to be in short supply on this forum...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courteny Mil
Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?
Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?
Last edited by athonite; 25th Aug 2015 at 21:40.
Athonite,
I'm slightly confused by your post.
I assume this is a personal attack of some kind, but I'm unclear what point you're making. No, you can't have my personal details although I am not hard to find on the Internet.
If you're commenting about Jonathon Whaley's blog article I have posted above, he is there speaking for himself. If you want to find his blog for yourself, look on Face-Book. He is a well known Hunter pilot and runs the Miss Demeanour page.
As someone that professes there is no such thing a pilot error, I'm surprised to read your remark about "defendants" in an AAIB inquiry.
I'm slightly confused by your post.
Originally Posted by athenite
Courteny Mil
Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?
Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?
If you're commenting about Jonathon Whaley's blog article I have posted above, he is there speaking for himself. If you want to find his blog for yourself, look on Face-Book. He is a well known Hunter pilot and runs the Miss Demeanour page.
As someone that professes there is no such thing a pilot error, I'm surprised to read your remark about "defendants" in an AAIB inquiry.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wondered how long it would take for this forum to be dragged down to the personal abuse level by those that only turn up here when there's been a crash. Well done, athenite. Just what the debate needed.
Ah, I get it, Stitchbitch. Thank you. 
Athenite,
I am Paul Courtnage (Google it). I was a pilot in the RAF.
Jonathon Whaley is a Hunter Pilot. He was a pilot in the FAA.
We are different people and your clever post is completely wrong and unnecessary.
Athenite,
I am Paul Courtnage (Google it). I was a pilot in the RAF.
Jonathon Whaley is a Hunter Pilot. He was a pilot in the FAA.
We are different people and your clever post is completely wrong and unnecessary.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Some good news if there is such a thing in this sad affair
Yesterday, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which regulates UK airspace and its users, imposed, with immediate effect, certain restrictions on displays by vintage jet aircraft at all airshows over land. High-energy aerobatics are, for the time being, no longer permitted.
Operations Director and Chief Pilot of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust, Martin Withers, has spoken to his contacts at the CAA, and has released this statement:
“I am pleased to report that I have received assurances from our contacts at the CAA that XH558's 2015 display routine is not classified as aerobatic, and so consequently, we are hoping to continue to fly on through XH558's last season with minimal changes to our display.”
Operations Director and Chief Pilot of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust, Martin Withers, has spoken to his contacts at the CAA, and has released this statement:
“I am pleased to report that I have received assurances from our contacts at the CAA that XH558's 2015 display routine is not classified as aerobatic, and so consequently, we are hoping to continue to fly on through XH558's last season with minimal changes to our display.”
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is at least some good news Nutloose. Thanks for telling us.
Athenite, now that you demanded Courtney's details and questioned JW's, how about you tell us who you are. I see you claim both mil and civ time.
I also note that you have a history of simply disappearing from threads once you've made ill-considered comments that are shown to be incorrect. Is that the case here or are you going to acknowledge your mistake?
Athenite, now that you demanded Courtney's details and questioned JW's, how about you tell us who you are. I see you claim both mil and civ time.
Originally Posted by athenite 12 Jan 2006
Having had over twenty five years in both military and civil aviation mainley in an intructional/training/recruitment role, I would like to make the following comments:
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
I was trying to quote your comment about me at #344 but for some reason it won't work.
I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert. I can hardly do that since it's some 33 years since I last flew a Hunter and I didn't display them. Display pilots may well use flap all the way round a loop quite safely but it's not something I recall ever doing in normal aerobatics. In ACM, IIRC, we used to make a point of having it all retracted by 300 kts. What I do recall quite clearly is how it felt the day I left some flap down during a low-level combat and got to 480 kts or so before realising and raising it. It was quite a lesson which I never forgot. So I don't think it passed me by.
Regarding G-LOC: It can happen at surprisingly low G levels and I believe the onset can be delayed to a some time after the manoeuvre which provoked it. I think this is where fitness on the day can be a factor. I have personal experience of this which I again remember clearly when, flying a Harrier GR3, I blacked out at only 3G or so and recovered with the nose well below the horizon and 120 degrees of bank. We used to burn the candle at both ends in those days and I think that was at the root of it. A mate had a similar experience which the SMO ascribed to his habit of skipping breakfast.
I was trying to quote your comment about me at #344 but for some reason it won't work.
I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert. I can hardly do that since it's some 33 years since I last flew a Hunter and I didn't display them. Display pilots may well use flap all the way round a loop quite safely but it's not something I recall ever doing in normal aerobatics. In ACM, IIRC, we used to make a point of having it all retracted by 300 kts. What I do recall quite clearly is how it felt the day I left some flap down during a low-level combat and got to 480 kts or so before realising and raising it. It was quite a lesson which I never forgot. So I don't think it passed me by.
Regarding G-LOC: It can happen at surprisingly low G levels and I believe the onset can be delayed to a some time after the manoeuvre which provoked it. I think this is where fitness on the day can be a factor. I have personal experience of this which I again remember clearly when, flying a Harrier GR3, I blacked out at only 3G or so and recovered with the nose well below the horizon and 120 degrees of bank. We used to burn the candle at both ends in those days and I think that was at the root of it. A mate had a similar experience which the SMO ascribed to his habit of skipping breakfast.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
While the actions of those filming around the crash site may seem questionable it seems there may have been some extraordinary actions taking place at the same time if, as reported, the pilot was pulled from the burning aircraft. Slightly surprised we haven't heard more of this.