Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been suggested in some corners that the pilot may have blacked out during the high energy manoeuvre. Whilst this is pure speculation it does raise the question should display pilots have an upper age limit? Is it right a 51 yr old was performing a high g manoeuvre? Do display pilots undergo strict annual medicals, ECG, blood tests etc? Flying military spec, even fifty year old jets is demanding and perhaps not for the more mature pilot? You don't see many fifty year old pilots in active FJ service very often, you dont see F1 drivers of that age.
I just celebrated my 49th birthday. Earlier on this year I tabbed the Fan Dance - 45lbs load, with a couple of additional diversions in a time which would certainly make me of no interest to the normal military community who do this - but was a league above the basic combat infantry standard (usually achieved by men in their late teens/early 20s). My point is: age is a number. Capability is something that you test with examination and achieve with appropriate training. I knew plenty of overweight, unfit military pilots in their 20s and 30s when I served and they all passed the same flying medicals as the "retired" ones who were still flying professionally.
I think we can probably apply the same logic to the aircraft. I saw a wonderful display from the "vintage" vulcan this year at RIAT, but also recall seeing horrendous footage of a "serving" vulcan falling apart in mid-air.
Very, very sad outcome - but the enquiry needs to establish the facts. Otherwise, according to this forum we should:
a) Ban all flying, driving, walking around etc
b) demand all citizens sign up to a declaration that its ok for them to be killed in the pursuance of other people's hobbies and interests
c) we slap an age limit on everything - presumably eating at both ends of the spectrum as our prejudices dictate - until we conclude that no-ne should be trusted regardless of their age
d) fly the arse off all the vintage aircraft until they do crash - because its art - at least for those lucky enough to see them before destruction - tough luck on future generations who might have more to learn/appreciate from an era further removed.
CAA have sensibly put a limit of fly-pasts on "vintage" aircraft for the foreseeable future. At least we can still see these aircraft in the air - that's good enough for me because they cannot outfly or out-wow the modern stuff.
One thing not examined in the forum is the culture of the organisation operating the aircraft? Why is it that BBMF can operate so prolifically, yet safely, compared to others? And they know a thing or 2 about showing-off the profile of a Spitfire's wings.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One thing not examined in the forum is the culture of the organisation operating the aircraft? Why is it that BBMF can operate so prolifically, yet safely, compared to others? And they know a thing or 2 about showing-off the profile of a Spitfire's wings.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not for a second saying the pilot was too old or unfit to display, but merely raising the question that these factors for display pilots should be considered.
It is a sad fact (I know too well) that things start to deteriorate as we get older, our eyesight, reaction times and strength etc all suffer as our years progress.
At what point do we say you're too old for this activity or that activity? never if you're not putting anyone but yourself at risk I guess.
Thankyou Courtney mil for the reply about US studies and G, interesting, am sure at some point though that age does become a factor.
Above the clouds, re read my post, I stated that it was speculation but thanks anyway! and it was a military spec aircraft albeit as I said a fifty plus year old one and therefore combined with the manoeuvre a demanding aircraft to fly.
It is a sad fact (I know too well) that things start to deteriorate as we get older, our eyesight, reaction times and strength etc all suffer as our years progress.
At what point do we say you're too old for this activity or that activity? never if you're not putting anyone but yourself at risk I guess.
Thankyou Courtney mil for the reply about US studies and G, interesting, am sure at some point though that age does become a factor.
Above the clouds, re read my post, I stated that it was speculation but thanks anyway! and it was a military spec aircraft albeit as I said a fifty plus year old one and therefore combined with the manoeuvre a demanding aircraft to fly.
Unless you go in for extreme aeros, I'm not convinced that being some racing snake or other serial jockstrapper has much relevance.
My first experience of 'g' was as a 15 year old cadet in the 'coal hole' of a Sea Vixen. I hadn't been briefed about 'g' and certainly greyed-out during the pull out from a simulated rocket attack. Then I went through training long before the introduction of the 'fitness test' and as a fully paid-up member of 'Athletics Anonymous*', never had no problems with 'g' tolerance. Even during a Hawk refresher after a tour on the tin triangle.
We still took the Hawk to +7g at Chivenor - not often, but without the dubious benefits of centrifuge time it wasn't much of a problem unless you tried pulling whilst looking over your shoulder. That could hurt!
Experience possibly develops an instinct of knowing when and how much to strain when under 'g'. Tailchasing in the Bulldog it wasn't unknown to see a much younger, fitter student having the odd 'quiet moment' during energetic manoeuvring.
The last time I flew any aeros was at the age of 57 in a Chipmunk after a break of 2 years. It didn't have a 'g' meter, but we probably pulled about +4g in a loop - again, no problem even for a non-athelete. Routine Class 1 medicals were fine, but I got fed up with the cost!
So no, a pilot with a Class 1 and plenty of 'g' experience in his/her background shouldn't have any great problem flying relatively benign aeros in the Hunter T7.
*Athletics Anonymous - if you have a sudden urge to commit sport, you phone up a mate who talks you into going to the pub instead
My first experience of 'g' was as a 15 year old cadet in the 'coal hole' of a Sea Vixen. I hadn't been briefed about 'g' and certainly greyed-out during the pull out from a simulated rocket attack. Then I went through training long before the introduction of the 'fitness test' and as a fully paid-up member of 'Athletics Anonymous*', never had no problems with 'g' tolerance. Even during a Hawk refresher after a tour on the tin triangle.
We still took the Hawk to +7g at Chivenor - not often, but without the dubious benefits of centrifuge time it wasn't much of a problem unless you tried pulling whilst looking over your shoulder. That could hurt!
Experience possibly develops an instinct of knowing when and how much to strain when under 'g'. Tailchasing in the Bulldog it wasn't unknown to see a much younger, fitter student having the odd 'quiet moment' during energetic manoeuvring.
The last time I flew any aeros was at the age of 57 in a Chipmunk after a break of 2 years. It didn't have a 'g' meter, but we probably pulled about +4g in a loop - again, no problem even for a non-athelete. Routine Class 1 medicals were fine, but I got fed up with the cost!
So no, a pilot with a Class 1 and plenty of 'g' experience in his/her background shouldn't have any great problem flying relatively benign aeros in the Hunter T7.
*Athletics Anonymous - if you have a sudden urge to commit sport, you phone up a mate who talks you into going to the pub instead
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Aug 2015 at 07:48.
BEagle, yes I agree totally with what you say there.
Jay and, I'm sure you are right about a sell-by date, but I expect that there will be other physiological factors that would make one unfit for the high-g, high-performance cockpit before G-tolerance in most cases. As pilots doing aeros probably don't go in a centrifuge every year (most probably ever) they're unlikely to be aware of when their g-tolerance starts to change. As BEgle says, this type of aeros isn't going to expose anyone to that much g anyway.
Also remember that that there are lots of other factors that are more likely to affect this: dehydration, fatigue, medication, minor illness among others. Most professionals, especially those with a fast jet background will have a pretty good understanding of these things.
Again, too early to try to apply any of these things to this accident. Rule nothing in, rule nothing out.
Jay and, I'm sure you are right about a sell-by date, but I expect that there will be other physiological factors that would make one unfit for the high-g, high-performance cockpit before G-tolerance in most cases. As pilots doing aeros probably don't go in a centrifuge every year (most probably ever) they're unlikely to be aware of when their g-tolerance starts to change. As BEgle says, this type of aeros isn't going to expose anyone to that much g anyway.
Also remember that that there are lots of other factors that are more likely to affect this: dehydration, fatigue, medication, minor illness among others. Most professionals, especially those with a fast jet background will have a pretty good understanding of these things.
Again, too early to try to apply any of these things to this accident. Rule nothing in, rule nothing out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in a part of world where the servers don't allow access to many online papers and the news channels have stopped discussing the accident, question.
How are the recoveries of Andy and those injured progressing ?
How are the recoveries of Andy and those injured progressing ?
I don't think you're missing anything on that topic, ATC.
BTW, if you need help plugging in to the servers from overseas, try Zen Mate - there's a small subscription now for you want to do. Other, similar apps are available.
BTW, if you need help plugging in to the servers from overseas, try Zen Mate - there's a small subscription now for you want to do. Other, similar apps are available.
I think we can probably apply the same logic to the aircraft. I saw a wonderful display from the "vintage" vulcan this year at RIAT, but also recall seeing horrendous footage of a "serving" vulcan falling apart in mid-air.
Sadly, I believe it killed 3x AVRO test pilots and 1x RAF navigator in the aircraft and then on the ground 3x RAF personnel in the runway caravan.
VX770 did not "fall apart". If you bother to read the report you will find that the aircraft suffered structural failure after severe overstress and gross exceedence of its limited release.
OAP
OAP
Leon and Onceapilot, '770 had very probably been overstressed beforehand by Rolls Royce (and perhaps RAF pilots) during repeated aerobatics, such as were frequently seen over Hucknall after RR engine trials. One pilot is thought to have looped the aircraft, although barrel rolls and rolls-off-the-top were more normal.
As the first prototype, '770 wasn't as strong as production Vulcans and RR didn't conduct the internal leading edge checks which Avros did after any aerobatic flights.
Neither is it by any means certain that the Syerston accident was caused by the pilot either flying too fast or rolling and pulling - he could have been flying within the planned flight parameters but in an aeroplane which had been severely damaged by others. It was all too easy to find 'pilot error' as the 'obvious' cause in those days.....
On the subject of 'g' tolerance, I know of a chap who's over 60, yet regularly flies to high 'g' limits in fast jet aircraft.... Perhaps old age and treachery does indeed always overcome youth and skill?
As the first prototype, '770 wasn't as strong as production Vulcans and RR didn't conduct the internal leading edge checks which Avros did after any aerobatic flights.
Neither is it by any means certain that the Syerston accident was caused by the pilot either flying too fast or rolling and pulling - he could have been flying within the planned flight parameters but in an aeroplane which had been severely damaged by others. It was all too easy to find 'pilot error' as the 'obvious' cause in those days.....
On the subject of 'g' tolerance, I know of a chap who's over 60, yet regularly flies to high 'g' limits in fast jet aircraft.... Perhaps old age and treachery does indeed always overcome youth and skill?
Originally Posted by Above The Clouds
I am in a part of world where the servers don't allow access to many online papers and the news channels have stopped discussing the accident, question.
How are the recoveries of Andy and those injured progressing ?
How are the recoveries of Andy and those injured progressing ?
Pilot transferred to unnamed specialist hospital 3 or 4 days ago, that's about all.
Still only about half the deceased victims formally named (edit 8th just named). DNA tests required for some ...
Road still closed, and once open may be one lane only westbound for a while.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great many on here evidently have no clue - not unreasonably given the specialist nature of the discipline - and therefore I think it IS helpful to rule out some of the wilder theories that serve to call into question the safety of other, similar or even unrelated, aviation activities without good reason.
I am not suggesting that we lay out all of the details that an experienced eye can elicit from the evidence available so far - for a start, we understand the difference between causal factors and blame - whereas I have no confidence that the press does. For that reason alone, I suspect that those of us who can make logical conclusions will not post them in open forum - which, unfortunately, leaves a gap in the market for those who do not have the experience to deduce but are prepared to speculate - such as the priceless Mr Sharp.
However, please cease with the 'it is not possible to draw any conclusions'... Many of us have grown up with the understanding that any speculation is unhelpful in a time when accidents happened without video - and often even without witnesses, and when the priority was to inform NoK, formally, as quickly as possible - often in circumstances of some confusion. The circumstances of Shoreham are entirely different - and the public have a very legitimate interest in what went wrong - one that, arguably, exceeds our traditional sensitivity to anything that might be regarded as critical of individuals.
In this instance, I don't think it is unhelpful or unreasonable to observe that the aircraft was pitching throughout the recovery - therefore AH was providing a control input and g-loc CAN very reasonably be ruled out. Deduction, not speculation.
CM - I know you will respect the sensitivity so I'll PM you with more later, to both demonstrate my restraint as well as illustrate what CAN be ruled in/out, and what cannot...
I am not suggesting that we lay out all of the details that an experienced eye can elicit from the evidence available so far - for a start, we understand the difference between causal factors and blame - whereas I have no confidence that the press does. For that reason alone, I suspect that those of us who can make logical conclusions will not post them in open forum - which, unfortunately, leaves a gap in the market for those who do not have the experience to deduce but are prepared to speculate - such as the priceless Mr Sharp.
However, please cease with the 'it is not possible to draw any conclusions'... Many of us have grown up with the understanding that any speculation is unhelpful in a time when accidents happened without video - and often even without witnesses, and when the priority was to inform NoK, formally, as quickly as possible - often in circumstances of some confusion. The circumstances of Shoreham are entirely different - and the public have a very legitimate interest in what went wrong - one that, arguably, exceeds our traditional sensitivity to anything that might be regarded as critical of individuals.
In this instance, I don't think it is unhelpful or unreasonable to observe that the aircraft was pitching throughout the recovery - therefore AH was providing a control input and g-loc CAN very reasonably be ruled out. Deduction, not speculation.
CM - I know you will respect the sensitivity so I'll PM you with more later, to both demonstrate my restraint as well as illustrate what CAN be ruled in/out, and what cannot...
BEagle.
ΔH, Avon-powered Hunters were prone to engine surge when the guns were fired, due to ingestion of muzzle gases. The only solution was to 'dip' the fuel supplied to the engine whilst the guns were firing, which briefly reduced the fuel supply during the half second or so during which the trigger was pressed.Probably only a problem if all 4 guns on the SS Hunters were fired together, but fitted to all Avon-powered Hunters nonetheless.
ΔH, Avon-powered Hunters were prone to engine surge when the guns were fired, due to ingestion of muzzle gases. The only solution was to 'dip' the fuel supplied to the engine whilst the guns were firing, which briefly reduced the fuel supply during the half second or so during which the trigger was pressed.Probably only a problem if all 4 guns on the SS Hunters were fired together, but fitted to all Avon-powered Hunters nonetheless.
The 207 didn't suffer from as many airflow problems and didn't require either system.
BTW. The take off looked and sounded exactly right too. That climb out could have been at Penycwm. The engine sounded healthy right to the end.
Sorry to Nit Pick.
Thanks for the gen., Mrmungus! I knew that the F6 and FGA9 didn't have the HPPIS, but I didn't know that gundip wasn't required for 200-ser Avon-engine Hunters.
Never too old to learn something new!
Never too old to learn something new!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this instance, I don't think it is unhelpful or unreasonable to observe that the aircraft was pitching throughout the recovery - therefore AH was providing a control input and g-loc CAN very reasonably be ruled out. Deduction, not speculation.
I concur, to me I think it was a factor of a modified 1/4 clover and then an oblique pull through that meant that the normal gate height would probably have been too low. Normally a 1/4 clover would be from 90 degs from the crowdline but the position of Lancing and Lancing College make this difficult. That's always been my opinion of civilian authorised displays compared to military authorised displays - the military ones are 'set piece' and not for modification, whereas, the civilian displays can be modified as required by the pilot. I remember watching a very experienced ex-mil pilot put an extra roll in his display over-sea and he did not recover. The UK military PDA regime is far more restrictive and modification to the authorised 'full', 'rolling' and 'flat' displays is not allowed as far as I'm aware.
That's my theory, anyway. Don't think it will be G-loc or overstress looking at the numerous videos. If he lost his engine at the top of the vertical manoeuvre then he would have rolled out and then gone for a FL towards the field, if he lost the engine going downwards then he would have been at idle anyway. But, hey, here's hoping the AAIB release something soon to stop speculation and actually report facts - rather than our best guesses. Of course something could have gone wrong with the jet, but I don't see any significant evidence to support that.
I do think the CAA have been right to enforce the restrictions they have - I don"t see them as 'knee jerk' as some have opined.
Sorry if my speculation upsets anyone. I do know one of those killed and one who is seriously injured so I think I am within my moral rights to comment 1 week later.
LJ
That's my theory, anyway. Don't think it will be G-loc or overstress looking at the numerous videos. If he lost his engine at the top of the vertical manoeuvre then he would have rolled out and then gone for a FL towards the field, if he lost the engine going downwards then he would have been at idle anyway. But, hey, here's hoping the AAIB release something soon to stop speculation and actually report facts - rather than our best guesses. Of course something could have gone wrong with the jet, but I don't see any significant evidence to support that.
I do think the CAA have been right to enforce the restrictions they have - I don"t see them as 'knee jerk' as some have opined.
Sorry if my speculation upsets anyone. I do know one of those killed and one who is seriously injured so I think I am within my moral rights to comment 1 week later.
LJ
Age in itself is not a factor in a pilot's ability to do aerobatic manoeuvers in a fast jet - being medically and physically fit enough and practiced in coping with the rigors of the manoeuvers is.
All the pilots in the US "Starfighters" Team - flying a much higher performance aircraft than the Hunter - must be in their 60s/70s from their bios:
KVDV, Inc. - Starfighters Crew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ6K_U1zPi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwIdAXlgPg
All the pilots in the US "Starfighters" Team - flying a much higher performance aircraft than the Hunter - must be in their 60s/70s from their bios:
KVDV, Inc. - Starfighters Crew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ6K_U1zPi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwIdAXlgPg