Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Density altitude was about 1300', calculated from the info above... or about 95% of standard air density... Courtney, it can't be completely disregarded, surely?
Last edited by overstress; 25th Sep 2015 at 12:34.
Pitts, My comment about QNH had nothing to do with your mention of it earlier. It was to illustrate that pressure altitude (and, later, density altitude) was not a significant factor regarding aircraft performance. If you are not familiar with the terms I recommend Aircraft Performance: Theory and Practice by Martin Eshelby.
In all of the sneery remarks what ultimately seems to be over looked is that when you stitch together all of the comments you could come to the conclusion that nothing was wrong.
Not completely disregarded, Overstress, but unlikely to have have been significant as it would have been close to the air densities he was used to during the summer. That was my point; the conditions on the day were not significantly different to those AH was used to at the time. A 4% reduction in air density from ICAO standard is not enough to change a Hunter's performance to the degree indicated in this incident.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, he'd already been airborne for some while so he would have had a good feel for the conditions. Surprising how density altitude creeps up on you though especially in my day job, not so much here in UK however.
No you didn't miss it but on the basis I could be a 12 year old or a NASA rocket scientist why would you believe either just because it's posted here? If the issue is less with what gets said than who says it then that's more a reflection on those taking issue.
Let's not forget that the first point of issue was that the figure being flown was a 1/4 clover. Then I got pulled up about starting height - although that person who took issue has hedged the response to suggest it might be a point of interest by the AAIB.
In the past I've also been moaned at for suggesting that the AAIB should communicate more effectively. Seems the AAIB have some sympathy with that view.
Like I said it's not what gets said its who says it that causes the issue.
Let's not forget that the first point of issue was that the figure being flown was a 1/4 clover. Then I got pulled up about starting height - although that person who took issue has hedged the response to suggest it might be a point of interest by the AAIB.
In the past I've also been moaned at for suggesting that the AAIB should communicate more effectively. Seems the AAIB have some sympathy with that view.
Like I said it's not what gets said its who says it that causes the issue.
Hello Courtney Mil:
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."
Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.
Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."
Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."
Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.
Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."
Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?
Last edited by Chris Scott; 26th Sep 2015 at 17:34. Reason: Last sentence added.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Age: 89
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Renfrew
Hello Courtney Mil:
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."
Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.
Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."
Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."
Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.
Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."
Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so it starts...
Let's not forget what happened here.
S-D
strake
+1 to your sentiments.
I'm not sure why, 4 weeks after the accident, AH being out in public is worthy of being front page news. It would be very interesting to see how much time, money and effort went into getting that photo...
All a bit tacky and it get's us no nearer establishing what went wrong....
I meant the trial by media.
I'm not sure why, 4 weeks after the accident, AH being out in public is worthy of being front page news. It would be very interesting to see how much time, money and effort went into getting that photo...
All a bit tacky and it get's us no nearer establishing what went wrong....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
The comments on the link showing the pilot out and about are heart warming, one hopes he reads those rather than the bile the Daily Fail writes.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salad dodger
What is about to start is the press hounding the guy, his family and friends who will be unable to go out of the house without some low life photographer or reported stuffing a microphone under their noses and misquoting anything they say.
That is without the ambulance chasing lawyers in search of a quick buck.
That is without the ambulance chasing lawyers in search of a quick buck.
Don't think it's unreasonable for the press to publish that picture, tbh I'm delighted to see him walking. Obviously, the text regarding police interviews is not needed. Am sure arrangements have been made to interview Andy at the appropriate time.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Age: 89
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Medical state
Any evidence would be invalid unless he is pronounced medically fit, one would hope the press will be discouraged from harassing him in the meantime. He looks totally haunted, for God's sake have some compassion and leave him to fully recuperate, one would hope the AAIB should be the first to interview him and determine any possible negligence before any further interest by the police.
The Mail Online article seems to be factually correct, and the fact that Mr Hill has left hospital and apparently able to walk unaided is good news. I cannot see anything wrong in reporting it, and by media standards the article is not sensationalist.
Everyone is different, but I doubt that naming and describing the victims again will necessarily increase the pain of their loved ones. In bereavement, recognition can even be preferable to silence.
Publishing a current photograph of Andy Hill is quite another matter. Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim. Unlike a politician or show-biz personality, for example, he has never courted or enjoyed publicity, so any hounding for interview and/or photography is completely unjustified. Unfortunately, it provides valuable revenue for the cash-strapped medium concerned, and we have just contributed to that by clicking on that link.
Everyone is different, but I doubt that naming and describing the victims again will necessarily increase the pain of their loved ones. In bereavement, recognition can even be preferable to silence.
Publishing a current photograph of Andy Hill is quite another matter. Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim. Unlike a politician or show-biz personality, for example, he has never courted or enjoyed publicity, so any hounding for interview and/or photography is completely unjustified. Unfortunately, it provides valuable revenue for the cash-strapped medium concerned, and we have just contributed to that by clicking on that link.