Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Mach - Point well made. What I meant was that he STILL wouldn't be anywhere close to being authorised do a full public display. For other posters, I mean a full, aerobatic sequence - not a high speed/low speed series of flypasts.
Arfur,
Well said. I know absolutely nothing about this particular very sad incident, except what I have read here. Just another comment on the military side of display flying. Display pilots are current on type, selected, trained, supervised and monitored throughout their, normally one year, display season. It is almost a full-time job. That is not to say the mil system is completely infallible, there have been some notable incidents in the past, but it seems pretty tight just now.
Well said. I know absolutely nothing about this particular very sad incident, except what I have read here. Just another comment on the military side of display flying. Display pilots are current on type, selected, trained, supervised and monitored throughout their, normally one year, display season. It is almost a full-time job. That is not to say the mil system is completely infallible, there have been some notable incidents in the past, but it seems pretty tight just now.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very easy to lose height in a loop, this pilot had lots of hours, but how much time does the average service pilot spend on aerobatics, generally working for a living
Exnomad,
Depends very much on type. A Typhoon pilot will be very much using high G aerobatic type manoeuvres throughout the combat phase of any normal training profile. A transport pilot would not be doing any of this.
Depends very much on type. A Typhoon pilot will be very much using high G aerobatic type manoeuvres throughout the combat phase of any normal training profile. A transport pilot would not be doing any of this.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I womder if the Regulator (ie. CAA) will be sued? After all their apparent lacklustre procedures for civilian display requirements have already been found wanting and have undergone significant review.
A few points:
As Mach has said, the UK military has had quite a few incidents and accidents at displays and during display practises over the years so their system is not infallible. I believe that one weak link in military displaying is that often the supervision duties are allocated according to rank, and the supervisor may have no display experience whatsoever (that certainly was the case for my first military display season); at least all CAA approved DA Evaluators are experienced display pilots with relevant experience in category. And I believe that the fact that, except for teams such as RAFAT or flights such as BBMF and RNHF, UK military display pilots only have 1 or 2 seasons during which they display is a driver for some of the recency requirements. Many civilian display pilots have displayed every season for several decades and do not need as much practise or recency.
.
That is not quite true. An initial issue DA for the Hunter has always required an evaluation on the Hunter, and a DA would then only be issued for that type following a satisfactory demonstration of ability to an appropriately certified DA Evaluator in accordance with the requirements of CAP403. However, at the time of the Shoreham accident a pilot could renew his DA in any category/on any type for which he held a DA and that would renew the DA for all categories held. Therefore, a renewal on a Jet Provost would renew a DA for the Hunter if the pilot held a valid DA for both types. CAP403 has been amended since the Shoreham accident and the rules for DA renewals have changed.
Some of the pilots who display historic jet aircraft do also fly military registered fast jet aircraft as a 'day job' and, therefore, what may appear to be low overall fast jet recency may not be the case. However, I do accept that these are a minority of display pilots.
As Mach has said, the UK military has had quite a few incidents and accidents at displays and during display practises over the years so their system is not infallible. I believe that one weak link in military displaying is that often the supervision duties are allocated according to rank, and the supervisor may have no display experience whatsoever (that certainly was the case for my first military display season); at least all CAA approved DA Evaluators are experienced display pilots with relevant experience in category. And I believe that the fact that, except for teams such as RAFAT or flights such as BBMF and RNHF, UK military display pilots only have 1 or 2 seasons during which they display is a driver for some of the recency requirements. Many civilian display pilots have displayed every season for several decades and do not need as much practise or recency.
That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.
That is not quite true. An initial issue DA for the Hunter has always required an evaluation on the Hunter, and a DA would then only be issued for that type following a satisfactory demonstration of ability to an appropriately certified DA Evaluator in accordance with the requirements of CAP403. However, at the time of the Shoreham accident a pilot could renew his DA in any category/on any type for which he held a DA and that would renew the DA for all categories held. Therefore, a renewal on a Jet Provost would renew a DA for the Hunter if the pilot held a valid DA for both types. CAP403 has been amended since the Shoreham accident and the rules for DA renewals have changed.
Some of the pilots who display historic jet aircraft do also fly military registered fast jet aircraft as a 'day job' and, therefore, what may appear to be low overall fast jet recency may not be the case. However, I do accept that these are a minority of display pilots.
LOMCEVAK,
I think you have misquoted me slightly on the infallibilty or otherwise of the military system.
IMHO, good currency on type is very important to safety, day-to-day, and in display. I do not believe that a few displays across 10 years are necessarily as safe as many displays in a single season. I quote "do not need as much practice or recency." The type of display seems key to much of this, high energy manoeuvres, aeros etc are very much removed from benign flypasts and simple performance demonstrations. Its a very tricky area, and I for one don't have the answers.
I think you have misquoted me slightly on the infallibilty or otherwise of the military system.
IMHO, good currency on type is very important to safety, day-to-day, and in display. I do not believe that a few displays across 10 years are necessarily as safe as many displays in a single season. I quote "do not need as much practice or recency." The type of display seems key to much of this, high energy manoeuvres, aeros etc are very much removed from benign flypasts and simple performance demonstrations. Its a very tricky area, and I for one don't have the answers.
Exnomad,
The Hunter has a pretty good wing and a reasonable motor. At sea level, from 380kts, it would be fairly easy to gain height - 4G up, 5G down; topping out +4,500ft ish above base with a minimum speed of maybe 140kts.
It would do this all day, until the fuel ran out.
The reported performance point of apex at 100kts and 2900ft (maybe approx page 3 of this thread) suggests to me that the parking brake was on
The Hunter has a pretty good wing and a reasonable motor. At sea level, from 380kts, it would be fairly easy to gain height - 4G up, 5G down; topping out +4,500ft ish above base with a minimum speed of maybe 140kts.
It would do this all day, until the fuel ran out.
The reported performance point of apex at 100kts and 2900ft (maybe approx page 3 of this thread) suggests to me that the parking brake was on
MACH2NUMBER,
I wasn't disagreeing with you but trying to add to your points. I agree that, obviously, too little practise and recency is unacceptable. However, for a pilot with many years of display experience and significant display experience on type then the military display currency requirements are greater than necessary and can be significantly less without incurring an increase in the level of risk or probability of an accident.
Please note that I am discussing a generic philosophy here and am making no reference to the circumstances of the Shoreham accident.
I wasn't disagreeing with you but trying to add to your points. I agree that, obviously, too little practise and recency is unacceptable. However, for a pilot with many years of display experience and significant display experience on type then the military display currency requirements are greater than necessary and can be significantly less without incurring an increase in the level of risk or probability of an accident.
Please note that I am discussing a generic philosophy here and am making no reference to the circumstances of the Shoreham accident.
I don't think anyone would argue with that LOMCEVAK but a realistic minimum has to be set and achieved. I've yet to meet an aviator who thought the extant rules were appropriate and yet the airshow and DA circuit carried on experimenting with 'how low can you go' when it came to currency and recency.
Doesn't the last page just show how mixed up this is? People want to exchange a view but the nub of that gets washed away in a bunch of qualification and caveat - it's utter nonsense.
Currency / recency - what is going to be interesting is how any intelligence is given to the thinking behind any new regime which wasn't apparent before. Then the how and why that might have prevented this accident... Then square that with why that regime wasn't in place before or when risks suddenly became apparent. Then why that conversation needs 18 months to figure/communicate.
Just this once seems to have called it:-
Currency / recency - what is going to be interesting is how any intelligence is given to the thinking behind any new regime which wasn't apparent before. Then the how and why that might have prevented this accident... Then square that with why that regime wasn't in place before or when risks suddenly became apparent. Then why that conversation needs 18 months to figure/communicate.
Just this once seems to have called it:-
I have wondered the same. The CAA had set incredibly low standards that were way below comparable military requirements and yet appear to have no demonstrable audit chain to underpin such low recency/currency requirements for high-performance swept-wing jets. This would struggle to meet the Clapham Omnibus test, let alone a reasoned expert witness.
That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.
There has been a lot of focus on Mr Hill and the company (rightly so of course) but it does not take long to tug on the threads of this incident to find a supine, target-driven and business-focused CAA at the other end. Somehow the CAA has lost 'aviation' as one of its core competencies.
That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.
There has been a lot of focus on Mr Hill and the company (rightly so of course) but it does not take long to tug on the threads of this incident to find a supine, target-driven and business-focused CAA at the other end. Somehow the CAA has lost 'aviation' as one of its core competencies.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit much to blame the CAA when almost all the initial comment on this thread was "they're interfering in our long established rights to conduct air displays as our fathers did before us".
If they had acted before Shoreham my guess is that everyone would have pointed out how few privately owned display planes had ever killed anyone..............
Sure the CAA could/should have acted differently - but the greater avaition community could/should also have thought this through
As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing
If they had acted before Shoreham my guess is that everyone would have pointed out how few privately owned display planes had ever killed anyone..............
Sure the CAA could/should have acted differently - but the greater avaition community could/should also have thought this through
As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing
".. and yet the airshow and DA circuit carried on experimenting with 'how low can you go' when it came to currency and recency."
One other aspect to consider is that the current culture is to look for a regulation to address every aspect of flying and to mitigate every risk. The requirement and expectation for pilots to exercise judgement and to be trusted to do so no longer seems to have the same gravitas that it once did; obeying regulations seems to be all that is expected.
My aim was not to tar all display pilots with the same brush - far from it. But the collective 'we' (ie pilots/owners/operators/DAs/CAA/MAA et al) didn't catch/stop/mitigate against the extremes and Mr Hill was far from unique when it came to his type currency.
It just makes me wonder thinking back to my days on the Hunter as a student at RAF Chivenor. The solo display pilot did 3 trips a day - which were roughly 60 minutes each - and then on at least 3 days a week after work, would fly his low level display sequence down to about 500' (ish).
That is what I call a "current" display pilot.
That is what I call a "current" display pilot.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I wonder, idly, how the current Defence Budget copes with such a level of activity these days. Do we still allocate loads of hours/stress/fuel to do that?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MPN, yes. Contingent has just published the Typhoon work up programme. There are 3 display slots per day of which one or two will be used. I can't remember if it is 3 or 5 days per week, but it will be a lot considering it is February with 2 months or so to go and we are talking someone current on type.
So now we have the crux of this problem which is much wider than the Shoreham accident.
Why, for years, have the CAA allowed civilians to fly displays in ex-military fast jets when they are barely current on type - let alone current at carrying out a low level aerobatic display?
Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.
Why, for years, have the CAA allowed civilians to fly displays in ex-military fast jets when they are barely current on type - let alone current at carrying out a low level aerobatic display?
Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.
