Fairey Firefly at Duxford
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 1060 West Addison
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOD has a point that AAIB will investigate this more thoroughly than any of us can through (informed) speculation.
However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display?
It is sad that another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford, and that two more experienced aviators have been killed.
I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform.
Condolences to the families and friends of these two men.
Regards, BGPM.
However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display?
It is sad that another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford, and that two more experienced aviators have been killed.
I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform.
Condolences to the families and friends of these two men.
Regards, BGPM.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leicester 1 - Good factual post, just as I saw it, but the final manoeuvre looked to me like the start of a Derry turn (roll right, turn left etc)?
NigelonDraft - Excellent post and agree totally with your views, just one comment. As the aircraft was Royal Navy owned and operated, with a serving RN officer in command, the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.
As for the increased accident risks associated with Flying Displays, they get more TV coverage due to the high number of press/public/media in attendance. Hence the headlines..
Overall, and when you consider how many displays there are in the UK every year, any accident at a flying display is rare. If something does happen at low level, the options for sorting it out are limited. But then, how many paying public would like to see an aircraft performing at 5000ft, and 1000m+ away from the crowd?
Can you imagine if the 'Ban everything Brigade' were in attendance at every non-display aircraft accident in the UK, no matter how minor it was? Flying would have been banned in the 1930's, nosewheels would have been abolished due the high number of pilots who manage to remove them on landing, and runways would have been made into 5000m super runways due to the large number of light aircraft over-runs.. Everybody, everywhere would be flying a Piper Cub! Maybe not a bad thing?
Sex is risky - Ban that and see what people say!
NigelonDraft - Excellent post and agree totally with your views, just one comment. As the aircraft was Royal Navy owned and operated, with a serving RN officer in command, the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.
As for the increased accident risks associated with Flying Displays, they get more TV coverage due to the high number of press/public/media in attendance. Hence the headlines..
Overall, and when you consider how many displays there are in the UK every year, any accident at a flying display is rare. If something does happen at low level, the options for sorting it out are limited. But then, how many paying public would like to see an aircraft performing at 5000ft, and 1000m+ away from the crowd?
Can you imagine if the 'Ban everything Brigade' were in attendance at every non-display aircraft accident in the UK, no matter how minor it was? Flying would have been banned in the 1930's, nosewheels would have been abolished due the high number of pilots who manage to remove them on landing, and runways would have been made into 5000m super runways due to the large number of light aircraft over-runs.. Everybody, everywhere would be flying a Piper Cub! Maybe not a bad thing?
Sex is risky - Ban that and see what people say!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z256
<<the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.>>
Good point - in fact, an RN enquiry was announced yesterday. Presuming its like the RAF, the AAIB assist, and presumably the CAA Airshow lot will get recommendations / assist etc.
BGPM
<<However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display? >>
This is a matter for the enquiry... it was a factor in the second Biggin Hill accident, and highlighted again. Obviously L1 had a far better viewpoint or analysis than the Flt Safety committee... lets leave their viewpoint to the enquiry.
<<I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform. >>
<<another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford>>
In that you've obviously analysed it, the aerobatics you seek to ban are they cause of all these accidents are they? Lets take the BBCs "History of airfield crashes" at Duxford
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/3061561.stm
Firefly - aerobatic display
L-39 - overran on landing.
T6 Harvard - crashed on takeoff
Me109 - overran on landing
P38 - Aerobatic display
I know this is small snapshot, but the reality is almost certainly similar - the aerobatic displays stick in the mind, but landings / takeoffs / transits claim a fair number also. Your banning aerobatics will only solve part of your percieved "problem", whilst denying the right of the pilots and hundreds of thousands of spectators to enjoy the displays.
Oh and PS - don't go in the sun today - it could be dangerous!
NoD
<<the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.>>
Good point - in fact, an RN enquiry was announced yesterday. Presuming its like the RAF, the AAIB assist, and presumably the CAA Airshow lot will get recommendations / assist etc.
BGPM
<<However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display? >>
This is a matter for the enquiry... it was a factor in the second Biggin Hill accident, and highlighted again. Obviously L1 had a far better viewpoint or analysis than the Flt Safety committee... lets leave their viewpoint to the enquiry.
<<I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform. >>
<<another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford>>
In that you've obviously analysed it, the aerobatics you seek to ban are they cause of all these accidents are they? Lets take the BBCs "History of airfield crashes" at Duxford
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/3061561.stm
Firefly - aerobatic display
L-39 - overran on landing.
T6 Harvard - crashed on takeoff
Me109 - overran on landing
P38 - Aerobatic display
I know this is small snapshot, but the reality is almost certainly similar - the aerobatic displays stick in the mind, but landings / takeoffs / transits claim a fair number also. Your banning aerobatics will only solve part of your percieved "problem", whilst denying the right of the pilots and hundreds of thousands of spectators to enjoy the displays.
Oh and PS - don't go in the sun today - it could be dangerous!
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 1060 West Addison
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zlin, not sure I agree that AAIB won't be involved. Accident at civilian airshow surely warrants a civilian investigation. At the very least AAIB will assist RN board of inquiry.
BGPM.
BGPM.
The video footage on Sky News shows the ac entering a rolling manoeuvre to the right following a fairly gentle climbing turn. At approx 120 deg of roll, the attitude is virtually level, but the nose begins to drop below the horizon at an increasing rate. In the next 60 deg of roll, the attitude becomes progressively steeper; at the inverted position it is almost 45 deg nose low. The roll to the right continues, with the roll rate decreasing markedly until the ac is pointing vertically downwards. Then, after a brief hesitation, the roll direction reverses and the ac rolls through approximately 180 deg in the vertical; in the latter stages of the roll the pitch attitude starts to reduce, although it is still in excess of 45 deg below the horizon when the roll is completed. The ac then pitches further towards the horizon with noticeable wing rock before impacting the ground in a shallow, wings level attitude at a high rate of descent.
That is a description of the video; it is NOT a comment upon the cause of the accident. That is the responsibility of the accident investigators, not armchair theorists. Condolences to the families and friends of the deceased; the volunteers of the RNHF keep naval aviation heritage alive on what is a tiny budget and this tragedy should not be allowed to put the future of the Flight in any doubt.
That is a description of the video; it is NOT a comment upon the cause of the accident. That is the responsibility of the accident investigators, not armchair theorists. Condolences to the families and friends of the deceased; the volunteers of the RNHF keep naval aviation heritage alive on what is a tiny budget and this tragedy should not be allowed to put the future of the Flight in any doubt.
I thought that after an aircrash some time ago that there had been a CAA restriction on 'operating crew' only whilst flying the display. My understanding of the Firefly is that the aircraft is single pilot only, and was surprised to hear of two casualties. Is my understanding of the display rules/Firefly crew complement wrong, or is it only a civil requirement that the aircraft not carry 'passengers' during a display?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 1060 West Addison
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, NOD, and I agree that a blanket ban on aerobatics would be the wrong attitude to take, given that not all airshow accidents are a direct result of misjugded aerobatic manoevures.
You are right to point out other accidents in other phases of flight, however, if one looks at the survivability issues in the examples you quote: the Harvard and 109 were non fatal, and the Aerovodochody L39 was a survivable accident which proved fatal. The two aerobatic accidents were non-survivable.
I do not advocate a ban on aerobatics at airshows, but when very experienced pilots are being killed in perfectly servicable aircraft, I believe there must be issues that need to be addressed with respect to the envelope within which the aircraft are permitted to operate. I hope the RN BOI and AAIB can resolve these and we can all continue to see these fine aircraft on display.
With respect to exposing oneself to risk, yes we all take a chance getting out of bed in the mornings, but in the sun I wear a hat, in the car I use my seat belt. Minimising risk need not preclude the enjoyment of life.
BGPM.
PS better to look at the bulletins at [URL=http://aaib.dft.gov.uk] than the Beeb to get a proper overview of these accidents.
You are right to point out other accidents in other phases of flight, however, if one looks at the survivability issues in the examples you quote: the Harvard and 109 were non fatal, and the Aerovodochody L39 was a survivable accident which proved fatal. The two aerobatic accidents were non-survivable.
I do not advocate a ban on aerobatics at airshows, but when very experienced pilots are being killed in perfectly servicable aircraft, I believe there must be issues that need to be addressed with respect to the envelope within which the aircraft are permitted to operate. I hope the RN BOI and AAIB can resolve these and we can all continue to see these fine aircraft on display.
With respect to exposing oneself to risk, yes we all take a chance getting out of bed in the mornings, but in the sun I wear a hat, in the car I use my seat belt. Minimising risk need not preclude the enjoyment of life.
BGPM.
PS better to look at the bulletins at [URL=http://aaib.dft.gov.uk] than the Beeb to get a proper overview of these accidents.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FireFly
Be interested to know if the roll under from the wing-over was part of the planned display or ad-libbing. Can't believe that an accident of this nature is still occuring with the safety culture that surrounds todays air display scene. I appreciate that it's early days but the result looks simply a combination of an underpowered/rated aircraft flow into a high energy figure too slowly, what about entry gates? , lack of familiarity?
What a total waste......
What a total waste......
I seem to remember speculation at the time of the Woodford Spitfire incident that the engine power was reduced due to the high ambient temperature and that the pilot may have failed to adequately allow for this.
Given that both incidents involved failure to recover from a manoevre that appeared to have been entered unusually slowly, and considering the weather on saturday, this may be significant.
Given that both incidents involved failure to recover from a manoevre that appeared to have been entered unusually slowly, and considering the weather on saturday, this may be significant.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BGPM,
The Firefly was a Military aircraft, so RN/MOD Board of inquiry is set up. Yes AAIB may assist, but the BoI takes primacy. The fact it was a Civilian display is not important. As for the FCC terminating the Firefly display, they'd have to be VERY quick off the mark to have stopped it just as the aircraft nose dropped below the horizon. Maybe 5 seconds until impact??? Time to get off their seat and go 5 yards to the Visual control room at DX, then inform the Display Director, who then gets ATC to radio the pilot, then pilot to stop display??? 2 minutes? Believe me, as someone who has had the un-enviable task of having to do it on numerous occasions, it takes a long time......And doesn't always have a positive & happy ending
Jumpseater,
The CAA Air Display section restricts civilian aircraft at Flying Displays to operating crew only, unless formal written permission is granted by them for essential flight safety reasons (visibility, special aircraft procedures etc). This is a sound procedure and has worked well in the past. As the Firefly was a military aircraft, the RN approved the aircraft to be operated with 2 persons on board. Probably ballast or something similar. Same as the Swordfish, which flies with 3 crew (Pilot, Observer, Flag waver/Saluting orderly!), and the BBMF Lancaster (5 carried on board I believe).
The Firefly was a Military aircraft, so RN/MOD Board of inquiry is set up. Yes AAIB may assist, but the BoI takes primacy. The fact it was a Civilian display is not important. As for the FCC terminating the Firefly display, they'd have to be VERY quick off the mark to have stopped it just as the aircraft nose dropped below the horizon. Maybe 5 seconds until impact??? Time to get off their seat and go 5 yards to the Visual control room at DX, then inform the Display Director, who then gets ATC to radio the pilot, then pilot to stop display??? 2 minutes? Believe me, as someone who has had the un-enviable task of having to do it on numerous occasions, it takes a long time......And doesn't always have a positive & happy ending
Jumpseater,
The CAA Air Display section restricts civilian aircraft at Flying Displays to operating crew only, unless formal written permission is granted by them for essential flight safety reasons (visibility, special aircraft procedures etc). This is a sound procedure and has worked well in the past. As the Firefly was a military aircraft, the RN approved the aircraft to be operated with 2 persons on board. Probably ballast or something similar. Same as the Swordfish, which flies with 3 crew (Pilot, Observer, Flag waver/Saluting orderly!), and the BBMF Lancaster (5 carried on board I believe).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First and foremost. My condolences to the family of the two men. And to the great team that is the RNHA. They will be feeling pretty dreadful today, having lost a great pilot and a fitter who was an aviation 'nut.'
But...........to those who speculate and offer unsound opinions I would say one word, DON'T. You probably don't know what you are talking about since you were not on board, and every opinion is based upon pure specualtion. Only the BoI and the AAIB (yes they will be involved) will find the cause.
Having said that, read BEAgle's concise view, and as an ex display pilot I can assure you that he has it just about right.
I have my own view of it - as I expect does BEags - but like him it stays with me.
But...........to those who speculate and offer unsound opinions I would say one word, DON'T. You probably don't know what you are talking about since you were not on board, and every opinion is based upon pure specualtion. Only the BoI and the AAIB (yes they will be involved) will find the cause.
Having said that, read BEAgle's concise view, and as an ex display pilot I can assure you that he has it just about right.
I have my own view of it - as I expect does BEags - but like him it stays with me.
Fairey Firefly at Duxford
Please note that I made no speculation whatsoever in my post; I merely reported what the video footage showed. I stated what had happened, not why or how.
It is inappropriate to comment further; CamelPilot undoubtedly has his opinion on the accident as do I. However, those views will remain private.
Again, my condolences to the bereaved.
It is inappropriate to comment further; CamelPilot undoubtedly has his opinion on the accident as do I. However, those views will remain private.
Again, my condolences to the bereaved.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on!
Zlin256, CamelPilot and BEagle, have made no speculation as to the cause of the accident - just made (or agreed with) observations of what occurred. More importantly, they have made no subjective comments such as "too low..." "too slow..." etc. And quite right too....
AdamUK, Dr Jekyll, Cosmic whatever and others have made, or agreed with others', subjective judgements on not only what happened, but effectively the crews' actions. That is way offside... Please leave it out! The BoI/AAIB et al are there to gather the evidence, and decide what and why happened. it will take a lot more time, expertise and evidence than any of you armchair experts/judges.
NoD
Zlin256, CamelPilot and BEagle, have made no speculation as to the cause of the accident - just made (or agreed with) observations of what occurred. More importantly, they have made no subjective comments such as "too low..." "too slow..." etc. And quite right too....
AdamUK, Dr Jekyll, Cosmic whatever and others have made, or agreed with others', subjective judgements on not only what happened, but effectively the crews' actions. That is way offside... Please leave it out! The BoI/AAIB et al are there to gather the evidence, and decide what and why happened. it will take a lot more time, expertise and evidence than any of you armchair experts/judges.
NoD
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing MEL
Like BEAg's I made NO speculation. I simply agreed, from my own observations, with his. They were spot on. Not speculation, just what the a/c was actuallydoing. And like him, I am keeping my opinions to myself.
I expect he, and I, would prefer that you did not try to put words in our mouths.
Like him I repeat my condolences to all those who are feeling so wretched.
(Edit note: Just as NoD has stated too)
Like BEAg's I made NO speculation. I simply agreed, from my own observations, with his. They were spot on. Not speculation, just what the a/c was actuallydoing. And like him, I am keeping my opinions to myself.
I expect he, and I, would prefer that you did not try to put words in our mouths.
Like him I repeat my condolences to all those who are feeling so wretched.
(Edit note: Just as NoD has stated too)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me, or is there some sort of inverse-relationship between the seriousness of the topic and the time it takes for a thread to descend into an argument?
Jet-Blast seems to be the only forum where people don't argue these days.
Jet-Blast seems to be the only forum where people don't argue these days.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aoteoroa
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Stated Smoketoomuch ......
There are some huge egos amongst some in here ....
My sincere condolences to the families, friends and support crews involved ..... take some comfort from knowing they were doing something they loved doing on a beautiful day .....
There are some huge egos amongst some in here ....
My sincere condolences to the families, friends and support crews involved ..... take some comfort from knowing they were doing something they loved doing on a beautiful day .....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accidents will always happen at airshows no matter how many rules you put in place. In this case the rules appear to have kept the paying public safe.
Having seen the footage it does appear to be another barrel roll gone wrong, pilot error or mechanical failure? one can only speculate at this stage. Not a good manoeuvre down near the dirt at the best of times!
Even the best pilots make mistakes but the risks are understood. Any argument in favour of stopping aerobatic displays is sad to hear! The risks are relatively small probably the most dangerous part of a disciplined display pilots day is the drive to the airport.
My best wishes to the crew’s friends and family.
Having seen the footage it does appear to be another barrel roll gone wrong, pilot error or mechanical failure? one can only speculate at this stage. Not a good manoeuvre down near the dirt at the best of times!
Even the best pilots make mistakes but the risks are understood. Any argument in favour of stopping aerobatic displays is sad to hear! The risks are relatively small probably the most dangerous part of a disciplined display pilots day is the drive to the airport.
My best wishes to the crew’s friends and family.