I really hope that AH comes through this and recovers but would question whether he will be able to help the AAIB in any meaningful way.

My CFI had a serious accident the year after he taught me to fly and was in intensive care for a week. When he came to he couldn't remember a thing about what happened.

ETOPS & RAAMJET. The footage from planes TV is indeed in full 1080p and was very detailed from the crowdline, with the aircraft almost full frame and in good focus. Thankfully, it and the many "pirate" copies have been pulled from the internet.

Good post, ETOPS. And it does raise a point I touched on earlier. Not only are these cameras very high quality (as well as high def), they are also on tripods. That takes out a lot of the variables from hand-held. Footage from a level, known point of reference provides a datum from which to do meaningful analysis of the display. Allied with forensic physical evidenence and statements, their footage will be able to help with investigation.

PlanesTV may well lose their original footage for a while, backups are a must.

Thanks Courtney. To be clear though, once you discount a bunch of causes you are left with just a few to decide between - I do think that the video provides enough to make some very clear deductions. I will not post the conclusions that I arrive at because I am conscious that they are then open to misquoting, or could be used maliciously - but over a beer among fellow-professional I think we could arrive at a 'most-likely' explanation already, notwithstanding some inevitable (but only contributory) unknowns. And we must, of course, consider all options, and not shy away from some just because we feel that it is an insult to us or our colleagues. We have similar experience btw.

Bottom line is that it is bloody awful. Per ardua.

There was a comment made about age and GLOC potential. In all of the aviation medicine research into g tolerance there is no indication that increasing age results in an increase in susceptibility to either loss of vision or loss of consciousness.

After some incorrect comments on the use of flap in the Hunter I think that most of them have been corrected. However, to summarise:

There are no g or rolling restrictions with flap selected. When any flap is lowered a nose down pitching moment occurs. The speed limit using up to 4 notches/38 deg of flap is 300 KIAS/0.9M. If 300 KIAS is exceeded the flaps start to blow up and no structural damage occurs. If 0.9M is exceeded (a high level problem only) the aerodynamic loads on the elevator exceeds the output force of the elevator hydrobooster and 'jack stalling' occurs such that the elevator cannot be deflected trailing edge up and so the aircraft continues to pitch nose down; the recovery is to select flaps up, idle and airbrake out. NB that the elevator (and ailerons) and not fully hydraulically powered but are manual controls with powerful hydraulic boosting.

Pitch control is via the elevator and pitch trimming is by deflection of an electrically driven all moving tailplane. When flap is lowered and the aircraft pitches nose it is countered by an aft stick/elevator input. This is often done whilst manoeuvring and therefore no trim input is made. Even in this case, so long as the IMN is less than 0.9 you will always reach the stall before full back stick and so this trim change never limits pitch control authority at low altitude.

As has been said, lowering flap increases drag which is why, in general, 2 notches are used when manoeuvring with flap. 3 or 4 notches give you an increase in lift/instantaneous turn performance but the advantage is outweighed by the increase in drag.

It is quite usual to use flap for some looping manoeuvres in Hunter displays and there are, quite justifiably, different techniques used by different pilots.

Wingswinger
 

This really is the most outstanding post and explains the problems faced by the pilot in very readable terms. It also seems to mirror the opinion of Winkle Brown regarding the accident.
Captain Hill is on the A320 aircraft flying mainly short haul, but as BA are short of pilots at the moment on the fleet, your comments re fatigue could be quite relevant.
I'm not sure if a previous post was an implied comment about Winkle Brown but in my aviation social circle, if he talks, people listen,

But, Robert F Jones, there is no evidence whatsoever for anyone to start writing or saying in public any personal evaluation about pilot error. winkle Brown and Leslie Hatcher should both no better than to make unprofessional, unsubstantiated accusations in public.

Capt Hill is on a 50% part time contract i.e. half a months flying.(40 hrs a month?)
Fatigue should not be a factor.

Thats not true, there is a lot of evidence. Without wishing to repeat some others who hold a similar view (see post 327). That guy knows what he is seeing as will many others. Its a badly executed figure and flown as such was always going to loose height if he continued to pull, which ultimately he does all the way to the buffet and subsequent stall.

Pittsextra,

Even if you accept the judgement of others who either saw the display or the video, they have no way of knowing whether Andy met his gates (which stand regardless of entry altitude), whether there was a technical issue with the aircraft or numerous other things that I really do not need to rehearse here all over again.

You simply do not know if Andy "poorly performed" the manoeuvre or whether there were any other factors. Without that knowledge neither you nor anyone else can attribute the accident to pilot error.

Utter, inappropriate supposition at this stage.

CM - absolutely correct, IMHO

I agree, Wander. Pittsextra is yet another armchair expert who is happy to make a completely unsupportable claim of pilot error with out any of the evidence that the investigation will reveal.

Pittsextra, instead of poorly performed by the pilot, have you considered the likes of control restriction, systems failure, pilot incapacitation (other than g-loc), disorientation or a dozen other possible factors that eye-witnesses and videos will not have shown? If not, you should before making inappropriate judgements about a man in a coma who is unable to respond to your accusations.

CM - you are absolutely right we do not know what other factors may be involved and whilst data will be available to the relevant authorities I don't know his planned sequence etc. So I agree that and agree it isn't fair therefore to say the cause of the crash.

That said you can the 1/4 clover was poor however. We can see that with our eyes, OK we might not have in in super quality HD from Planes TV feed or whatever but you can see things as clearly as is needed.

Now i'd agree with you once again that it isn't known if Andy "poorly performed", but that isn't what I said. I said the figure was poorly flown, if there are other factors at play we do not know at this stage but the people looking at 1/10th's of seconds before impact are looking in the wrong place. The issue to this started way before then.

You are unable to read my post on this. I said there was plenty of evidence available via the video and that (quoting myself) " Its a badly executed figure" - which it was. As I have added in the second post perhaps there were other factors which caused this to be so? Perhaps.

You are quite wrong however to suggest that questions around the way the machine was flown are not "inappropriate" given the history of display pilots and this type of crash, its claimed many before.

And, again, nobody can say why. And that is why nobody can start making wild accusations about pilot error.

One last thought. Has anyone here even seen Andy's display plan? Does anyone know what manoeuvre he was supposed to be performing. I know what we think it was, but who knows for sure and who knows what may have happened during the manoeuvre? More supposition.

Oh, and one more thing. Any unproven accusation about pilot error is always inappropriate. In this case based purely on the supposed expert opinion of someone else without all the facts available - That, by the way, is pretty much everybody at the moment.

CM - Given what we can see in the video whilst there maybe other factor it is a million miles away from WILD accusation. And again I didn't say it was pilot error, I said it was poorly flown (as you say perhaps there are other factors but the pilot is at least one of them). I respect your posts and views and so I'll leave it there.

Looping
 

Whatever the reasons, in laymans terms "insufficient altitude to complete a loop" has been seen so many times on so many types.

Is it time to re-consider whether this move (and similar ones) are inherently risky, perhaps a bit too risky?

What are the actual margins here? Even if you make your gate at the top - what margins exist for a technical issue or even just a control error in the 3rd quarter of the move?

It seems the speeds and energies at play here leave very very little room for error when performed close to the ground. Perhaps it is these moves and their inherent danger that need to be under the microscope, rather than the type or pilot experience.

The reds do it regularly of course without it seems difficulty, however I recall the thunderbirds had a terrible multi fatal accident from a loop. From the wiki it seems this was a technical issue (rear stab jammed) though I find it slightly odd all the video evidence was destroyed - a different time/culture perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_T..._Diamond_Crash

@Courtney Mil

This is a copy of Chris Heames' hunter display routine taken from classicjets.co.uk which curiously is now seemingly non functional so the below has been lifted from google's cache of the page a week ago.
POSSIBLY it might be the same as the one of Andy's at Shoreham - or it might not.

B Axis run in,
¼ Clover to A Axis,
Derry wing over,
Barrel Roll,
½ Cuban,
4 point roll,
Max rate turn,
Derry to A axis,
Wing over,
Slow roll,
Reverse ½ Cuban (lazy),
Canadian break to land.

Thank you, DSC.

Quite a lot of stuff with connections to this are suddenly deleted.

The T7
 

As an ex engineer with somewhat limited servicing experience (RAF) on various Mk's of hunter and seeing the remains being lifted on to transporters did it not look as though the rear section (tail unit) broke away at the transportation /engine removal/fit break point, if so always thought with the ring of bolts that it was a major strong point of the fuselage, not speculating on any cause just would like opinions, rgds, PH.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

[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...

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?

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.

athonite, perhaps this might be enlightening? CM isn't JW! :E

flapjack?s biography | Heritage Aviation

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. :ok:

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.

Some good news if there is such a thing in this sad affair

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?

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.

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.