Where did you see that Grim? All the shots I can see, the pilot is upright in the seat.
The wing drop prior to the impact may be due to a late pull, doesn't look like a deliberate control input, but that's pure conjecture on my part. The AAIB report will no doubt be thorough...unlike the BBC's reporting.

It's interesting that wingswinger mentions medical fitness and combining displaying with jets with a career as an airline pilot. Perhaps flight time limitations need to include display flying, I know this will not be popular. On the other hand the general public and CAA expect the crew of a commercial jet to be rested under flight time limitations, so equally the public should have the same expectations of a display pilot.

Likewise, should display pilots be required to hold or have held a professional pilots qualification (ATPL/RAF wings). I refer of course to the Hurricance that crashed previously at Shoreham, the Pilot (age 49) held a PPL no evidence having been trained in aerobatics, and oddly only a class two medical. Likewise there is a JP3 display pilot in the UK, with 500 hrs on jets, who also claims to have displayed the Hunter T7, again on a PPL, medical unknown. I'm not sure if this was the pilot involved in the Southport/Blackpool JP near accident? Unless I have my facts wrong, I find this a bit worrying as I would expect a 1500 hours of flying fast jets for a display pilot. Likewise in the case of the recent Gnat accident, the Pilot wasclaimed to be ex RAF, but never progressed onto an OCU, again I'm doubtful of his experience to display.

The display pilots on the Hunter for this season were aged 51 and 61, and I'm assuming held a class one medical. I just wonder how much is known about G-LOC in older pilots, when it's not unknown in young and very fit RAF pilots, such as in the Red Arrows accident. Without doubt both the Hunter T7 pilots are highly experienced, and much has been made of the pilot in the accident as being an ex-Harrier pilot. But, if he is a BA captain, based on seniority this must have been some time ago (15 years +) since he regular flew fast jets.

Finally, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned on this thread the L29 display accident near Manston, where the aircraft also failed to recover from a loop. The Pilot was 61, he has flown in the Red Arrows but that was I think back in the seventies. I wondering if at the time if this flagged up any warnings, did the AAIB or CAA considered the effect of G on pilots as they become older?

There's as much ill-informed speculation on here as there is in R & N. For the record, AH is a short haul captain and part-time so neither fatigue nor jet lag are likely causes. Furthermore, being part time meant he had plenty of opportunity to stay current and practised in display flying.

Unsubstantiated speculation and misinformation:

Mr Sharp has no way of knowing about the condition of the engine nor Andy's intentions. The clip was heavily edited so his comments may have been misrepresented or he has made a complete fool of himself talking about stuff he doesn't understand.

I understand that's an observation, but there are plenty of failure modes that may not be obvious from a distance.

Sorry, that is absolute hoop. An amateur video from a hand-held camera does not show a fraction of the detail about the state of the aircraft or the pilot or to assume parameters from which to draw any conclusions at all. It can form a part of the picture, but it will be the forensic evidence that will answer some of the important questions. The camera is roughly tracking the aircraft with few fixed points of reference for much of the footage for estimating pitch angles, pitch rate, altitude, angle of attack or aircraft speed - there are some. The video is useful to suggest that the wings are still attached, the aircraft did not appear to be on fire, etc, and it may be useful to confirm or discount possible factors later. But will only once the investigators have ALL THE FACTS they can reasonably establish.


If by "evidence presented" you mean a video, then I would suggest there are insufficient data to go on. "Many people on here" have more sense than to make any form of judgement nor to print any such speculation here. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case for everyone. You appear to have examined enough "evidence" to conclude that this case may not be straightforward. Well done.

You would not see a "gas tube" unless the main ejection gun had fired. One can initiate ejection, but the seat will not fire if an interlock or failure interrupts the sequence. The lack of visible "gas tube" would not necessarily mean ejection had not been initiated.


It's called gloc, sometimes g-loc, and of course it will be a factor for the investigation, but It would be highly unlikely at the airspeeds used to fly a loop.

Pilots do have medicals, early fifties is hardly old, but as you say it can even happen to medically fit pros, so the question isn't worth asking unless you're trying to make a point. As for your speculation about the same factor causing three separate incidents, the less said the better. "Same thing"?

Indeed. He should certainly know better. A stupid supposition with no basis in evidence. Leslie Hatcher's remarks are even more out of order. He should hang his head in shame.

If you're going to set yourself up as an expert, at least make statements that are true. To hit M0.9 at or near sea level he would have needed to have been doing around 540kts, well beyond your "guess". The use of flap in Hunter aerobatics has been standard and safe practice for decades and its effect well-understood at slower speeds. Now I'm going to speculate: you clearly missed something important during your 800 hrs on Hunters.

On a personal note, I wish Andy a successful recovery and I hope his family and friends are not unduly affected by some of the unnecessary speculation and I'll-informed comment here and in the media.

MTM,

So which airfields have you placed your - to scale - overlay onto in order to predict a much smaller number of airshows next year?

FB

Tiger Mate,

Thanks for trying to answer some of my questions.

You state that the following is always available to airshow organisers.
Is it not true that at some displays/airshows, pilots change or makeup their displays in real time?

IMHO the "read across" DA on different types is too liberal in this day and age.

You also state;
You imply that the regulations should not be more rigorous because it will impact on the pockets of operators/owners. I would answer that it is imperative that displaying jets at airshows in the UK is not seen as the domain of a select few rich/connected pilots who are allowed to self regulate to a great extent!

jindabyne wrote:

An admirable concise post from a very experienced Hunter pilot and QFI :ok:

If I recall correctly, use of 23 flap in ACM caused an initial nose-down trim change, which in the environment of dynamic ACM was easily overcome by a firm elevator movement. The effect of 23 flap gave an increased turn rate, which was advantageous in getting to a sight-on solution, but the increased drag meant that it was only a temporary advantage?

Whereas flying certain manoeuvres with 23 flap was entirely normal for formation aerobatic teams.

You refer to Neil McCarthy, obviously. Probably a class 2 medical one would assume. Then again, you know what they say about assumptions... I don't believe it was him that was involved in the Blackpool incident. As far as I know, he only ever positioned the Hunter to displays and Chris or Andy did the poling in the shows.

I don't see an issue with PPl's or class 2 medical holders displaying aircraft. I was happy enough to watch Bob Hoover display on an FAA class 3 medical. There are numerous extremely competent DA holders that 'only' have a Private Pilot's Licence. There are numerous ATPL's displaying aircraft with less time in the seat doing aero's than the PPL pilots.

This aircraft was a stablemate of the Gnat at North Weald sadly.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SD2015003.pdf

Tiger Mate,

Not quite correct on DAs and currency. To display you need to have flown 3 displays or practices in the previous 90 days, one of which must have been on type. All of the single engine jets are category G and a DA is needed for each type and is named on the DA paperwork. Therefore, you cannot display a Hunter on a JP DA.

Courtney - I didn't say that the video presented all of the facts but it certainly reveals enough to determine the basics; indeed, you very helpfully list most of them, but actually not all. Some things cannot be discounted and any additional evidence is always helpful. However, it is often the case that ALL of the facts are never determined beyond question - and reasonable judgement upon the most likely sequence of events is made by people with relevant experience. Some members of these forums have that experience - most do not. Some of the comments on here are misleading and unhelpful - and unprofessional - but then this is a largely unregulated forum of, mostly, amateurs. So I recommend that you stop attempting to be the arbiter of accident investigation procedures or to police the internet. Have you actually been a part of an accident investigation? Incidentally, I also acknowledged that some engine failures are not obvious, so please do not attempt to score a point with a selective quote.

Trust me when I say that there is enough evidence (and it is evidence) to discount many of the wild (deliberate attempt to land) and not-so-wild (g-loc) theories circulating and to narrow the LIKELY cause, notwithstanding contributory factors which are always harder to determine. What the video does NOT show is valuable too but I'm not going to spell that out for you.

The indisputable fact of this accident is that AH (whom I know and respect) ran out of height. How and why will form the basis of the investigation.

I know your motives are good Courtney and that you generally post good sense, but your protestations in this instance are not (wholly) justified. Having complete tosh spouted by that clown on the BBC is downright irritating of course, but given the inevitable scrutiny that an accident of this nature will attract, neither is it appropriate to try and draw a cloak of secrecy across the event, as we were once inclined to. Indeed, some early, measured and informed comments to the media might have spared us the 'he was going too fast and had to put it down on the A27' nonsense! I'm not attributing blame - and neither will the AAIB incidentally - I have just discussed some of the more obvious features of this accident - features which may be seen in a different context after a full investigation but which will not themselves change. This is, after all, a forum for discussing aviation related issues...

Couldn't that mean someone had spent some time flying transport aircraft, which wouldn't be any qualification to display a historic jet fighter?

P

Agreed, Phil.

As well as qualifications on paper, there is the issue of currency. How is currency maintained in the civilian world flying similar, ex-military aircraft?*

*I am in no way doubting the experience, the currency or the credentials of the pilot in question.

Indeed, what makes a multi thousand hour tourist tube operator any more qualified than a standard weekend flying PPL holder to fly an ex-mil fast jet?

Nothing. Neither is trained or current or has experience relevant to the type.

Maintaining currency isn't a problem, as long as you have the currency (£1500-2500 p/h by a bit of trawling for operating costs of various vintage jets).

Something to be aware of before talking to those types at all.

Indeed, Basil!

Captain Kirk,

Your subtle change of direction there makes all the difference.

It is your initial claim that the cause of the accident can be deduced from the video that I totally disagree with. Your new statement that the video can (help to - my inserted words) discount causes is much more reasonable. And it is because the video alone is insufficient to determine the cause (rather than help to discount them) that we must wait for all the facts. "As for all the facts" in your words.

One accident investigation and one incident BoI as President. In the latter case I spent weeks exploring the limits of extracting evidence from photographic material; that evidence was amazingly fruitful, but eventually only served to point me in the direction of the hard evidence.

Edit to add: I agree about "Indeed, some early, measured and informed comments to the media might have spared us the 'he was going too fast and had to put it down on the A27' nonsense!". Someone involved with the show or those investigating it making an official statement may have helped to put some balance into the whole thing. I doubt there could have been many solid answers, but at least a stated position and an explanation of how the recovery and investigation would go forward. Sadly, I suspect the press would still have gone after the "experts" for something more sensational.

Totally correct, Phil and Bunny. 20k-plus hours in airliners has left me with ZERO recent experience in aeros and I wouldn't dream of attempting even a ferry flight in a pointy thing these days. Last aeros I flew were wobbly indeed in a Yak 15 years ago….not sure I could remember how to even strap into a MB seat. And then there's my meal-tray honed physique…and I have a class 1 med.

I have participated in an accident investigation, and the info obtained from film is amazing, particularly if the characteristics of the cameras used are known. Heat signature, energy levels, control deflections etc are all possible. If there is no recorder aboard or radar ground recording, film is IT. In this case, I believe a professional company was recording the display, and their recording in HD will no doubt be available to the AIB.

Godwilling, a recovery of AH will be a blessing in many ways, also.

Sad and tragic accident.

Haven't read through the previous pages in the thread, but hopefully the pilot will pull through and be able to assist AAIB with their investigation.

Hey, I said it was unscientific, but so far it includes Duxford (M11 -no surprise really), Culdrose (row of houses next to the viewing enclosure at one end, A394 at the other), Cosford (the railway station) and Waddington (A15) amongst others. At Farnborough it is well within the airfield perimeter, and at Dunsfold it is open countryside.

But if I have done it, you can be sure that somebody in an insurance office is doing the same, with as little science as I used, and will be using it as a reason to bump up air display premiums by two or three hundred percent for next year.

To clarify, I think that ideally the 1500 hrs needs to be fast jet or mix of fast jet/rotary as a test pilot.

But previous fast jet experience is degraded with time, possibly. As previously mentioned, the L29 accident, was many years after the pilot had left the Red arrows. There is no easy answer to experience or currency.

I think the CAA are going to have to take a holistic approach to all this!

Finally as to SEP display aircraft, such as Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc., the CAA might want to adopt the very sensible rules set down by the RAF and BBMF in terms of currency.

Help in understanding what happened here may come from this operation.

PlanesTV Live | PlanesTV

The Shoreham airshow was professionally filmed and streamed live on the web - I would imagine the footage is already available to the AAIB