What a moronic quote:ugh:
It's an interim report - the clue's in the name...

But all the indications are that the loop started at below 500 ft, why, what was the margin for error?

Concerning "margins for error": what is the margin for error for identifying the maneuver as a loop. A loop is done in pitch axis only and the tragic maneuver included pitch and roll. So given that you don't know what the intended maneuver was, how can anyone judge what the margins were, much less which ones were violated?

From the AAIB report:

I'm curious what the general view is of currency and the applicability of experience on other aircraft.

Of course, private flying of this nature is not the same intensity as the Red Arrows and the hours accumulated during front-line training of fast jet pilots is required to maintain currency across many skills. So I wouldn't expect to see 10-20 hours/month on the Hunter. Especially given how expensive it would be!

I hesitate to post this as I'm not seeking to add to the second guessing. It's more a high-level question to the experienced pilots who've bounced around between types about how easy it is to get in to an aircraft and fly it in a moderately demanding way (i.e. more than just a ferry/pleasure flight). Even if you're accumulating a lot of hours on other aircraft during the same period.

[edit] If the answer to this question could just add to the controversy, please ignore.

Well this display would have been regulated within the display authorisation, can I kindly ask if the DA profile was not met.

But, also as professional pilots we apply margin in terms of take off and landing performance.

Why is there denial that on this occasion, that the pilot got it wrong>

Yes it is interesting that the intended display hasn't formed part of the report given that they suggest they know he practiced it at least once in the last 90 days.

Re: margins. regardless of nit picking again over the 1/4 clover it did start from 200ft, which was 300ft below the height given in the DA.

From the interim report/bulletin linked by our PPRuNe colleague stratofreighter (thank you, sir)f:

Quote:

---

The accident flight was recorded by the NATS radar facility at Pease Pottage. The maximum altitude recorded during the final manoeuvre was 2,600 ft amsl (recorded by Heathrow radar), which may not reflect the peak altitude achieved because the radar data was not continuous.

---

The radar returns are noted in the report as having a 6s refresh. The estimate is 2600', but it may turn out on further anaylsis to be another value ... we shall see.

It seems to me no one is "denying" anything. There are however lots of people here who refuse to SPECULATE about what might or might not have gone wrong and have a strong preference for keeping such speculations out of this forum. There are many other forums where one may speculate to your heart's content.

Hmmmm, almost more questions than answers. It seems strange that the aircraft only achieved "2600 ft" at 100kts. Obviously there was no energy left to go higher. However, the same aircraft is seen, in previous film, easily making similar manoeuvres. It seems strange that, apparently having video of the instruments, no mention of engine parameters or altimeter indications is made? No mention of, what surely must be known, "gates" and, a strange declaration of the take-off being longer than usual "probably due to conditions"! Come-on, if it was due to conditions it was NOT longer than usual! It was either longer than it should have been or it was not!

OAP

The word "Interim" in the title "Interim Report" is a pretty big hint that the AAIB will "Come-on".

Have some patience whilst they do their job.


(As Chris Scott notes on a subsequent page, it's not an Interim Report - it's a Special Bulletin. The point about patience stands, though.)

Also, OAP, perhaps you should re-read your post. As you say, the interim report suggests that the take-off may have been longer than usual because of conditions. It does not say anything about its As always, the wording of such reports, whether interim or final, is very carefully chosen. Perhaps we should all follow that example?

airsound

The AAIB will 'come-on' in time but in terms of the departure from North Weald the take off performance of the Hunter T.7 is known and the runway state and weather is also known. Even at this early stage they should have been able to state categorically whether it was a normal take off or not and not hedge it with the word 'probably'.

Now is the time for the bereaved families to contact their lawyers and send them in the interim report. Get the ball bowling as it were.

I read the diagram in the report/bulletin as the tick marks showing the "every six seconds" radar returns. Six seconds of flying can include some corrections, so the altitude at entry may not be 200', but another value. Won't guess as to what AH saw on the altimeter at the point of 'initiate the maneuver."
The radar track isn't the same as a continuous ground track display.

"Now is the time for the bereaved families to contact their lawyers and send them in the interim report. Get the ball bowling as it were."

If this was in the USA, all the families would need to do is be within a few feet of their phones. The ambulance-chasers would initiate the process and contact them.

airsound, sorry but I stand by my interpretation as being correct.

OAP

But the AAIB have also got the HD professional video that was taken of the flypast and the maneuver by PlanesTV (the one that was pirated and on You Tube before it was blocked for copyright violations). The AAIB are pretty sure on some basics, they still need time to work out the exact train of events and parameters and to confirm nothing else was amiss.

I would like to point out that the Interim Report did not speculate that this maneuver was or was intended to be a 1/4 clover. It was simply a "manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left."

Wow - ok. On the basis that he needs to have completed the sequence beforehand and on the basis that any figure needs to be understood and repeatable (otherwise how does the pilot or observer know what is to be flown - and flown safely) it has to be something. I called it a 1/4 clover, what do you call it? We could say that a 1/4 clover is a figure with vertical and rolling component - especially when you enter on the A axis and exit on the B axis...

Edited to add: I think when you look at the CAP403 definition of "standard" aerobatic figures it would appear that you can not fly a 1/4 clover within that categorisation because turns have to be in "normal flight" and loops have to be circular with normal entry and exit.

Always conjecture as to where 'the' manoeuvre starts, but it is perfectly acceptable to complete a flypast at 100ft and ease up into the next manoeuvre even if it is a loop. It therefore does not follow that the loop was started from 100ft.

That said, the 'easing up' into the manoeuvre clearly has to be allowed for and not flown at maximum performance. The slight loss of energy in this 'easing up' also has to be catered for. Are we really expecting a displaying aircraft to climb up from a perfectly safe 100ft flypast to achieve 500ft, level off, then commence a loop?

Similar when you have to take off from a runway within the 230 line - you ease into the display complying with the AoB v height limitations; you're therefore not guilty of breaking the 230 line limitation.