Classic. I once had a student black himself out doing a slow roll - he let the nose drop in the inverted and pulled just shy of 6g on the recovery. It would have been more than 6g but for some 'assistance' in the opposite direction.

Re Southport, that appears to be luck rather than judgement. You would need the right photogrammetry software to go for anything more specific than "appears to be", and I don't suppose many Ppruners have that.

Are you trying to use the height of the speaker as a means of judging the height of the aircraft? Without knowing the height of the camera, the height of the speaker and the relative distances between aircraft, speaker and camera, that it meaningless and, frankly, somewhat typical of trying to use YuoTube video to make out that something is way more dramatic than it really is.

Lucky that so many have turned out here again to solve the case without the need for any real evidence.

I was at Southport and witnessed the event. Unlike the following day when there was little cloud, the display was restricted by low cloud. I was some 60 or so yards to the left of the trajectory of the aircraft as it pulled out of the manoeuvre from the direction of the sea. I was with a friend, between us we have over 120 years of regularly attending airshows around the world.

Our immediate response to what we saw was that he was extremely lucky not to put the aircraft into the sea. Having avoided that the aircraft bust the crowd line before turning parallel to the sea and eventually climbing during which he was red carded. Our estimate of his maximum height over the crowd was around 150 to 175 feet though obviously we had no accurate measure other than trying to judge based on the heads of the crowd.

There were gasps from the crowd, our view was that he had overcooked it. On other forums people in the path of the aircraft, some seasoned airshow visitors, posted later that day and during the next day, that they were concerned and even momentarily scared.

The videos are not the best views. I have seen others not posted on the web and as they all focus on the aircraft there is little reference to the crowd or ground. I, my friend and many others watching with Mk1 eyeball from a reasonably short distance did have a reference. Had the aircraft no recovered and gained height before busting the crowd line, the result would have been carnage.

The Liverpool Echo photo is earlier in the display.

That roll was very poorly executed, particularly at low level, the nose was allowed to drop significantly when approaching and when inverted. Regardless of camera angles and comparative heights etc., it was very badly flown.

The JP needed quite a push when inverted due to its wing section, which was far from symmetrical.

Dramatic? Damned close to disastrous.

( former A2 standards QFI on type)

Courtney, normally you are right but in this instance, his display was stopped by the organisers. Full story ITV News exclusive: Shoreham air crash pilot 'involved in second incident' - ITV News

Despite the grey background, I feel that ATCs vid on #964 shows the elements of the manoeuvre quite well. Some disturbing "almost" vids to be seen, the Abingdon Gnat last year included. Not good!:=

OAP

To all/most of the above. I am not arguing with anything about what happened. My point, again, is using a video taken from an unknown location and angle to deduce the height of an aircraft.

Those of you that were there and saw it happen will know much more about an incident than anyone watching a YouTube video.

CM. Why so defensive? You appear unprepared to accept that the Hunter accident at Shoreham was almost certainly as a result of pilot error, and now that the JP at Southport was, to some degree, 'mishandled'.

Now I'm not categorically stating that Shoreham was caused by pilot error, but surely you can't object to any suggestion from others that it probably was! Are you saying that, while we don't have all the facts, the "probably" must remain and hence we should say nothing?

Explosive components are lifed by manufactured lots. Period. If batch testing is carried out to extend lives, then the operational environment may sometimes be taken into account - but usually to the detriment of the life. Batch testing is carried out by approved establishments, in proper process buildings, using scientific methods, and not by some clever cloggs who thinks "it'll do a trip". Anyone who installs explosive cartridges that are life ex needs their tool kit confiscated. Authorisers who ignore life dates should seek alternative employment. Bending the rules gets people killed.

OK, I'll take one at a time.

H Peacock,

I have nothing to be defensive about. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Shoreham accident MAY have been caused by pilot error and I shall certainly not argue with the official findings should that be the case. What I am absolutely NOT prepared to accept is people such as you arriving at their own conclusions WITHOUT knowing anything more than what they think they have seen on YouTube and what they have read in some rather poor newspaper articles, written by people who clearly do not understand aviation.

Your conclusion, based on a lot of assumption, may turn out to be right, but without seeing all the EVIDENCE and knowing all the facts, you are wrong to state your opinion as fact in public. If you wish to state your opinion, then fine, you have every right to do so. As I have every right to point out to you that none of us here are in possession of sufficient evidence to state it with much certainty.

Bigbux,

You appear to have picked up on a discussion that took place here some time ago. I seem to recall I may have answered a similar question at the time. If you can't find a response feel free to come back to me and I'll take a look back through the thread for you.

The pilot of the JP started the roll with the nose too low which is typical of someone either not very good or not very current. I suspect it was a bit of both. Was there extra training after the 'red card'? I'll wager the 'good old boys network' came into play and off he goes in the Hunter.
My qualifications so to speak? 3 FJ tours inc Harrier and courses on both JP, Hunter, Gnat etc etc.
He should've hung up his goggles and gone back to his A320 day job.
Finally, as I've said before, current RAF display pilots fly vastly more hours on type than these dangerous 'part timers'. Let's have a core of them to fly displays in vintage aircraft. A bit like an upgraded BBMF but with fast jets too. Properly organised and financed AND SUPERVISED AND TRAINED AND CHECKED.

Courtney..."Those of you that were there and saw it happen will know much more about an incident than anyone watching a YouTube video."

Sorry old chap, give or take the vagaries of recordings, I believe the opposite is true of witness evidence vs recordings.:)

OAP

AD, you are well qualified to say what I only thought. May I add to your trained and checked "on one type" as read across may well be inappropriate.

In many cases I would agree with you re witnesses v videos but in this instance I have yet to see a video which shows a view far back enough from the aircraft to take in enough of the surroundings to tell the story. Those of us who witnessed the incident with a history of watching aircraft and particularly displays, know just how close this was to an accident. It would be interesting if a video taken from the pier surfaces as this would provide an unobstructed view with good reference points.

OAP,

I understand your concerns about witness statements, especially from traumatic events. Video is a very useful medium in cases like these, but my point is that, in many cases, you really need to understand where the camera was and the relative position of objects you're using as a reference.

In the example here of the speaker on a pole, a speaker mounted on a ten foot pole, ten feet from a six foot cameraman would appear to line up with an object at over 100 feet 100 yards away, roughly. Numbers done in my head using old money. As you don't know the height of the camera, the height of the speaker or the horizontal distance between any of the three objects, you can't do any sums to calculate the height of the aircraft. Get it?

That you had to explain that speaks volumes about what basis for understanding you are dealing with.

A great idea... I am completely for a "RAF Historic Flight" with full time FJ pilots with regular display training/experience, perhaps who do a two year tour alongside their primary posting, before going back to their full time posting.

If they made it appealing enough they could probably offset some of the cost involved from demand to display at many airshows around UK and Europe.


Unfortunately as soon as money and bureaucracy and politics get involved then that shuts the idea right down.



I reckon it'd be much much safer than out-of-practice former FJ pilots who think their skills are still as sharp as they were back in the day, who may or may not have had any display practice in the recent weeks/months in that aircraft.

Everyone can have his own opinion, but not their own facts. Like you, AH was also a Harrier pilot and prior to that, an A2 QFI on the JP. Without prejudice with regards to subsequent events, I don't think your first comment holds water. I can't comment on his currency. Not sure what the 'good old boys network' is.

.....and regularly flew HIS JP(s) and, also, his RV8 (in formation aeros).

So, really quite far from being "not very good or not very current" and completely nullifying your arrogant assertions.

Now, having established that Andy is actually quite good (for a Crab) and keeps himself current, he really did pork that roll in the JP :ooh:

It would be interesting to know if he was given the red card by the display organisers or whether he decided to knock it off himself.

Quite... one would perhaps expect better from him. But even the best f*** up sometimes, especially if they're not following the rules or heeding their personal limits (not suggesting he wasn't, but it does lead one to entertain the question)


It sounds like he was red carded... although I imagine that call was probably transmitted as he was already pulling up into a climb-out so may have decided to knock it on the head himself, or at least suspend the sequence.
Can't imagine they would risk distracting a pilot at a critical point (in what may have appeared to be an already dangerously botched manoeuvre) by making a radio call before the roll was complete.