PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-crash-shoreham-airshow.html)

BEagle 3rd Feb 2016 06:42

Whether or not it's germane to this particular incident, this is what I wrote some 5 years ago when discussing why 'aileron rolls', sometimes termed 'victory rolls' are so dangerous:

Anyway, back to the dangers of the 'victory roll'....

Usually observed to start from a high speed approach, balls-out on the deck, followed by a climbing aileron roll. As the aircraft runs in at high speed, it will very likely be trimmed for such speed.

Pulling up, it will begin to decelerate. Full aileron and rudder to balance will cause a lot of drag, so it'll decelerate even more. It has now slowed down and the untrimmed state will tend to pitch the aircraft nose down as the roll progresses; the pilot may well pull against this, reducing the apex height accordingly.

As the roll reaches the final wings level state, the aircraft will probably be descending and significantly out of trim. In addition, the attitude needed for level flight at the new speed will require a higher pitch angle than did the initial beat up. So the pilot may well need full aft control column to stop the descent and to oppose the out of trim state......and recovery to level flight may well take longer than anticipated, or may not be achieved until terra firma prevents any further descent.

And how many of us have seen Bloggs cock-up a barrel roll and bury the nose on exit....?
Andy was very lucky not to have speared into the crowd having fallen out of that poorly flown manoeuvre at Southport, in my opinion.

AtomKraft 3rd Feb 2016 07:09

Well, I'm not an aerobatic pilot, or ex-RAF but I don't think you have to be either to see what's going on here.

That roll in the JP was poorly flown, but luckily he got away with it. Luckily for the spectators in particular.....
The manoeuvre in the Hunter looks about the same deal- Again, not well flown, but unfortunately a poorer outcome.

Maybe the AAIB will turn up some mitigating factor (s), but this pilot doubts it.

Just my opinion, of course.

Cows getting bigger 3rd Feb 2016 07:11

So, the conversation appears to be leading in the direction of DAs and FCCs.

Above The Clouds 3rd Feb 2016 07:11

Courtney Mil
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.
No I am not trying to use the speaker pole to estimate the height, earlier posters were commenting on a previous video that didn't offer a background reference other than an individuals head that popped in to view. The later video from youtube I posted showed a different angle and offered some ground features including the pier that was over flown. (neither video was taken by myself)

And as you have mentioned witnesses; the roll was flown North to South parallel to the crowd line, it was royally f***ed up while passing the inverted position. The recovery took place to the East as a result of continuing the roll which was now directed towards and crowd line, it may also have passed over the crowd during an almost 180 degree climbing turn opposite to the original axis of the roll entry.

As this airshow takes place over the beach many viewers sit in the sand dunes to the South away from the main crowds giving a better view. With this particular incident the person who watched it unfold was sat along the North South axis of the manoeuvre giving a very clear view of the height assisted by objects, people, etc in the back ground, you can be assured it was close to impact with the beach.

Had it hit the beach the impact point would have been very close if not in to the spectators.

RetiredBA/BY 3rd Feb 2016 07:16

Beagle is VERY wide of the mark, in my years of instructing (refresher students and standardising instructors) on RAF jets, never heard it said that a victory or aileron roll is a particularly dangerous manoeuvre. They have a technique which makes them a simple and safe aerobatic. Raise the nose to a suitable angle, apply (full) aileron, a touch of rudder perhaps, wait for wings level and fly away! Without any elevator input the nose WILL be lower than on entry, and that determines the pitch attitude to be used at entry.

As for needing full aft stick to stop the descent, that would produce a possibly severe G stall, to say that suggests a serious misunderstanding of control and stability. Pulling to just nibble at the buffet was the technique to get the best pitch rate from the JP.

And air displays are not flown by "Bloggs" .

From what I saw in that video , a perfectly safe roll was seriously mishandled, period.

The exact height of the roll is irrelevant, it was done very low, and too much height was lost in the roll, it was not difficult to roll the JP without any height loss and there was enough control authority to push to minus 2.5 g when inverted, but with a time limit imposed by fuel recuperator capacity.

BEagle 3rd Feb 2016 08:23

Retired BA/BY wrote:

They have a technique which makes them a simple and safe aerobatic. Raise the nose to a suitable angle, apply (full) aileron, a touch of rudder perhaps, wait for wings level and fly away! Without any elevator input the nose WILL be lower than on entry, and that determines the pitch attitude to be used at entry.
Well quite. Absolutely fine if the pitch attitude at entry is correct and the manoeuvre is flown at a safe height.

Whereas many 'victory rolls' simply weren't - with the obvious result.

I know that 'Bloggs' doesn't normally fly low level aeros, but the point was that pilots making a mess of barrel rolls was a common event - usually because of insufficient pitch at entry.

air pig 3rd Feb 2016 10:40

ATC, I was at Southport in a position where the JP was coming directly at me, if he hadn't managed to recover the aircraft I may not be sat here typing this. This could have been another Ramstein.

I was standing on the sea wall and in front of me there was about 100 to 150 yards in depth of spectators, cars and vendors on the beach. If he hadn't recovered he would very possibly have hit them.

crazy council 3rd Feb 2016 16:54

not sure ?

but i think this may be a video of the full display from 2014 of the jet provost

( someone asked earlier if there was a video from the pier )

deefer dog 3rd Feb 2016 17:28

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.
I disagree. The fact that he bothered to explain it to the regulars on a Military forum leads me to conclude that he believes that he has a monopoly on wisdom.

Courtney Mil 3rd Feb 2016 19:25

That's extremely kind of of you Deefer. Thank you.

My explanation was directed at those that had already demonstrated that they do not understand and some others that are not regulars, but that pitch up here full of bile and devoid of aviation knowledge when something bad happens.

blimey 3rd Feb 2016 21:32

Up up rudder rudder push push rudder rudder pull.

Piece of cake. :hmm:

Flying Lawyer 3rd Feb 2016 22:18

2 things concern me.
  1. Why anyone in the Sussex Police thought it appropriate to disclose that they are investigating an earlier incident knowing, unless he/she was a naive half-wit, that there was a very high risk the information would be leaked to the press and, if it was, that the press would certainly publicise the earlier incident.
  2. Why anyone here thinks it appropriate or fair to criticise the pilot on an open public forum, in relation to either or both incidents, when he is still at risk of being prosecuted.
    There is an obvious risk that potential jurors will be influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by what they read here or see quoted in the press. Quotes from PPRuNe regularly appear in the press when there is an aviation accident or incident. Journalists assume, understandably given the site name, that all contributors to discussions on PPRuNe are professional pilots whereas many are not and never have been pilots of any sort except in their dreams.
    Chatting in the privacy of a crew-room is very different from publishing potentially damaging opinions on the internet.

O-P 3rd Feb 2016 22:47


Thank you, well said.

50+Ray 4th Feb 2016 07:37

Agreed. Thank you FL.

Courtney Mil 4th Feb 2016 08:22

FL, exactly the point I and several others have been trying to make since this thread began. Drawing conclusions that attempt to apportion blame without being in possession of all the facts and with (evidently) little knowledge of the subject is plain wrong.

deefer dog 4th Feb 2016 08:29

I agree in part with FL. Sure, it's not fair to apportion blame until the result of an investigation or trail (if appropriate) comes in.

However it is human nature to speculate and draw conclusions, even early ones. It's also human nature to gossip and it's been happening since the dawn of time. Small town gossip has been taking place ahead of small town court cases for years. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to say (or write on pprune) ahead of his trial that "I think it was the butler who dunnit with the candlestick," and could do so without fear of being prosecuted myself.

Mach Two 4th Feb 2016 08:45

There are plenty of things in life you can do without fear of prosecution, but it does not necessarily make them right. Read all the way to the end of Flying Lawyer's post and you might see another good reason why expressing your views here comes with a certain responsibility. But I doubt that will influence you terribly much.

Perhaps it's just a slow day on the Bis Jets and Agricultural Flying forum, or whatever it's called.

sittingstress 4th Feb 2016 08:49

I woz a GDT Rock and did a stint with 16 Sqn (The Saints) prior to the Gulf War and flew 1hr 45mins in a Fin Jet therefore I know everyfing about this flying malarkey. AH should have had more AR5 training and not been allowed to skimp his pistol TOETs. More gas = better pilot. Trust me :)

This opinion is as relevant as some others on the main subject and offered with the same amount of technical expertise.

Per Ardua

Oh yeah please will ex-techies wave their wallets at me, especially armourers :)

Onceapilot 4th Feb 2016 08:54

Well Deefer, as far as I am aware, you may say what you wish but, others may take legal action against you and, you might be found guilty if they can prove their case. Furthermore, I believe that aspects of internet forums are more akin to the written word and, their widespread coverage can add weight to any action taken against a poster. :ooh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.