What kind of energy? Kinetic energy is 1/2 MV^2


Very rough ballpark figures give a fairly small airliner on approach more than double the energy.


Hunter
200kts @ 10T = 53,045 kJ

A320/B737
130kts @ 50T = 112,225 kJ

Nige321What a curious suggestion.

Possibly, but most airshow spectators are not keen airshow photographers.
They enjoy seeing aircraft performing aerobatics and, unless performed at low level, or it is an unusual aircraft, straight & level flypasts are the least interesting.

I suppose it will all come down to the law and interpretation of the following:

Note: Those bits of the ANO do not exclusively apply to aircraft commanders.

Yes, that's my point.

Just to clarify further.

A tiny fast jet flying straight and level over a busy road delivers less energy to the impact than an airliner, therefore it is no more insane to allow jets to cross roads or buildings at low level than airliners on approach.

Tourist,

Actually, the mass of the Hunter might be more like 8 tonnes, so its energy is even less. As you indicate, the Hunter over the A27 has less energy than a widebody flying into Heathrow.

CGB,

Why are we back to quoting rules and orders again? We did this months ago. Is this a resurection of the search for someone to blame and hang out to dry? If not, what is the rules quote for?

Even the AAIB's investigation isn't complete yet. So where are you going with this, Cows getting bigger?

Why?
The manoeuvre was performed about half a mile to the north of crowd centre... Too far away for the (minority) photographers. I'd rather have seen the Hunter run straight in for a fast level or curved fast flypast, than a distant loop/clover...

Nige,

You seem to be criticising Andy's sequence on asthetic grounds now, which I have to say is a new one in this thread. Given that there is a possibility that he won't be flying it again anytime soon, I wouldn't worry about it just now.

Perhaps civilan display design is a topic for a new thread on the appropriate civvi flying fora.

You don't display for the spotters. You display for the kids and families who love to watch loops and rolls.

Personally I always find the guys with camera bags/patches/ovies/notebooks creepy.

Sorry, not in the slightest. What I'm getting at stems from the graphic of the loop/clover, and my original comment of 'if only he'd banked right onto the display line'

Could he have simply banked right and run down the display line?
Was the clover part of the pre-planned sequence, or an impromptu addition to the sequence?
Or don't we know?

Like I said before, Nige, the sequence is pre-planned and approved. They do not just pitch up at a dislplay and do impromtu shows.

In the same way that all displaying aircraft could just turn up and land, yes he could, but it would not really be a display.

Lots of aircraft up close to photograph though....

Tourist,

What if the 9 tonne fast jet is doing 400kts?

Courtney,

You must admit, wrong manoeuvre at wrong location.

There is never a good reason for crossing a busy A Class road at 100ft agl/400kts. Either fly higher or get the road temporarily closed.

That's one for the CAA and the lawyers, Dominator. Not something I have the least qualification to talk about, I'm afraid. What I can tell you is that there are lots of display venues around the world that involve main roads and built-up areas: Farnborough springs to mind. But like I say, I can explain technical and flying stuff, not so much the legal aspects and what you may wish to see changed.

I'm not sure which of my posts you're refering to, but I don't see it as the wrong manoeuvre. Did you make the same comment in June when the same manoeuvre was flown successfully over a different road?

Courtney, I guess I'm going in a direction that Flying Lawyer hinted at the other day. Personally, I'm not in the mood for a public flogging but I've been kicking around aviation long enough to know that someone, somewhere will end-up facing the bench. In today's, safety-conscious society, accidents don't 'just happen'.

Ah I thought you were implying the jet would have more energy than an airliner would. Disregard.

Ok

1/2mv2 says kinetic energy of 9000kg Hunter at 400 kts is.......erm....
189112500J
....a lot less than a 394000Kg A380 at 150kts!

The V squared makes a significant difference, but not enough to make a Hunter impact even in the same ballpark as a big airliner such as make approaches over roads and houses at less than 100ft all over the world every day.

...plus of course the A380 brings lots of extra warm bodies to any collision with hard stuff.

.....plus of course huge numbers of airliners have in fact crashed on short finals over the years, so the risk is very real, rather than the once in 50yrs for the hunter crash.

The speed is irrelevant, the manoeuvre less so.

The maths is fascinating but let's keep this in context; how many Joules does it take to crush a car when in a 3 deg descent?!

I am not arguing whether there is plenty of energy to crush a car. Obviously there is more than enough in both cases.

I am merely pointing out that flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road is less "insane" than the continuous stream of airliners that approach Heathrow and many other airports around the world across busy roads and houses despite aviation's long history of final approach crashes.

Hysterical ravings about safety are the thing that needs to be kept in context.

Cgb
I expressed concern that anyone here thinks it appropriate or fair to criticise the pilot on an open public forum when he is still at risk of being prosecuted.
We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I was not suggesting that there would, or should, be a prosecution.

Unlike some here, I think it better to wait until all the facts, or all facts that can be established, are known before forming an opinion.
Further, and importantly, the pilot's account of what happened is not yet known - assuming that he is able to recall the details. It is by no means unusual for someone who has gone through such a traumatic experience not to be able to recall.

Given the injuries and duration of induced coma, I'm gonna suggest he can't remember a thing.


And given the limited medical knowledge I have, I would suggest that anything he is able to recall would be inadmissible in a court of law anyway.