The term 'grounded' is often used but frequently misunderstood. Hope this helps:
Grounded Aircraft | Aircraft | Operations and Safety

The BBC has posted a graphic of the flightpath:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps..._crash_624.jpg

I've not seen anyone remark on this anywhere, but it strikes me that looping north of the runway wouldn't display the aircraft to its best advantage to the spectators' pen, and would also require overflying the A27 on the pullout. Would a properly-flown quarter clover in that position have looked good to the spectators? Has anyone seen the sequence card? Was a loop or quarter clover in this location actually intended?

I'm mystified.

Re the Vulcan, her CAA Permit to fly contains the following statement at
"6.1.1 Aerobatic manoeuvres, intentional spinning, and stalling, are prohibited."

That being the case why would her 'display' be affected in any way as, ( if she has been flown in compliance so far), there would be no problem continuing the same display in future as she isnt conducting 'Aerobatic Manoeuvres'.??

I am suprised to see that harrowing film taken seconds after the impact on the road has not been deleted from this site.The terrible tragedy at Shoreham is still unfolding, I for one cannot begin to imagine the sense of loss and shock to the bereaved families and those unfortunate to have seen this happen,let alone be injured. I just wonder where the media are going these days,being able to see such shocking film by accessing the Internet.Perhaps I am getting old but someone just walking about filming such scenes..............Just my thoughts.

That manoeuvre pulled at RIAT (much discussed on here) looked like what might be termed aerobatic. Certainly more than a fly by. So do you think that she has been flown strictly in compliance?



S-D

More bolleaux from the BBC. I wonder which expert drew that up. The a/c ran in along the crowdline before pulling and rolling......:ugh:

r75

I have always found it odd that people have filmed the aftermath of incidents instead of stopping and helping. I used to think that way when seeing footage taken by film crews or photographers, but eventually understood as it was their job. But nowadays everyone with a phone is doing it. It just doesn't feel right to see footage taken on a phone when most of us expect anyone that close to either be helping where they can or dialling 999 for help. They may simply have been too shocked to do anything else.

S-D

It would be interesting to see the vulcan trying a few aerobatics. I suppose that was a stock reply, but thought it could have been edited appropiately

This simply can't be correct, it doesn't tie up with the video(s) does it?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps..._crash_624.jpg

Can somebody with knowledge of displaying at Shoreham please comment.

Anyone else starting to think (as i am) that this is looking less like an open and shut case of pilot mishandling and more like something out of Andy's control?

Whatever the cause a tragic accident that will have far reaching consequences. Condolences to all those affected.

What are you suggesting andrewn?

I wish the pilot all the best in his recovery, but as the one flying the aircraft......

S-D

It is simplistic to suggest that displays should be restricted to coastal sites. Even slightly restricted visibility in these locations can lead to disorientation and fatal accidents. I have certainly experienced some very nasty surprises in my many years of such fast-jet and piston displays around the coasts of two continents.

Let us also not forget the Red's mast strike, which could have been a huge lot worse!

r75.........agreed!

dear god......wtf were people filming and not helping? Yes, shock makes you do strange things, but trying to put my 28 years in the emergency services to one side, surely if you've the "presence of mind" to pull your phone out to film.......you're not that incapacitated that you can't do the decent thing and bloody well help!!!! :{

Condolences to all concerned.

MD

Is anyone else getting severe irritation from the media's constant reference to 'stunts' instead of aerobatics? Stunts are what Brendan O'Brien does when he tries to land his Piper Cub on a low loader trundling down the runway or tries to fly beneath a length of string between two poles across the runway!

Absolutely down right infuriating people!!:*

FB

with you 110%

Not particularly, no! This is the language and terminology that the public, their target audience btw, understand. And a good number of them were killed and injured by stunts, aerobatics call them what you will at the weekend.

Your petty annoyances following a tragedy are what grip my ****. Grow up fella.

S-D

FB, agree, annoys me too.

I think the Beeb graphic was either lifted from the other thread or created for them by the ppruner on that thread.

+1 such a trivial comment:mad:

"Mopardave" has summed up my thoughts too....100% agree, how could you just walk around and film like that.Perhaps I am old fashioned but surely after the initial shock you would be running around trying to help not film.Best stop there, not a judgement just first impressions.

FB - yes, but i know some very well meaning people who referred to the Gnat crash in a similar context, and were not meaning to be disrespectful. The difference between an aerial display or aeros and a "stunt" is not widely understood by joe public (never mind the news media).

SD - explicitly I'm saying that many people on here can probably make a relatively informed judgement call as to the primary cause of incidents such as this one based on evidence presented and background knowledge and often this indicates "pilot error". In this particular case i am thinking it may not be as straightforward. In due course we will hopefully find out.

I wondered how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into personal bickering and insults.

Actually, slightly, if not by much, longer than I thought.

Perhaps the devastation was so awful the victims were beyond any practical help but I agree, it did seem a rather callous action.
I'm still amazed that somebody managed to pull the pilot clear amidst that fireball.

Any idea who Darren Sharp is in this clip from the BBC:

Shoreham pilot 'had to make a tough decision' - BBC News

Biggest load of tripe I have ever heard in my opinion. It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield. Seeing as the runway was clear at the time of the Hunter display, then there would be little point in not using it and going for a busy major A road! :ugh:

Where do the BBC find these so-called 'experts'?!!! I hope they didn't pay him!

LJ

Finningley Boy - for what it's worth it annoys me too, and I dont think that by post #300 on this thread when everybody has said RIP to those who died, wished good luck to the Hunter pilot and discussed possible causes of the accident ad nauseam it is particularly inappropriate to mention it. In my case I must stop shouting at the TV every time someone refers to "looping the loop" - a term which probably died out in aviation circles c 1925 but which the media still won't let go :*

What utter nonsense from Darren Sharp the so called expert the BBC have given the oxygen of self publicity too and what entitles him to spout his nonsense more than me (with similar years of aviation experience). I hope in time his nonsense will be shown up for what it is.

Quote from r75:
"Perhaps I am getting old but someone just walking about filming such scenes..."

That would indeed be callous, but perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions in this case. The photographer and a companion are clearly investigating at least one crushed car, and discussing if there's anything they can do to help. We don't know what the camera was, or how it was being held. It might even be a head-mounted camera, as may also have been used by the hotelier who stalked the Tunis gunman, although I don't know if they are available with a zoom lens. I believe the emergency services are increasingly using similar devices themselves.

Straight question - what happens to powered flying controls in the Hunter in the event of loss of engine power - no, not second guessing the investigation, just interested


Dreadful accident and heartfelt condolences to all involved in any way

To bring discussions back to a more technical level, can I ask anyone on here who may be familiar with MB's Mark 4 or 5 seat (which I believe is appropriate for this mark of aircraft whether there is an interlock between the canopy jettisoning and seat sequencing? Reason I ask is that in one well known tabloid's sequence of very graphic photos you can clearly see at the point of impact the unique T bird canopy being thrown open, presumably by the force of impact, but still attached by the hinge. The next photo in the sequence shows the canopy closed again seemingly having remained hinged somehow.

With my limited experience of the two seat Hunters I recall the canopy to be a substantial affair, much like the Lightning T5 which as the Thunder City accident showed, stopped the seat from sequencing if the canopy has not jettisoned. Is i the same on the two seat Hunter? Parts of the media tonight are suggesting that Andy was found outside of the aircraft and even the BBC mentioned the hazard the seat presented to the recovery but there is no sign of the gas tube I would expect to see had the ejection been initiated.

Wander - if the PFCs fail they revert to manual - the controls are heavy but the ac is perfectly controllable. But, IIRC, as long as the engine is windmilling the hydraulic pump will be developing pressure and the controls will remain powered unless an excessive load is placed upon them.

From the video, there is no obvious indication of an engine malfunction - but it can not be entirely discounted, especially a partial compressor failure where the engine keeps running but develops significantly less thrust.

That said - Andrewn, I'm not sure what you are referring to; I can see no evidence of mechanical failure, etc.

In a Hunter T7 or T8 there is no interlock between the canopy jettison system and the ejection seat firing mechanism. The canopy should jettison when one of the handles is pulled but if it does not the seat smashes through the top perspex panel.

If the hydraulics fail you get at least 1 1/2 full deflection cycles from each of the elevator and aileron accumulators before the controls revert to manual; this is checked after shutdown on an airtest.

According to the Telegraph, the venerable Capt 'Winkle' Brown, who was there, is suggesting pilot error.

I suppose you'd have to call that 'expert opinion' - if nothing else...

As for Mr Sharp on the BBC interview, the least said, the better.

I heard him on Radio 5 yesterday. They also had a "respected" aviation journalist (David somebody) who said something like "No publicity is bad publicity" in the context of airshows continuing and people attending. Better just to STFU.

Yes we do. Second half of the video after they have crossed the road and are approaching the crushed car; the sun is behind the cameraman and casting his shadow on the road, he is holding his phone elevated in his right hand.

I have just watched the clip with "expert Darren Sharpe" and words truly fail me, but that will be the AAIB investigation completed.

As you correctly say, the entire Concorde fleet(s) was not grounded.

However it is equally true to say the entire Hunter fleet has been grounded; if hasn't.

What is true in both cases is that the National authorities have grounded all of that type on their registers; the grounding would only be advisory for foreign registered aircraft.

What have the Swiss done?

Indeed PN,

Tanker Trash Nav,

I'll take it on advice you're quite right of course. I was simply making an observation - as many have done - about the media's professional sweeping comments, some often chosen carefully to affect a certain opinion and 'stunt' sounds far less dignified than 'aerobatics'. And I'm sure nobody would wilfully intend to trivialise what I'm sure are sincere condolences from one and all

By the Way, Salad Dodger,

My comments are simply an observation of yet further poor media presentation, despite the likelihood that they are always speaking to experts. They use simplistic, dramatic and frivolous language when it suits, and don't ever try and interpret my comments on what, I'll grant, is a miner point, as an indication of my immaturity or lack of appreciation for the tragedy which took place on Saturday, you're wrong. Now I don't know if you lost anyone in the accident, if so you have my deepest sympathy, but if this is just you having a pop by trying to represent the opinion and emotion of millions then It's now quite clear to me that you are particularly standoffishly arrogant, I've read your unwarranted vitriol in previous posts against others. Just lighten up and broaden your sense of accommodation.

FB

One photo quite clearly shows pilot slumped fwd in seat prior to impact. Could this be g lock where pilot blacked out? Do these older pilots still undergo strict medicals that allow for high G aerobatics? Same with Gnat in my opinion. Both crashed after performing high g manoeuvres. Look at Reds crash few years back. Same thing. Even happens to the medically fit pros.

I'm surprised that Eric 'Winkle' Brown was reported as having opined that 'pilot-error' was a major contributor to the crash.
I'd thought he was a bit more astute than that.

Have to agree with the comments on so called expert Darren, how could someone with 21 years flying experience reckon he saw the Hunter take off? Thought it flew out of North Weald! I was there on the Beach and heard her transiting from the east then saw her turn and run in to start the display. Thought the runway at Shoreham was too short for a Hunter T7 to land or take off?

The Hunter 7 has a gaseous anti-g system; if that fails unexpectedly you might well grey out. But it's a pretty reliable system and the +g available in the accident manoeuvre would seem to have been less than would cause the pilot to lose consciousness if the anti-g system failed.

However, one video shows wing rock prior to ground impact; to me this would indicate that the pilot was conscious and attempting to recover from the dive.

The 100-ser Avon is prone to compressor surge with rapid throttle movement as the fuel control units are rather primitive. Disturbingly, an accident report into an earlier Hunter F4 accident at Dunsfold included the statement:

(The Dunsfold accident considered that it was possible that the pilot had operated the HP pump isolation switch in error, when reaching for the display smoke switch which had been installed nearby. Unless the throttle is closed when the HPPIS is selected to ISOLATE, this would have caused sufficient overfuelling to destroy the engine very quickly, which would have been obvious to external observers. As there was no such pre-impact fire seen in any of the Shoreham videos, I doubt whether any HPPIS operation had been made in this instance).

Until the AAIB has completed its work, technical cause cannot be ruled out. So those self-professed 'experts' pointing their fingers at aircrew error need to keep open minds whilst the real experts do their sad work. I am also very surprised that Capt. Brown has suggested that pilot error was the cause of this accident.

Nevertheless, pulling to the buffet with a partial loss of thrust would lead to a greater than anticipated rate of descent. If that happens in the last quarter of a looping manoeuvre at low level, chances of recovery to level flight are slim.

Raising the base height for jet aircraft aerobatics by non-military operators would seem reasonable, so I hope that the CAA's initial ban will only apply until a thorough analysis of other options has been completed.