|
If I may quote Rhymenoceros to get this back to a nuts and bolts discussion ...
Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL. Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. {sic} Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft. @legalapproach: thanks, great post. |
Worth watching the vid of Mark Hannah in his Duxford Hunter display at post #91. He describes the Duxford site as small for the Hunter, makes pull-ups with full power, flys no loops, does 1/2 Cubans with 200+ over the top and generally seems to fly with plenty of spare energy.
OAP |
Originally Posted by Treble one
(Post 10412806)
However, on the balance of probability, and given that the pilot hadnt suffered an eposide like this before during flying numerous aerobatic manoeuvres, over many years, makes it seem like a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
On the balance of probabilities is the criterion in civil cases. There just may be one in the offing. |
Never met an RAF Pilot displaying a FJ who had flown such a paltry number of hours. To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry. Im not arguing anything about the manoeuvre at Southport. You incorrectly referred to it as a D Turn; it wasn't ! |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10412611)
I had a similar experience at Gatwick last year, having arrived from a long-haul flight ... which I do several times a year without even thinking about it. Left Arrivals for a kerbside cigarette in the Smoking Zone, and suddenly just folded up gracefully to the floor ... my descent being controlled by the OH. It came out of nowhere, and not encountered before or since. SCARY. Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again.. |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10412528)
I’m not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with your post. I agree it was an accident. AH never set out to hurt anyone. However, I don’t consider him blameless. Of course he didn't set out to kill anyone. He set out to provide a stunning display to the best of his abilities. The relatives will not accept that it was just 'one of things that happen'. |
Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again. Despite throwing medical insurance at it, with brain scans etc - nothing found, so expensive (but not to me!) consultants said "probably a virus infection of the inner ear - it'll go away". (Which I understand to be docspeak for "haven't a f'ing clue mate"). Happened 3 or 4 times since, but I can now see it coming - it's the "seasickness" following it that's most annoying though. But I've "hung up my Gosport tubes" for a while, perhaps for keeps..... :-( How's THAT for thread drift!! |
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill. From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it. For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions. I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility. That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the bereaved. |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10412894)
Worth watching the vid of Mark Hannah in his Duxford Hunter display at post #91. He describes the Duxford site as small for the Hunter, makes pull-ups with full power, flys no loops, does 1/2 Cubans with 200+ over the top and generally seems to fly with plenty of spare energy.
OAP |
Originally Posted by jindabyne
(Post 10413550)
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
. I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility. That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the bereaved. |
Originally Posted by jindabyne
(Post 10413550)
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
. I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility. That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the bereaved. I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant). My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation. There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility. |
teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear. Google it - it can be treated with simple exercises.
|
Originally Posted by DODGYOLDFART
(Post 10413559)
Excellent display by Mark H (RIP) but do bare in mind that he was flying a fighter version of the Hunter ( F6 or later) which had more power than the T7.
|
Originally Posted by The Nip
(Post 10413671)
Jindabyne, I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant). My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation. There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility. In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture. |
teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear. That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right! |
Originally Posted by VerdunLuck
(Post 10413724)
The term "accident" has a special and precise written meaning in air law which defines exactly what is (and isn't) an accident that requires investigation.
In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture. If nothing else, it causes confusion on web forums, accidentally of course! |
Had the pilot been killed in this accident there would have been no trial and he would no doubt have been responsible for what happened. AAIB Report.
Surely, you cant have it both ways? |
fortunately quite close to the village Doctors' Surgery!https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif |
Originally Posted by 3wheels
(Post 10413849)
Had the pilot been killed in this accident there would have been no trial and he would no doubt have been responsible for what happened. AAIB Report.
Surely, you cant have it both ways? I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented. For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel.... Thank you to all who helped and supported #AndyHill with his defence in the #ShorehamAirCrash. A tragic case for everyone involved but it was my privilege to have represented such a remarkable man. Our thoughts are with the families who lost their loved ones. Karim Khalil QC Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board. Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending. |
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
(Post 10413760)
Thanks Meikleour.
That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right! it is also worth getting the ticker checked out especially if you have seniority- hypotension on standing is not unusual and not always or even commonly related to the inner ear . Worth a read if you have time https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20352548 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.