S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
I too am impressed with the restraint showed by JT. Ironically, it is georgeeipi's post that is screwed up, as well as childish and plain old rude. Even more importantly, the reason for this thread, as FP mentions, is directly the result of the deaths of two people, which places g......pi's post past the disrespectful toward the abhorrent.
No one has pointed anything out that I said that was rude. And I quite clearly said I wasn't criticizing the pilot but asking the question what would WE do now with that lesson.
Say what you like, believe what you want. And then claim to be professional. Sure thing.
In contrast, the damage to the wing of Viper 2 appeared to be much more superficial from the photos shown in the report.
No no, I do get that it's nowt to do with actually flying in formation - we can all do that solo afterall - and that the PIC of Viper 1 needed to fly with a Safety Pilot due his C2, but surely an Ex-Mil jet pilot, as the SP is reported to be, would understand that when you're flying formation one of the main goals is to avoid swapping paint, so the front seater flies, the back seater monitors the wingman's rejoin. If you're a safety pilot, that close to another airplane and you're not actually watching it, I'm curious as to what they were doing?
It seemed like a relatively straight forward sequence when it was explained in the video and you’d wonder how you could make a mistake, however in some of their videos online they were conducted a lot faster than I personally envisioned. You’d need to see the actual video to get a true understanding.
I’m guessing that the extent of the damage indicates a collision at a high speed of convergence as otherwise you’d think it would simply brush off the other aircraft. It really has torn a hell of a hole in the wing.
I’m guessing that the extent of the damage indicates a collision at a high speed of convergence as otherwise you’d think it would simply brush off the other aircraft. It really has torn a hell of a hole in the wing.
It seemed like a relatively straight forward sequence when it was explained in the video
When you pass directly underneath, there is limited scope to assess vertical closure, which appears to have happened in this case. Certainly not something you'd try unbriefed.
The following 4 users liked this post by josephfeatherweight:
I’m guessing that the extent of the damage indicates a collision at a high speed of convergence as otherwise you’d think it would simply brush off the other aircraft. It really has torn a hell of a hole in the wing.
ASA 529 is a good example, where a propeller failed on an EMB-120. It partially broke off and lodged sideways deforming the engine cowl and leading edges, enough that the aircraft could not even achieve a reasonable shallow descent with MCP on the live engine and had to ditch in a forest clearing. Compared to the two SAAB 340 events where propellers completely separated and fell clear of the airframe with minor damage and crew reported fairly good performance on one engine and landed without incident.
Last edited by 43Inches; 18th Jan 2024 at 01:02.
The rate of vertical closure can be estimated between photos B and D of the third pass, then add the rate of roll.
The following users liked this post:
Even so, if the rate of convergence was 'high' then the probability of severe damage to the other aircraft would also have been high. I do not think it was a large shunt, just very unlucky for the downed aircraft in the mechanism involved and the relative contact points. Obviously there must have been some decent amount of convergence to create the damage, but considering the load on the surviving aircraft was akin to negative load to the spar and structure, it can't have been a big hit. Considering the paint and damage to the surviving aircraft was on the top surface, (whilst inverted) then the wings must have collided, slid against each other then as the contact continued it's ripped part of the leading edge and wing tip downward, to create the damage observed. I'm no expert on it, but just what it looks like to me from the pictures. I suppose the natural reaction would make the situation worse, by wanting to roll away from the other aircraft, which would increase contact.
I had to add that, some seem to think that opinions on an anonymous forum are somehow experts challenging each other.
BTW, my original comment was that it does not need to be high speed contact, not that it wasn't. It was not stating that they are wrong, just that it might not be the case and my reasoning.
BTW, my original comment was that it does not need to be high speed contact, not that it wasn't. It was not stating that they are wrong, just that it might not be the case and my reasoning.
For the purposes of the filming sequence avoidance of collision would have been Viper2's responsibility, since he was the one doing the maneuvering to get the film "shot".
Flying formation one intransgressable rule was "Never take your eyes off lead", similarly in this case it would have been Viper2's responsibility never to take his eyes off Viper1.
Even with eyes on one can make errors of judgement - closure rates.
Flying formation one intransgressable rule was "Never take your eyes off lead", similarly in this case it would have been Viper2's responsibility never to take his eyes off Viper1.
Even with eyes on one can make errors of judgement - closure rates.
On the face of it, it sounds crazy that if you’re underneath and looking up that they could have even come close to the inverted one, let alone hit it.
I’m betting that if the footage is ever released it will show a high speed re-positioning manoeuvre.
I’m betting that if the footage is ever released it will show a high speed re-positioning manoeuvre.
All we know so far from the report;
From that, and the images it seems V2 simply pitched up too early before they were clear and made wingtip contact, it mentions banking left, but it had hardly started that from the pictures. The pictures seem to indicate V2 started from behind abeam, meaning V1 had limited sighting, probably even less so hanging inverted. So V2 moved from behind abeam, underneath and then pitched up and a shallow bank as they moved from underneath.
That might be part of the issue, the pilot of V1 is probably 100% focused on flying inverted level, with the safety on lookout, no external distractions to his flying. V2 has a camera operator/safety, who is filming, so the pilot is flying the manoeuvre and looking up for the separation aspect, we all know the body follows the eyes/head movement, ie you go where you look, if you are not careful, so it is very easy to impart rearward movement on the controls each time you look up, especially considering how far you'd have to tilt your head to observe an aircraft directly above you.
I've done similar manoeuvres underneath aircraft in formation, albeit much slower machines and not involving an inverted aircraft, and were quite conscious that the lead was maintaining straight and level ahead, as they had no sighting on us, and that we had outs, as well as moved well clear before attempting movement towards/through the targets level.
It might just come down to a 'went off plan' accident, where everything to be done was briefed and discussed and then V1 has decided to vary the play book and a few critical things were not thrashed out.
In any case it looks like the ATSB has a lot of information on this accident, and the final report should be fairly thorough with lots of answers.
As with the previous attempt, Viper 2 moved rearward to allow Viper 1 to roll inverted. As Viper 1 stabilised in the inverted attitude (panel A in Figure 4), Viper 2 began manoeuvring to pass beneath Viper 1 (panel B in Figure 4). Viper 1 then stabilised in the inverted attitude and as Viper 2 approached, the vertical separation between the 2 aircraft reduced. Viper 2 passed beneath and began to pitch up and bank away from Viper 1 (panel C in Figure 4). At 1333, as Viper 2 climbed and banked left, the right wings of each aircraft collided (panel D in Figure 4)..
On the face of it, it sounds crazy that if you’re underneath and looking up that they could have even come close to the inverted one, let alone hit it.
I've done similar manoeuvres underneath aircraft in formation, albeit much slower machines and not involving an inverted aircraft, and were quite conscious that the lead was maintaining straight and level ahead, as they had no sighting on us, and that we had outs, as well as moved well clear before attempting movement towards/through the targets level.
It might just come down to a 'went off plan' accident, where everything to be done was briefed and discussed and then V1 has decided to vary the play book and a few critical things were not thrashed out.
In any case it looks like the ATSB has a lot of information on this accident, and the final report should be fairly thorough with lots of answers.
Without knowing what was briefed or the specifics of what actually happened here, I’ll add that this type of flying isn’t the time to be making it up as you go along.
The following 4 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
Holy c rap. Never seen that footage before.
Was there actual contact? The shudder suggests so but not the in frame visual. Or was the shudder wake?
Was there actual contact? The shudder suggests so but not the in frame visual. Or was the shudder wake?
Old thread here
https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/469304-nah-really.html
One problem with photographic work is the photographer asking the pilot to do something to get a better shot which encroaches on safety, the pilot needs to have the spine to offer an alternative or refuse the request, has caused accidents in the past, nothing new.
https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/469304-nah-really.html
One problem with photographic work is the photographer asking the pilot to do something to get a better shot which encroaches on safety, the pilot needs to have the spine to offer an alternative or refuse the request, has caused accidents in the past, nothing new.
The following 2 users liked this post by megan:
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Rolleston
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?
Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?
"As Viper 1 stabilised in the inverted attitude (panel A in Figure 4), Viper 2 began manoeuvring to pass beneath Viper 1 (panel B in Figure 4). Viper 1 then stabilised in the inverted attitude and as Viper 2 approached, the vertical separation between the 2 aircraft reduced."