AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G0ULI
Just a quick point about the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Mandatory requirements not met, components beyond mandatory lives, defects not reported, limit exceedances not reported ( and therefore not investigated). I don't deny the aircraft appeared to function correctly but if it did not meet the requirements of its Permit to Fly (AAIB finding) how can it be considered airworthy.
Just a quick point about the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Mandatory requirements not met, components beyond mandatory lives, defects not reported, limit exceedances not reported ( and therefore not investigated). I don't deny the aircraft appeared to function correctly but if it did not meet the requirements of its Permit to Fly (AAIB finding) how can it be considered airworthy.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Initiating a maneouvre at too low an altitude, with too low an airspeed, and too little power on the way up, then a failure to abandon the display program when it became obvious that something had gone very wrong.
I'm sure there's a video on the Tube of You showing the same pilot flying the same display in the same aeroplane a week or two earlier elsewhere. It may be worth a comparison.
I think when Gouli says "airworthy" he means in the sense of "functional - capable of flying in the intended manner" rather than "legally airworthy". In other words none of the issues which may have stopped it being legally airworthy played any part in the accident.
I think that's a fair point TC, in that there's perhaps been an understandable obsession with debate over entry height ( now hopefully put to bed), gates at the top and escape options. IMHO the seconds leading up to the start of the manoeuvre are of just as much interest, certainly if we want to get a full picture of the accident, rather than a snapshot of the one bit that obviously went badly wrong.
...in that there's perhaps been an understandable obsession with debate over entry height ( now hopefully put to bed), gates at the top and escape options. IMHO the seconds leading up to the start of the manoeuvre are of just as much interest, certainly if we want to get a full picture of the accident, rather than a snapshot of the one bit that obviously went badly wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Tay Cough, the low and erratic power settings, abrupt pull up way too early in good weather at a venue familiar to the pilot flying a display he had performed before, then skewing apparently needlessly way off axis in the bent loop and pulling through when obviously too low just doesn't add up for an experienced display pilot.
But little of of this seems to be discussed in any detail the report...
But little of of this seems to be discussed in any detail the report...
Last edited by sika hulmuta; 5th Mar 2017 at 08:14. Reason: spelling and grammar corrections!
One poster states the plane was as well maintained as an ex military plane of this age could be maintained. Another states it did not meet the requirements of its airworthiness certificate. The idea the defects were minor niggles is hard to justify. Whether the condition of the plane was material to this accident or not, the inescapable conclusion is these old fast jets should not be flying.
HP Cock is absolutely correct. The entire purpose of a "Gate" is to make sure you have enough height to complete your intended manoeuvre. It is absolutely fundamental to the continued survival of a LL aerobatic pilot. You MUST make your gate which you have adjusted for airfield elevation and weather. If you don't make it, you must have another plan in place in order to continue your display. Everything else is just noise. If you forget to check (??) then you go to plan "B". You must not carry on regardless.
It "the gate"is absolutely fundamental to the continued survival of a LL aerobatic pilot.
What bothers me is as I said a while back regarding the "top" gate - these weren't minor gate infringements where one might be tempted to "wing it", he was (according to the AAIB) almost 50 knots slow at the start of the manoeuvre (i.e. the pitch up) and around 700 feet low at the top. IMHO something is not quite adding up.
Last edited by wiggy; 5th Mar 2017 at 09:41.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One poster states the plane was as well maintained as an ex military plane of this age could be maintained. Another states it did not meet the requirements of its airworthiness certificate. The idea the defects were minor niggles is hard to justify. Whether the condition of the plane was material to this accident or not, the inescapable conclusion is these old fast jets should not be flying.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I was just paraphrasing bits from the report, specifically the AAIB finding (83 I think) that states the Conditions of the Permit to Fly weren't met. They're in a much better place to make that assessment that I am, and probabley a number of other posters.
Problems with altimeters, degraded seals in the fuel system, preservation procedures not carried out, out of date ejector seat cartridges, ejector seats maintained in a 'home facility', engine over speeds with no remedial action, known defects not documented, maintenance documentation missing, no OEM back up. I agree none of these appear to have materially contributed to the accident, but good reasons not to display fly the plane.
Largely inevitable given the age of the plane and the resources available to maintain it. Martin Baker have voted: no longer safe.
The amount of time the pilots get to practice on type is also, I suspect an issue, and explains why most of the accidents with historic planes listed in the report are described as 'loss of control'.
Largely inevitable given the age of the plane and the resources available to maintain it. Martin Baker have voted: no longer safe.
The amount of time the pilots get to practice on type is also, I suspect an issue, and explains why most of the accidents with historic planes listed in the report are described as 'loss of control'.
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I am saying something already mentioned.
If this pilot was an experienced display pilot, and he missed the entry gate and the top gate, and skewed off the display line, and having missed both gates, did not take evasive action, then he must have become mentally incapacitated in some way? By which I mean befuddled or confused rather than becoming fully unconscious.
Or did his instrumentation tell him he had hit both gates at correct height and speed?
I am not trying to exonerate him, but why else would he have continued the loop attempt?
If this pilot was an experienced display pilot, and he missed the entry gate and the top gate, and skewed off the display line, and having missed both gates, did not take evasive action, then he must have become mentally incapacitated in some way? By which I mean befuddled or confused rather than becoming fully unconscious.
Or did his instrumentation tell him he had hit both gates at correct height and speed?
I am not trying to exonerate him, but why else would he have continued the loop attempt?
CM. If a stude at BFT did similar and claimed to have mis-read his alt by 1000ft due to an obscured readout I'd kick his behind and want to know why he wasn't glancing indoors to monitor the dials during the pull-up of the loop. Apex gate is most certainly not a single 'snapshot' glance indoors. Furthermore, the % difference between 2700ft and 3700ft is huge.
Now say a court of law wants to find a C130 captain not guilty of taking off someone's head due to a faulty rad-alt, then so be it, but to claim that is the actual reason is a very poor excuse. You could apply similar to the 'possibly mis-read' altimeter.
Now say a court of law wants to find a C130 captain not guilty of taking off someone's head due to a faulty rad-alt, then so be it, but to claim that is the actual reason is a very poor excuse. You could apply similar to the 'possibly mis-read' altimeter.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In an ivory tower
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another close call
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lonan
Age: 74
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have a capable chap who appears to have acted not so well, partial incapacity would fit this frame. As an old and bold Doc I was interested in the fact that the pilot spoke 'yes' to the paramedic, then was put in an induced coma. Perhaps a lingering symptom of his incapacity may have led the hospital doctors to think it due to the crash injury. Induced comas are not done lightly, yet our man walked out a couple of days later.
The doctor recalled that the pilot, when asked if he felt unwell before the crash, replied “yes”. The investigation could not establish if the
pilot understood the intent of this exchange, in what way he might have felt
unwell, or if this was his answer.
pilot understood the intent of this exchange, in what way he might have felt
unwell, or if this was his answer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The doctor recalled that the pilot, when asked if he felt unwell before the crash, replied “yes”. The investigation could not establish if the
pilot understood the intent of this exchange, in what way he might have felt
unwell, or if this was his answer.
pilot understood the intent of this exchange, in what way he might have felt
unwell, or if this was his answer.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: sussex
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they are going to play the ''temporarily incapacitated'' card as his defence, it's gonna be very handy for him to start remembering some stuff
there are some very angry people in this part of world who won't give him that much benefit of the doubt I'm afraid
you've flown all the way from Essex perfectly OK, you've a bit of previous for showboating at displays, we need an explanation as to why you were disastrously too low to start with
and it ain't looking good
there are some very angry people in this part of world who won't give him that much benefit of the doubt I'm afraid
you've flown all the way from Essex perfectly OK, you've a bit of previous for showboating at displays, we need an explanation as to why you were disastrously too low to start with
and it ain't looking good