AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re cockpit camera/IAS
Can I refer you to read the AAIB report section 1.11.13 starting on page 40 and the following pages where the presence of the cockpit cameras and smartphones is extensively described.
Can I refer you to read the AAIB report section 1.11.13 starting on page 40 and the following pages where the presence of the cockpit cameras and smartphones is extensively described.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
funfly,
Found this. Same pilot, same aircraft, a couple of weeks earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P2TV2HZUss
Is there any (photographic) record of the same pilot performing the same procedure previously, this in order to ascertain if he had previously always operated within the correct parameters i.e. heights and speeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P2TV2HZUss
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report concludes that the ASI readings were accurate and in broad agreement with estimates generated by camera footage from inside the cockpit and the ground. One of the altimeters may have been sticking and lagging, but this would result in the altimeter under reading at the top of the loop, showing the aircraft to be even lower than was actually the case. This makes it even more puzzling why the loop was continued after the apex.
Camera recordings of previous flights indicate that the pilot did not fly the display sequences as accurately as might be desired. There appears to have been a tendency to fly manoeuvers a bit lower than the ideal. So something of a habitual pushing of the limits? Makes for more exciting viewing from the ground, but no room for error if things go wrong, as they did at Shoreham.
Camera recordings of previous flights indicate that the pilot did not fly the display sequences as accurately as might be desired. There appears to have been a tendency to fly manoeuvers a bit lower than the ideal. So something of a habitual pushing of the limits? Makes for more exciting viewing from the ground, but no room for error if things go wrong, as they did at Shoreham.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dsc 810 --
https://assets.publishing.service.go...017_G-BXFI.pdf
I don't see anything there that confirms the indicated airspeed. Maybe I'm missing something?
Re cockpit camera/IAS
Can I refer you to read the AAIB report section 1.11.13 starting on page 40 and the following pages where the presence of the cockpit cameras and smartphones is extensively described.
Can I refer you to read the AAIB report section 1.11.13 starting on page 40 and the following pages where the presence of the cockpit cameras and smartphones is extensively described.
I don't see anything there that confirms the indicated airspeed. Maybe I'm missing something?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From section 1.12.2.2 of the AAIB report:
"Documentation was retrieved from the pockets of the pilot’s anti-g trousers and
flying suit including hand-written notes, a number of checklists and a copy of
one of the display maps for the 2015 Shoreham Airshow. Documentation in
the transparent knee-pockets, which would have been visible to the pilot during
the flight, included a checklist and a hand-drawn diagram. This diagram was
not specific to the display routine performed by the pilot at the 2015 Shoreham
Airshow; video evidence indicated this same diagram had been visible in the
pilot’s knee-pocket during a previous flight (see Section 1.11.7.5).
The pilot had annotated one of the display maps for the 2015 Shoreham Airshow
(see Figure 17) with the sequence of manoeuvres he intended to fly during the
display, and other reference information such as relevant frequencies; this was
found folded in a separate pocket, and would not have been visible to the pilot during the flight."
This makes for difficult reading. Having read it a few times I have come to the conclusion that the so called documents whilst on a previous flight being placed in the transparent knee pockets of his flight overalls, were not on the occasion of the accident flight in the same position so as to be visible during flight. Moreover his notes were not specific to the routine actually flown during the display.
Why were these not placed as before in a position of sight, why did they differ from that which he actually carried out.
"Documentation was retrieved from the pockets of the pilot’s anti-g trousers and
flying suit including hand-written notes, a number of checklists and a copy of
one of the display maps for the 2015 Shoreham Airshow. Documentation in
the transparent knee-pockets, which would have been visible to the pilot during
the flight, included a checklist and a hand-drawn diagram. This diagram was
not specific to the display routine performed by the pilot at the 2015 Shoreham
Airshow; video evidence indicated this same diagram had been visible in the
pilot’s knee-pocket during a previous flight (see Section 1.11.7.5).
The pilot had annotated one of the display maps for the 2015 Shoreham Airshow
(see Figure 17) with the sequence of manoeuvres he intended to fly during the
display, and other reference information such as relevant frequencies; this was
found folded in a separate pocket, and would not have been visible to the pilot during the flight."
This makes for difficult reading. Having read it a few times I have come to the conclusion that the so called documents whilst on a previous flight being placed in the transparent knee pockets of his flight overalls, were not on the occasion of the accident flight in the same position so as to be visible during flight. Moreover his notes were not specific to the routine actually flown during the display.
Why were these not placed as before in a position of sight, why did they differ from that which he actually carried out.
"The entry airspeed of 310 KIAS +/- 15 kt was 25 - 55 KIAS less than the declared nominal value of 350 KIAS."
"The airspeed at the apex of the manoeuvre was 105 +/-2 KIAS which was at the very bottom of his stated acceptable airspeed range."
There is also a graph on Page 46 that plots IAS and several other parameters against time for the last 80 seconds of the flight.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This youtube video is taken at Shoreham the year before the accident (2014).
Same aircraft, same airshow but a different pilot, Chris Heames.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlB4PaoaHNk
Same aircraft, same airshow but a different pilot, Chris Heames.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlB4PaoaHNk
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So practically what is the answer to avoiding this in furture ?
I remember the F4 crash at Abingdon, the blue angels F18, the thunderbird F16 - -all caused I think by not making the gate at the top. Why is such a fundamental check not being effectively carried out ? Surely it is most definitely a matter of life and death.
And for currency how about just one complex jet type for displays - that way you won't forget what you are in.
As for the issue of prosecution, I can't really see a scenario where the pilot won't be ?
I remember the F4 crash at Abingdon, the blue angels F18, the thunderbird F16 - -all caused I think by not making the gate at the top. Why is such a fundamental check not being effectively carried out ? Surely it is most definitely a matter of life and death.
And for currency how about just one complex jet type for displays - that way you won't forget what you are in.
As for the issue of prosecution, I can't really see a scenario where the pilot won't be ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Reid -- Yup, I'd read that but there is something odd here. The GoPro was stated earlier in the report to have had a partly-obscured view of the ASI.
In Appendix H (5) page 301 of the report it is stated:
This begs the question what did the needle show during the manoeuvre and what was the actual airspeed? I suspect that the speeds have been correlated to the videos and are probably a matter of fact. However the pilot might have been misled and of course would have been relying on his primary ASI.
Perhaps I'm being dense or missing something. I probably am, it's hardly likely the AAIB would make such an assumption unless they were certain. However, as an engineer I automatically feel uneasy when people make assumptions.
In Appendix H (5) page 301 of the report it is stated:
Discussion of airspeeds in this report are based upon the values assumed at the time of the data gathering flying.
Perhaps I'm being dense or missing something. I probably am, it's hardly likely the AAIB would make such an assumption unless they were certain. However, as an engineer I automatically feel uneasy when people make assumptions.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pages 59-60
The lefthand ASI had the glass broken in the crash but was found to still be in operational condition. It tested within specification on a test bench.
The righthand ASI was slightly out of spec, but only by a couple of knots.
I leave you to consult the report for details and procedures used. Appendix A has the details.
No assumptions by the AAIB. Both ASIs were essentially serviceable and speeds recorded on the GoPro were in broad agreement with those derived and calculated from video footage taken from the ground.
There is no reason to doubt that the airspeed displayed on the primary display being used by the pilot was inaccurate.
The altimeter being used as a primary reference may have been lagging and showing a lower height than the aircraft actually achieved at the apex of the loop due to age and mechanical friction in the mechanism.
The lefthand ASI had the glass broken in the crash but was found to still be in operational condition. It tested within specification on a test bench.
The righthand ASI was slightly out of spec, but only by a couple of knots.
I leave you to consult the report for details and procedures used. Appendix A has the details.
No assumptions by the AAIB. Both ASIs were essentially serviceable and speeds recorded on the GoPro were in broad agreement with those derived and calculated from video footage taken from the ground.
There is no reason to doubt that the airspeed displayed on the primary display being used by the pilot was inaccurate.
The altimeter being used as a primary reference may have been lagging and showing a lower height than the aircraft actually achieved at the apex of the loop due to age and mechanical friction in the mechanism.
Last edited by G0ULI; 7th Mar 2017 at 02:08.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read through the entire report, it presents a rather scathing critique of the air display industry generally, with inadequate considerations of safety, aircraft being enthusiastically maintained but with serious lapses in technical knowledge, frequent continued use of time expired components, display approval being granted for a variety of aircraft after a revalidation check on only one type, and a lot of behind the scenes, undocumented, old boy network exemptions being granted to enable aircraft to continue flying. Frequent breaches of crowd separation rules, over flying rules, minimum display altitudes and departure from previously notified routines appear to have been so common as to be unremarkable in most instances.
In this particular instance, the aircraft was essentially airworthy (from a practical if not strictly legal viewpoint), but the pilot appears to have no backup plan in mind for an escape manoeuvre when the aircraft did not achieve the expected loop apex height and speed. As the human factors report states, although there was a four second window after the loop apex in which to roll the aircraft upright, that timescale only allows the manoeuver to be completed successfully if it is instinctive. Otherwise the complex thought needed to figure out the best escape plan, because something unexpected has happened, eats up the available four seconds. It is then more probable that a pilot will freeze at the controls and attempt to complete the manoeuvre even though the aircraft is likely to crash.
It is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than this incident was simply a tragic case of pilot error. Given the benefit of hindsight and several hours of contemplation and reading it is easy to see how the crash could have been avoided, but four seconds is all the pilot had.
In this particular instance, the aircraft was essentially airworthy (from a practical if not strictly legal viewpoint), but the pilot appears to have no backup plan in mind for an escape manoeuvre when the aircraft did not achieve the expected loop apex height and speed. As the human factors report states, although there was a four second window after the loop apex in which to roll the aircraft upright, that timescale only allows the manoeuver to be completed successfully if it is instinctive. Otherwise the complex thought needed to figure out the best escape plan, because something unexpected has happened, eats up the available four seconds. It is then more probable that a pilot will freeze at the controls and attempt to complete the manoeuvre even though the aircraft is likely to crash.
It is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than this incident was simply a tragic case of pilot error. Given the benefit of hindsight and several hours of contemplation and reading it is easy to see how the crash could have been avoided, but four seconds is all the pilot had.
Last edited by G0ULI; 7th Mar 2017 at 02:44.
"Mr Heames, from Stamford, Lincolnshire, is one of Britain's most experienced pilots with more than 13,500 flying hours including 6,000 in fast jets and 3,500 in gliders.
He said he flew the Hawker Hunter jet at the event last year and said he had no concerns about safety there.
'It very clear where you have to fly and it's very carefully planned,' he said. 'I flew the same plane at the same event last year and the year before. I have no concerns over safety there.'"
Revealed: Shoreham crash pilot was only flying the plane after swapping with colleague who had booked a holiday
Yup, I'd read that but there is something odd here. The GoPro was stated earlier in the report to have had a partly-obscured view of the ASI.
This begs the question what did the needle show during the manoeuvre and what was the actual airspeed? I suspect that the speeds have been correlated to the videos and are probably a matter of fact. However the pilot might have been misled and of course would have been relying on his primary ASI.
This begs the question what did the needle show during the manoeuvre and what was the actual airspeed? I suspect that the speeds have been correlated to the videos and are probably a matter of fact. However the pilot might have been misled and of course would have been relying on his primary ASI.
"Estimated errors associated with reading partially obscured ASI:
0-250 KIAS: 2KIAS
250-275 KIAS: 5 KIAS
275-410 KIAS: 15 KIAS"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So practically what is the answer to avoiding this in furture ?
I don't know - might be a starter for ten - assuming it doesn't breach some poor pilot's human rights....
If the media do read this pages, I really wish they pick up on, not the speculation, but the incredibly blasé attitude some aviation "professionals" have for one of their members making a total hash of something and wiping out 11 lives.
hey ho....
We know the "what", we haven't really really have not got any closer to is "why".
It is one thing being blasé (aka "gash") doing aeros, especially at medium level, it is a completely different matter IMHO being about 800 feet low at the top of the loop during a low level display.
It is one thing being blasé (aka "gash") doing aeros, especially at medium level, it is a completely different matter IMHO being about 800 feet low at the top of the loop during a low level display.
Last edited by wiggy; 7th Mar 2017 at 07:54.