Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

Old 9th Mar 2017, 06:47
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Homsap,

John Farley didn't say that AH was not negligent. He just offered a possible explanation which to me, having no FJ experience, seems the most plausible I have read on here.

Of course AH knew he was flying a Hunter. But sometimes we get distracted and 'revert to type' and am sure we can all think of many situations where that has occurred, albeit with little consequence to ourselves or others.
Parson is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 09:14
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 79
Posts: 543
Received 35 Likes on 15 Posts
The notion that there was confusion between a Hunter and a JP is preposterous. The cockpits are very different, control columns are different, no brake lever on the JP totally different windscreens etc. Etc.

305 knots is WAY above the speed needed to loop a JP, it could, with care, be looped at 140 knots with the gear down, but 240, 250 knots was more than enough.

Technique on the JP was to go to full power, apply 4 g initially and then check for a straight pull by ensuring the tip tanks were equidistant from the horizon, Hunter doesn't have tip tanks and the wing tips are well behind you.

That way the recovery height could easily be above start height and the gate height WOULD be achieved, and one could also tighten the loop on the way down by pulling to the buffet or 5.5 g whichever came first and complete the loop HIGHER than start height.

As for throttle friction, another red herring, his hand would have been on the throttle during aeros and if rpm had reduced as suspected, known, there would have been a noticeable reduction in thrust, another reason to throw it away and roll out at the top.

As for confusing the start height of 190 feet for 500 feet is also preposterous for an experienced pilot, regardless of altimeter readings.

Someone mentioned the effect of age on G tolerance, it certainly is a factor. In my youth,, as a JP. QFI I could sit through max. rate turns at 5.5 G without a g suit, no problem!

In my 50s I flew a couple of trips in the Hawk, what a difference even keeping a lookout going was very hard work, even 3 g in a Spitfire recently felt very different !

Sorry guys, the suggestion of confusion is impossible , for me at least, to swallow.
RetiredBA/BY is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 11:40
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Anyone had a hard read through of Appendix H (the flight tests).

I'm struggling a bit with the comments that:

The 'bent' loop tests indicated that the apex height and airspeed of the accident manoeuvre was consistent with a maximum performance pull-up from 300 KIAS with significantly less than full thrust and with a 45-90 bend initiated approximately 5 seconds after pull-up They also showed that the apex height for a 'bent' loop was 300 - 400 ft less than for a straight loop when all of the other parameters remained constant.
But on the TP flying bent loops the report states "The pull-ups were flown in light buffet throughout " (so presumably this was what was meant by max performance and was perhaps the TPs only way of replicating the accident manouever "numbers")

Why would anyone entering the botttom of a vertical manouevre at low level knowingly low on energy deliberately fly the pich up from the get go manoeuver in the buffet?

Last edited by wiggy; 9th Mar 2017 at 14:20.
wiggy is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 11:59
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,881
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
Sorry guys, the suggestion of confusion is impossible , for me at least, to swallow
Given your background, any idea why those gates might have been missed or ignored? Were/what human factors might have been in play? Because that's what it seems to boil down to, given a serviceable aircraft.

I note from the report,
The AAIB was not able to obtain a comprehensive insight into the use of gate heights by display pilots. However, two pilots other than the accident pilot, who had relevant military and fast jet experience and were interviewed in the course of the investigation, volunteered that they had used an incorrect gate height during a display, or omitted to check a gate height
megan is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 12:03
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Silly question - if AH thought there was a problem with the altimeter or ASI could he have made adjustments mentally. ie if he believed it was under reading by a few hundred feet, made a mental adjustment to compensate.


Only asking as there appears to be no questioning any other pilot that had flown the aircraft in the last 2-3 months as to whether they had experienced malfunctions or had tech issues with the aircraft and if so had they reported them to the maintenance company either verbally or in writing.


Only because say for the last flight AH had undertaken in BXFI the altimeter had been under reading by 500ft or so and had now been 'fixed' but nothing recorded AH may have added the extra to compensate. Which would mean he thought he had reached the min gate height.


Also, how easy is it for a Hunter pilot to tell if the throttle is not performing at full thrust. Could AH easily tell by the feel/sound and speed at the time without even looking at the instruments.


I agree the maintenance companies since 2010 need questioning more and a more in depth audit of them is required, I doubt very much that any of them have qualified aircraft personnel working for them. My understanding of the historic jet society is most of it is undertaken by aircraft enthusiasts with little or no aircraft back-grounds.
Hebog is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 13:27
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,102
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Posted by Homsap
The CAA real have lost the plot. The minimun qualification for a fast jet display pilot should be they hold or have held an ATPL, class one medical every six months regardless of age. You have a point regarding G forces and I'm not sure if there is research on this, but I do wonder if G forces is an issue with age.Tthere was no mention of corrective vision in the report which is odd, as I would imagine most people over fifty needs some form of corrective vision.
page 12 Para 1.51 of the report

Licence: Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence / Private Pilot’s Licence
Aircraft Rating: Aircraft Type Rating Exemption3
valid to 27 August 2015
Medical Certificate: Class 1 medical certificate valid to 31 January 2016

Widger is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 14:17
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Wiggy,

Appendix H states the altitudes, AUM and density altitudes of all tests flown. 'Flown in light buffet' is equivalent to a 'maximum performance pull up'. The best instantaneous turn/pitch rate is achieved when flying in light buffet in a Hunter.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 14:51
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
LOMCEVAK

Understand the above, though it's probably more the instantaneous vs. sustained manoeuver cpabaility in the vertical I'm intersted in - I'm certainly aware that pulling to the light buffet ( or on some types a tgt AOA) will certainly give you best instantaneous rate but I know that it's probable/possible on many types you'll end up bleeding energy off holding the said buffet ....now if you are "energy rich" at the start of the manoeuver I guess that's OK but if entering low on energy to start with on a Hunter is it a sensible thing to knowingly do? I haven't done low level aeros so I'll throw that one open to the team.

Anyhow I'll go and have another look at the Appendix.

Last edited by wiggy; 9th Mar 2017 at 15:11.
wiggy is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 15:07
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Widger....

I appreciate AH exceeded what I would expect to be a reasonable licence, medical and hours criteria, the comment was made towards the CAA as a regulator in that they felt at the time, that KW (Gnat accident G-TIMM) was suitably qualified, experienced and felt that a class two medical was suitable for display flying a JP or Gnat. It also raises questions that display organisations would even consider someone relatively little experience.
Homsap is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 15:21
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where is this mythical Jet Provost that could actually achieve 305KIAS from a slowly descending turn at sea level?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 16:39
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 461
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by n305fa
BVCU
"so where now would they find the expertise now ? "
How about Bristol, were the design team, tech support and incident investigation was based, EK was just an overhaul facility, all operational issues and investigation was (and still is) carried out from Bristol. RR are probably the only organisation with access to engine performance data. I think this was demonstrated on the appendix to the report
if you read what went on with Vulcan OEM support and Concorde you'll see this is a very difficult area to find expertise now , my time on Hunters ended in 87 and the knowledge available then wasn't good from them as there was no interest in anything old !
bvcu is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 16:49
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Hebog looking at your forum profile I suspect that you're not an aviator but maybe have some personal connection with this tragedy. No, your question isn't "silly" in the least.

Altimeter -- This simply measures atmospheric pressure just like a barometer at home. But instead of being calibrated in inches of mercury or millibars, the display is calibrated in feet of altitude. It's a linear relationship near ground level up to many thousands of feet. However, when we say 'altitude' we have to ask "altitude above WHAT?". The hills? The sea level? The runway?

For this reason an aircraft altimeter has an adjuster knob. When the pilot is about to start his engines he asks the control tower for the actual pressure on the airfield, in millibars. He then dials that setting into the altimeter and he expects it to read (nearly) zero. If it doesn't, he will not fly because the altimeter is the second most important instrument he has. Airspeed is arguably more important. This is drummed into student pilots from their very first lesson -- it is inconceivable that anyone would fly unless their altimeter zeroed on the airfield. It gets a little bit more involved after the pilot takes off but I think you can safely assume that the altimeter zeroed fine at take-off. This aircraft had two altimeters and there was a small difference between them but not a significant difference. -- There is no reason to think that the small difference had any bearing on the accident.

To answer your specific question whether the pilot could or would have mentally compensated for an altitude error the answer is NO. The pilot would adjust the altimeter, not carry out mental adjustments. Why would he? He has a knob he can use to set it to whatever he likes.

Sorry I can't help you with your other questions. I'm sure an experienced display pilot will help to explain.
Lemain is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 17:51
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but if entering low on energy to start with on a Hunter is it a sensible thing to knowingly do? I haven't done low level aeros so I'll throw that one open to the team.
I refer to my post #40

I used to practice low level loops in a 102 series Avon Hunter and I can confirm the following.

500ft AGL entry, 300kts, 1 notch of flap, full internal fuel and application of full power throughout results in a very comfortable recovery about 800ft AGL. In the aircraft I was flying anyway.

it does need sympathetic handling, as pulling to heavy buffet in the pull up, or less than max thrust obviously results in a degraded recovery height. I used to practice that, as it was my bottom line for loop entry.

it is possible to loop slower, but I wouldn't advise it at low level.
sika hulmuta is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 17:56
  #394 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,537
Received 219 Likes on 133 Posts
Sika, what height/speed would you be looking for over the top?
treadigraph is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 18:57
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At 12:00 Hrs on 3 March, Sussex Police released a press notice announcing they will be looking at the report in detail with their independent experts and do to everything they can to submit a file to the CPS in advance of the pre-inquest review on June 20.
The full text of the press release is at :
https://sussex.police.uk/news/sussex...ham-air-crash/
Chronus is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 19:38
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,169
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Lemain - oh, dear...
However, when we say 'altitude' we have to ask "altitude above WHAT?". The hills? The sea level? The runway?
Do you seriously believe that the term altitude can relate to any of those datums?
2 sheds is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 20:15
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronus
At 12:00 Hrs on 3 March, Sussex Police released a press notice announcing they will be looking at the report in detail with their independent experts and do to everything they can to submit a file to the CPS in advance of the pre-inquest review on June 20.
The full text of the press release is at :
https://sussex.police.uk/news/sussex...ham-air-crash/
Reported at the time: Sussex Police to review the Air Accident Investigation Branch's report into the Shoreham air crash
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2017, 22:22
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Sika


it does need sympathetic handling, as pulling to heavy buffet in the pull up, or less than max thrust obviously results in a degraded recovery height. I used to practice that, as it was my bottom line for loop entry.

it is possible to loop slower, but I wouldn't advise it at low level.
Makes sense, many thanks.
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2017, 04:46
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
treadigraph:
Sika, what height/speed would you be looking for over the top?
Min 3800 ft, speed above 110kts unloaded. 4000ft+ usually achieved.

Basically the Hunter at these weights has sufficient power for the manoeuvre, so wherever you find yourself, as long as you haven't washed energy off needlessly on the way up and keep pushing energy in, if it goes over the top, it will come out the bottom at or better than your entry height. If it looks like you aren't going to go over the top because you are too slow, you can always use the old combat manoeuvre of dropping flap 4 to help the nose down, unload and roll out when the nose is below the horizon again.

Its not like flying something like a small engined Slingsby T67, Fuji or 150 aerobat where you loose energy in the overall manoeuvre, no matter how you fly it.

The Hunter is without reservation, the most beautiful machine I have ever flown, and is almost (but not totally) vice-less. The initial design and subsequent development produced something that make it an amazing pilot's machine.
sika hulmuta is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2017, 07:24
  #400 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,537
Received 219 Likes on 133 Posts
Thank you Sika.
treadigraph is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.