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 18th Mar 2017, 14:28
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
I have no wish to see the pilot un-necessarily denigrated or picked over in public, but I have to say that there is absolutely no evidence of cognitive impairment or incapacity to be a contributory factor in this accident.


This is almost getting silly to be honest. Just because an experienced pilot appears to have made a catalogue of uncharacteristic errors during a flying display, which you maybe wouldn't expect, then everyone rushes to say that he was impaired or incapacitated.


Maybe he had a bad day? Maybe he was complacent? Maybe he was ill prepared? Maybe he made a series of errors of judgement?


Could that not be it?
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 14:49
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Hum

You're probably right.
In my view the rather extraordinary combo of TIA, uncommanded reduction in power, too little margin for error.
The few hours on type didn't help. Although he had been to Bruntingthorpe 2 weeks beforehand.

HP
If you go in slow and low I agree a scan pattern inside becomes more important.
No one that I know off considers a loop to start when 30 degrees of pitch is reached. No one looks in....checks the AH, says Aha, 30 degrees of pitch...what is my speed and altitude ?
Lookout on way round....check wings level....just before the Apex, check the gate, then head back and watch the horizon come over the top already knowing if you've made the gate or not.

Personally I don't buy this 3700 / 2700 stuff.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 14:56
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Hawks going through London CTR in future

I imagine the CAA will at some point think long and hard before they let military single engine turbines over central London.

At 1300 ft down the mall.....more like below 1000ft temporarily to wow the crowds....the donkey stopping won't give the pilot much chance to respond....quick pull up to trade speed for height and reach best glide speed. And then see if it can be put down in the river. And eject just before putting it into the Thames.

But the CAA allows this on overcast days. VFR on top with no sight of ground with no donkey.....bad place to be.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 15:09
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Treble one

Maybe.
For me it's a question of which is more likely.
Superb pilots having a bad day making a catelog of mistakes or something else.
AH was a superb pilot, most harrier pilots are the cream of the RAF.....so for me the chances of something else are more likely.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 15:23
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by mrangryofwarlingham View Post
Treble one

Maybe.
For me it's a question of which is more likely.
Superb pilots having a bad day making a catelog of mistakes or something else.
AH was a superb pilot, most harrier pilots are the cream of the RAF.....so for me the chances of something else are more likely.

MrA-I've met quite a few Harrier pilots who tell me the same-although I've not met AH. I have no doubt that you are correct-the Harrier guys were undoubtedly the ones who were above average during flying training.


But its worth remembering that AH was a Harrier pilot many years ago, and he was driving an Airbus or Boeing at the time of the accident, which is slightly different I imagine? And would not especially prepare you for low level aeros in a swept wing vintage fighter jet?


TO
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 15:24
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 471
For me it's a question of which is more likely.
Superb pilots having a bad day making a catelog of mistakes or something else.
AH was a superb pilot, most harrier pilots are the cream of the RAF.....so for me the chances of something else are more likely.
Ah, back to the 'too good to make a mistake'! And a Harrier pilot you say, well they never get it wrong! (mid-air over Wisbech; mini-cct at Wittering; GR5 over Bosnia; Flap-less t/o from the hide; departure on airtest; loss of oil but no urgency to land; throttle v nozzle lever at Lowestoft; UP from loft rec'y near Barnard Castle; deck landing into the sea abeam carrier; CFIT near Evesham; rec'y into Khandahar......) AH flew the Harrier over 20 years ago with a total of less than 600hrs. Was Southport AH just having a bad day or was that also down to 'something else'?

Very dangerous in aviation to conclude that someone is just too good to get it wrong. I've listed them before, but even looking at just the display scene where everyone is 'above-average', nearly every loss/accident is caused by driver error.
H Peacock is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 15:27
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
HP

I didn't say he was too good to make a mistake.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 15:42
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Treble one

Are all airbus and Boeing drivers nothing more than average? Does an above average pilot (and I think you will agree that the RAF have no shortage of applicants so they can choose the best) simply become a systems manager the day he takes off his RAF flight suit and puts on BA uniform?

Regarding low level aeros, what is it about preparation you feel he was lacking in?
Is there any relevance to this accident that the plane was a fighter? That it was swept wing?
Maybe this accident would have happened to him on this day regardless of the type he was flying.....if he got undemanded power reduction? Maybe he was so off his game on the day, that he would have struggled in a Cessna aerobat?

That he was off his game and made a catelog of mistakes is clear. The question is why? Was there something else ?
All I am saying in my view it is more likely that other factors were present.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 16:13
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by mrangryofwarlingham View Post
Treble one

Are all airbus and Boeing drivers nothing more than average? Does an above average pilot (and I think you will agree that the RAF have no shortage of applicants so they can choose the best) simply become a systems manager the day he takes off his RAF flight suit and puts on BA uniform?

Regarding low level aeros, what is it about preparation you feel he was lacking in?
Is there any relevance to this accident that the plane was a fighter? That it was swept wing?
Maybe this accident would have happened to him on this day regardless of the type he was flying.....if he got undemanded power reduction? Maybe he was so off his game on the day, that he would have struggled in a Cessna aerobat?

That he was off his game and made a catelog of mistakes is clear. The question is why? Was there something else ?
All I am saying in my view it is more likely that other factors were present.

Mr A-I drive a Ford Focus and I have a very good safety record in touch wood. However if I go away for the weekend and get into a high performance sports car, say, would that be the same?

I never said for one second that airline pilots were average. I contend that flying an Airbus or Boeing does not necessarily prepare you for flying a Hunter in low level aeros.

I also DIDN'T say he WAS underprepared etc etc-I said he MIGHT have been, just like you and others say he MIGHT have been incapacitated/impaired.

But was he incapacitated at the start of the manoeuvre when he was too low and slow? Or was he incapacitated on the way up, on the way down? He doesn't appear to be have incapacitated just prior to the crash when the attitude of the aircraft would indicate he was pulling very hard?

The engine? Red herring? There was a potential problem, but the report says that it didn't affect engine performance. Even if the engine was at fault, the pilot was still too low, still missed his gate, still didn't attempt to escape the manoeuvre. Surely if his day job is systems management and monitoring instruments, then this should have been a given?

I'm sorry-I'm the sort of chap who when he hears hooves thinks horse not zebras.

Last edited by Treble one; 18th Mar 2017 at 16:48.
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 16:16
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 593
mrangry,

In a swept wing (low aspect ratio) aircraft the angle of attack at which you fly results in far greater variations in induced drag than with a straight wing. Therefore, variations of overall energy during a looping manoeuvre are far greater in a swept wing aircraft than in a straight wing one. Because of this and the nature of the lift-curve at high angles of attack, it is far easier in a swept wing aircraft to pull up for a loop and fail to achieve the gate height. Rigid application of gate height protocols are essential for downward looping manoeuvres in a swept wing aircraft but are not really relevant to low speed, straight wing aircraft that have a high pitch rate at the apex.

In short, yes, it is very relevant that this accident occurred in a swept wing aircraft and, commensurately, previous swept wing aerobatic and display experience is also very relevant.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 16:17
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
I understand cost in a private display organisation, but how often do display pilots practice their routines? I would suspect that different sites require different manoeuvres, and also often different allowed durations. If this assumption is correct then there could be 3 or 4 different routines in a pilot's portfolio. All need to be comfortable, especially at low level. This also includes having a 'flat display' option. The professional teams practice the full & flat display regularly, what about the solo guys?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 16:44
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by RAT 5 View Post
I understand cost in a private display organisation, but how often do display pilots practice their routines? I would suspect that different sites require different manoeuvres, and also often different allowed durations. If this assumption is correct then there could be 3 or 4 different routines in a pilot's portfolio. All need to be comfortable, especially at low level. This also includes having a 'flat display' option. The professional teams practice the full & flat display regularly, what about the solo guys?

RAT 5, civilian display flying is covered in CAP403-this covers many things including practices etc. It was tightened somewhat after this accident.


The pilot was fully in compliance with the terms of CAP403 when he flew this display, and all his DA and other paperwork were all completely in order, at the time.
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 16:58
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK View Post
mrangry,

Rigid application of gate height protocols are essential for downward looping manoeuvres in a swept wing aircraft but are not really relevant to low speed, straight wing aircraft that have a high pitch rate at the apex.
Failure to stick rigidly to gate heights will get you killed as quickly in a straight wing aircraft as any other type.
Whipstall is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 17:23
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Lomcevak

Thank you.
But did the AAIB place any specific emphasis on the plane being a swept wing type.
Or as Whipstall suggests more emphasis is placed on the failure to go through the gate....
I acknowledge that gates can be specific to aircraft type.

Treble one
HP

Why do you both have to copy previous posts when responding?
Are you the same person?

Treble one

I agree flying Airbus or Boeing does not prepare you for low level aeros in any type.
I agree with you there was a catelog of errors.
So what do your horses tell you regarding the reason for all these errors?
Would you care to suggest an explanation?
On one side of your face you say he was CAP 403 compliant.
On the other side you suggest he might have been underprepared.
And so what?
We have different views.
I have an opinion and you have yours.
But your view fails to address the question of why.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 17:35
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 471
Treble one
HP

Why do you both have to copy previous posts when responding?
Are you the same person?
Mr A. I always put the quote in if I'm 'replying' to a specific post. If you don't it can be more confusing to others especially if there are additional posts from others between them. And no, I'm not Treble One; I've never served on one hundred and eleven squadron! ��
H Peacock is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 17:56
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Mr Angry


He was CAP403 compliant at the time-however the fact that CAP403 has been updated and tightened in terms of currency suggests that the CAA have decided that the display currency requirements and DA authorities needed tightening.


So maybe they didn't consider 40 plus hours on type in 5 years sufficient to perform this routine after all-or that the DA awarded valid for the Hunter based on a routine in a propeller driven aircraft wasn't quite what's required either?


He went into a manoeuvre too slow-Fact
He missed a height gate-Fact
He failed to realise it-Fact
He failed to address it by pulling out-Fact
He carried on despite everything-Fact
He crashed and was in no way incapacitated as he was clearly pulling like a rigger prior to impact-Fact


So you are contending he was incapacitated 'at some point' during the manoeuvre-When? How? Why? All contention. Speculation. Looking for reasons to explain a clear case of pilot error?
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 18:24
  #597 (permalink)  
hum
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: zzzz
Posts: 147
Cognitive impairment?

111 -
but I have to say that there is absolutely no evidence of cognitive impairment or incapacity to be a contributory factor in this accident
What would you consider as evidence of cognitive impairment or incapacity? You say there is none, how can you be so sure?

Maybe he had a bad day?
We all have a bad day from time to time, but it should not end up with such a tragic accident. This was more than just a 'bad day'..

Maybe he was complacent? Maybe he was ill prepared? Maybe he made a series of errors of judgement?
Then why did the AAIB not say so?

then everyone rushes to say that he was impaired or incapacitated.
No – if he was definitely impaired or incapacitated, would the AAIB not have concluded that? They have left the question unanswered, which can only mean (to me) they do not know. All I and others are suggesting is that such ‘a catalogue of uncharacteristic errors during a flying display’ is highly unusual (I cannot think of another display accident with such a sequence). As more ‘uncharacteristic errors’ become apparent, maybe we should look for a common link?

In fact the more I look at the sequence or events from a few seconds prior to pull up to a few seconds before disaster the less I see of anything a reasonably competent fully functional aerobatic display pilot would have done.
hum is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 18:28
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Perhaps he just cocked it up?
Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 18:43
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
He failed to realise it-Fact
How is that a 'fact'?
Lemain is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 18:48
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Lemain View Post
How is that a 'fact'?

Because he was 800 feet lower than he should be to hit his gate?
Treble one is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.