AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine power
Wetstart
And the absence of usual safety margin for such eventuality.
IMHO if he had another 100ft the accident would not have happened. You can see he was on the buffet in the last few seconds and with left wing drop a couple of seconds away from impact.
So for me you can say lack of full engine power was the primary problem, and absent such problem it wouldn't have been an accident.
However, knowing the type had this engine issue...you need a safety margin in case the problem manifested itself on the day.
It has been discussed earlier on other threads that starting height and speed don't matter so long as he made the gate. Those threads didn't really offer a clear view on whether he made the gate or not.
CM...you think when AH was at the apex he checked the gate, and because he saw x750 he thought he was at 3750 feet, even though he knew he had started outside his usual practice parameters and would not have seen a lowered rpm or an altimeter reading on the way up?
I think some here don't share your confidence.
What is crystal clear are the pilots comments about gate height. If he genuinely thought he was at 3750 then he was in the gate but with only a 250ft safety margin.
Why didn't he roll off the top?
Some people who are familiar with JP flying use the technique of rolling off the top at too slow a speed to get undemanded yaw for spin training.
Maybe this went through his mind when he was at the apex.
Then again, why should it if he genuinely believed he was at 3750.
And the absence of usual safety margin for such eventuality.
IMHO if he had another 100ft the accident would not have happened. You can see he was on the buffet in the last few seconds and with left wing drop a couple of seconds away from impact.
So for me you can say lack of full engine power was the primary problem, and absent such problem it wouldn't have been an accident.
However, knowing the type had this engine issue...you need a safety margin in case the problem manifested itself on the day.
It has been discussed earlier on other threads that starting height and speed don't matter so long as he made the gate. Those threads didn't really offer a clear view on whether he made the gate or not.
CM...you think when AH was at the apex he checked the gate, and because he saw x750 he thought he was at 3750 feet, even though he knew he had started outside his usual practice parameters and would not have seen a lowered rpm or an altimeter reading on the way up?
I think some here don't share your confidence.
What is crystal clear are the pilots comments about gate height. If he genuinely thought he was at 3750 then he was in the gate but with only a 250ft safety margin.
Why didn't he roll off the top?
Some people who are familiar with JP flying use the technique of rolling off the top at too slow a speed to get undemanded yaw for spin training.
Maybe this went through his mind when he was at the apex.
Then again, why should it if he genuinely believed he was at 3750.
Courtney, thank you.
You are quite correct I used words and phrases deliberately couched to make it clear that I do not consider myself an expert in aerobatics or (certainly not) in fast jet operations. I feel from the details within the report there is scope for debate about what went on in the cockpit, what was observed and how it was judged, or not. I agree that the clarity of the experts' neutral language was helpful.
My background in this has been more as a team leader endeavouring to develop good safety thinking habits amongst strong minded young professional engineers, who all start out believing themselves to be invulnerable, infallible and (all but) immortal - much like young pilots, whom I have also had fun training. Occasionally I have found more 'hedged' phrases get through better when discussing Human Factors, which this accident involves, through and through. Perhaps I was being too careful, part of which may be due to recollection of the challenge of having to face a bunch of QCs once, to justify a technical position. Needed great care...
I don't see any evidence at all of deliberate act by the pilot towards the accident, rather errors of omission, accumulating. What constitutes negligence becomes a matter for thorny legal debate in my experience. I'd rather not go into that one, since it involves experience, judgment, presumed professional capability etc. Let's just say that can be 'challenging'.
Twos' In - totally agree. The real frustration is that accidents like this have cropped up again and again.
It seems as though (sorry CM!) we can learn and change habits for a while, then the lessons get forgotten, perhaps because other things become more immediately of concern. 'Safety drift'?
An old pilot and engineer many years ago said to me he reckoned incidents and accidents tend to have around a twenty year 'cycle time', by which point the folk originally involved have moved on, retired or forgotten the problem. Depressing if even marginally correct !
You are quite correct I used words and phrases deliberately couched to make it clear that I do not consider myself an expert in aerobatics or (certainly not) in fast jet operations. I feel from the details within the report there is scope for debate about what went on in the cockpit, what was observed and how it was judged, or not. I agree that the clarity of the experts' neutral language was helpful.
My background in this has been more as a team leader endeavouring to develop good safety thinking habits amongst strong minded young professional engineers, who all start out believing themselves to be invulnerable, infallible and (all but) immortal - much like young pilots, whom I have also had fun training. Occasionally I have found more 'hedged' phrases get through better when discussing Human Factors, which this accident involves, through and through. Perhaps I was being too careful, part of which may be due to recollection of the challenge of having to face a bunch of QCs once, to justify a technical position. Needed great care...
I don't see any evidence at all of deliberate act by the pilot towards the accident, rather errors of omission, accumulating. What constitutes negligence becomes a matter for thorny legal debate in my experience. I'd rather not go into that one, since it involves experience, judgment, presumed professional capability etc. Let's just say that can be 'challenging'.
Twos' In - totally agree. The real frustration is that accidents like this have cropped up again and again.
It seems as though (sorry CM!) we can learn and change habits for a while, then the lessons get forgotten, perhaps because other things become more immediately of concern. 'Safety drift'?
An old pilot and engineer many years ago said to me he reckoned incidents and accidents tend to have around a twenty year 'cycle time', by which point the folk originally involved have moved on, retired or forgotten the problem. Depressing if even marginally correct !
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information from elsewhere
CM
It's difficult to challenge your other source if not disclosed.
But I will say I find no comment about it in the report, and I don't think it is on point whether he is or is not suffering from PTSD.
It's difficult to challenge your other source if not disclosed.
But I will say I find no comment about it in the report, and I don't think it is on point whether he is or is not suffering from PTSD.
Mr Angry. I'm sorry I cannot and will not disclose the source. I will say that I have no contact with the display pilot. The report deals solely with the circumstances surrounding the accident, it does not and should not comment on his current state of health.
That's all I have to say on that matter.
That's all I have to say on that matter.
It is claimed he received what is called the head injury protocol ie he was given a prolonged general anaesthetic or what the media called an induced coma. There is very little reason for this other than a head injury.
Any 'induced coma' will produce profound retrograde amnesia. The head injury may cause long term memory loss and amnesia. Now add in PTSD
ANY comments or statements he has made since the accident are IMHO worthless. Even if he cannot recall the minimum speed for rolling out at the apex this does not mean he did not know it at the time.
Any 'induced coma' will produce profound retrograde amnesia. The head injury may cause long term memory loss and amnesia. Now add in PTSD
ANY comments or statements he has made since the accident are IMHO worthless. Even if he cannot recall the minimum speed for rolling out at the apex this does not mean he did not know it at the time.
Courtney. What did you think about the pilot's lack of total and recent experience on type and the system of awarding a DA on a Hunter having demonstrated a display sequence on an RV-8?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots state of health
CM
As you say, the report should not comment on his current health.
Therefore I find your comment about PTSD unhelpful.
Given the strong warnings about the press perhaps looking at this thread, it would not be pleasing to see headlines about alleged PTSD thanks to your unhelpful comment.
Having now made the point, I will also comment no further in this regard.
As you say, the report should not comment on his current health.
Therefore I find your comment about PTSD unhelpful.
Given the strong warnings about the press perhaps looking at this thread, it would not be pleasing to see headlines about alleged PTSD thanks to your unhelpful comment.
Having now made the point, I will also comment no further in this regard.
Arfur, I have not been in civil aviation since the 1970s. I don't know enough about current regulations and currency requirements to make a legally valid comment. That's why I stick to comments about the technical aspects, the hunter, display flying and flying issues. Sorry I can't help more, but I won't comment on issues I do not feel suitably qualified to express an opinion.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how different the reaction here is to when a pilot from a less developed part of the world makes a mistake that leads to a crash. I wonder if the pilot of KL801 had survived you'd be making all sorts of excuses for missing his height gates and why that isn't negligent. Something to ask yourself.
It would be negligent if the CPP weren't at least considering the possibility of a prosecution. Some pilots seem to have a strange view that their profession should be immune from prosecution, absolutely whatever the circumstances.
11 people are dead and some here don't seem to have absorbed that reality, some posts are alarmingly close to 'it was an accident, accidents happen, everyone should move on.'
A prosecution would allow the facts to be established and whether there was negligence. Certainly missing all the entry gates and carrying on as things deteriorated leads to that possilbity. If there wasn't neglicence, that will be established either prior to the decision to prosecute or in court.
I can imagine that it may cause the families considerable pain if there is any perception of him 'getting away with it', or the aviation community circling the wagons around their mate.
It would be negligent if the CPP weren't at least considering the possibility of a prosecution. Some pilots seem to have a strange view that their profession should be immune from prosecution, absolutely whatever the circumstances.
11 people are dead and some here don't seem to have absorbed that reality, some posts are alarmingly close to 'it was an accident, accidents happen, everyone should move on.'
A prosecution would allow the facts to be established and whether there was negligence. Certainly missing all the entry gates and carrying on as things deteriorated leads to that possilbity. If there wasn't neglicence, that will be established either prior to the decision to prosecute or in court.
I can imagine that it may cause the families considerable pain if there is any perception of him 'getting away with it', or the aviation community circling the wagons around their mate.
Arfur-as stated earlier the report confirms that the pilots paperwork was completely in order.
The fact that it now seems ludicrous that his DA was valid for all types he flew (at the time of the accident) is not his fault-that's the fault of the system.
Of course CAP403 has been significantly altered post this accident to reflect the concerns you rightly raise.
Like I said in an earlier post-as a FJ pilot yourself-how many hours would you need (assuming you were current on type) to work up a display that you would happy to get a DA evaluation on (could ask you the same CM?)
The fact that it now seems ludicrous that his DA was valid for all types he flew (at the time of the accident) is not his fault-that's the fault of the system.
Of course CAP403 has been significantly altered post this accident to reflect the concerns you rightly raise.
Like I said in an earlier post-as a FJ pilot yourself-how many hours would you need (assuming you were current on type) to work up a display that you would happy to get a DA evaluation on (could ask you the same CM?)
For the spamcan drivers please let me give you an analogy to ae type you can relate to.
A Hunter does not leave the ground until 130kts. A Cessna will float off at 50kts
A Cessna f upside down at 35kts is going to finish up steep nose down. Low enough and the engine is spluttering its going to crash
As for the low start height, a while back I used to do e few seasons of aeros to, i think the same rules. This was discussed extensively on related threads. I recall those rules as 100ft flyby, 200ft turns and loopy things recover by 500ft BUT may continue descent to 100ft once recovery by 500ft is certain. This did my head in, so I just flew to approx 500ft min. However, pulling up from a low-level pass to a vertical manoeuvre was ok in my book. It would seem the AAIB have a different view.
Slow to realise it's going pear shaped? If you follow a link from a thread about the goldfish club authored by 'Tarnished', he describes a Hunter flameout in the cruise where realisation ony occurred when the motor had run down to windmill rpm and air was spilling out the intakes.
The last 2 T7 cat 5's I recall are a Boscombe ac which had a linkage failure mid 90's and a Brawdy jet on the break downwind that never spooled up.
The T7 has a gated switch by the throttle that bypases the FCU in the event of failure (that's novel- I wonder why)
If this aircraft had a history of erratic engine performance then there are serious errors of judgement allowing to be displayed - but that leads me back to primary cause.
A Hunter does not leave the ground until 130kts. A Cessna will float off at 50kts
A Cessna f upside down at 35kts is going to finish up steep nose down. Low enough and the engine is spluttering its going to crash
As for the low start height, a while back I used to do e few seasons of aeros to, i think the same rules. This was discussed extensively on related threads. I recall those rules as 100ft flyby, 200ft turns and loopy things recover by 500ft BUT may continue descent to 100ft once recovery by 500ft is certain. This did my head in, so I just flew to approx 500ft min. However, pulling up from a low-level pass to a vertical manoeuvre was ok in my book. It would seem the AAIB have a different view.
Slow to realise it's going pear shaped? If you follow a link from a thread about the goldfish club authored by 'Tarnished', he describes a Hunter flameout in the cruise where realisation ony occurred when the motor had run down to windmill rpm and air was spilling out the intakes.
The last 2 T7 cat 5's I recall are a Boscombe ac which had a linkage failure mid 90's and a Brawdy jet on the break downwind that never spooled up.
The T7 has a gated switch by the throttle that bypases the FCU in the event of failure (that's novel- I wonder why)
If this aircraft had a history of erratic engine performance then there are serious errors of judgement allowing to be displayed - but that leads me back to primary cause.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the daily mash tomorrow
Ex Hunter QFI says "serious errors of judgment" in allowing a defective aircraft to be displayed.
Ex FJ pilot says pilot currently suffering from PTSD
Ex Hunter QFI says "serious errors of judgment" in allowing a defective aircraft to be displayed.
Ex FJ pilot says pilot currently suffering from PTSD
Uncalled for and unhelpful. Not good, Mr Angry. You may have just written their headline for them for no good reason than pushing your own opinion.
It seems you chose to after all.
Originally Posted by Mr Angry (post 150)
Having now made the point, I will also comment no further in this regard.
111 - Sorry, you did ask that before and I have been slow to answer.
I never did LL aeros but I was in the end of course aeros comp at Valley so I was reasonably good at them (then).
Assuming I was current on the Hunter, I would work out a sequence and get it approved by peers. I would probably spend 2 or 3 hours trying it out to see if it all hung together at 10,000' then 5000'.
When competent at those heights I would practice over the airfield at 1-2000' with aforementioned peers critiquing in the bar afterwards. So, about 6 hours so far. Then I would do a couple of practices at 500' then ask you (or someone suitable) to give me a DA. Thereafter, throughout the display season,I would run through my display over the airfield down to my limits at least once a week after work.
Probably fallen into your trap but that's about what the real display guys did back in the day. Would cost a fortune which is why present day civilian display pilots don't do it, I guess.
I never did LL aeros but I was in the end of course aeros comp at Valley so I was reasonably good at them (then).
Assuming I was current on the Hunter, I would work out a sequence and get it approved by peers. I would probably spend 2 or 3 hours trying it out to see if it all hung together at 10,000' then 5000'.
When competent at those heights I would practice over the airfield at 1-2000' with aforementioned peers critiquing in the bar afterwards. So, about 6 hours so far. Then I would do a couple of practices at 500' then ask you (or someone suitable) to give me a DA. Thereafter, throughout the display season,I would run through my display over the airfield down to my limits at least once a week after work.
Probably fallen into your trap but that's about what the real display guys did back in the day. Would cost a fortune which is why present day civilian display pilots don't do it, I guess.
