AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
I can't access the report ATM ( ***** internet and PC) but there was some "comment" about checking in the report . AFAIK they are certainly checked out in some way shape or form at the start of each season on an aircraft. Given the season is about 6 months long I guess that would cover it.
BTW Good luck finding a realistic Hunter sim with visuals.......
BTW Good luck finding a realistic Hunter sim with visuals.......
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
To display pilots: if you are not so current, and perhaps there has been quite a break since your last rock & roll, if you have the opportunity at your departure airfield would you fly a couple of manoeuvres to check the a/c and yourself: get you and your beast 'in the mood'? If so, then perhaps any malfunctions might be apparent. Is it worth it?
not enough of a difference on JPT to be visible on this type of gauge , which is why they were such a pig to set up , someone stood on the wing with hand over outlet signalling to guy in cockpit to record rpm.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker...
The problem whenever there is a fast jet display accident, the rumour is always spead in the media of how respected and experienced the pilot was. In addition their RAF career is flagged up as if that make them special. The fatal L29 accident (TG) ex red arrows I think in the sixties, the the fatal Gnat accident G-TIMM, again claimed ex RAF fast jet, infact for whatever reason he did not complete his training with the RAF. At the time of his accident he had a PPL and class two medical, with an undeclared heart problem and about 700 hrs total. Why did CAA ever granted him a display authorisation based on 700 hours and a PPL. Likewise why did the CAA not insist on a class one medical and look at his medical records. Finally the Hunter accident, ex RAF pilot on JPs, Hawks and Harriers, but over twenty years ago and quite low hours, around 1600 and a very short RAF career, I'm not sure why. Then there was the Hurricane display pilot fatality, low hours PPL, around 400 as I recall.
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.
The problem whenever there is a fast jet display accident, the rumour is always spead in the media of how respected and experienced the pilot was. In addition their RAF career is flagged up as if that make them special. The fatal L29 accident (TG) ex red arrows I think in the sixties, the the fatal Gnat accident G-TIMM, again claimed ex RAF fast jet, infact for whatever reason he did not complete his training with the RAF. At the time of his accident he had a PPL and class two medical, with an undeclared heart problem and about 700 hrs total. Why did CAA ever granted him a display authorisation based on 700 hours and a PPL. Likewise why did the CAA not insist on a class one medical and look at his medical records. Finally the Hunter accident, ex RAF pilot on JPs, Hawks and Harriers, but over twenty years ago and quite low hours, around 1600 and a very short RAF career, I'm not sure why. Then there was the Hurricane display pilot fatality, low hours PPL, around 400 as I recall.
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.
How is a few thousand hours supervising the autopilot on a boeibus milk run relevant to doing a low-level display in a vintage jet?
I would agree with CPL/IR/Multi as a baseline qual, but suggest that other than (say) 300-400 hours of basic flying experience the remaining experience qualifications should be hours in similar types - similar in terms of size, performance, handling, systems complexity/crudity etc. I can't see anything is added by experience of flying a large, multi-engine, multi-crew transports in straight lines (mostly above FL250).
I would agree with CPL/IR/Multi as a baseline qual, but suggest that other than (say) 300-400 hours of basic flying experience the remaining experience qualifications should be hours in similar types - similar in terms of size, performance, handling, systems complexity/crudity etc. I can't see anything is added by experience of flying a large, multi-engine, multi-crew transports in straight lines (mostly above FL250).
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps RR are the only ones who can provide this sort of information given they designed, built and overhauls the engine. Suprisingly the AAIB seem to have spend a long time with the RR experts based on the body of the report and the contents of Appendix E
Hi Sillert, they have JetA1 at Shoreham. It's quite a decent little airport.
Not long enough for a Hunter, so refuelling there was not an option
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report makes it clear that the speeds and heights he flew were fine for the JP which he had recently displayed. I find it easier to believe that he made a single cognitive error in loading his head with the JP numbers rather that he was trying to fly Hunter numbers and made a bog of it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there was a pre-flight preparation to review the day's sortie; a reasonable transit flight to bond with your a/c and time to review what the display routine was going to be. It's a bit like an approach briefing for a challenging approach in the day to day shiny aluminium tube. Surely???
But you might be correct.
But you might be correct.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln, England
Age: 80
Posts: 54
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I find it easier to believe that he made a single cognitive error in loading his head with the JP numbers rather that he was trying to fly Hunter numbers and made a bog of it."
You've convinced me at least, John!
You've convinced me at least, John!
Quote re comment on Shoreham aerodrome:
"Not really "decent" - only 1036 m of hard runway."
This type of flying is completely unfamiliar to me, and I've yet to read the AAIB report. I did float a tentative question soon after the accident, however, which was not answered and I now hesitate to repeat.
The proportions of the Shoreham hard runway (length/width) are not unlike those of a typical fast-jet runway, which would be over double the length. I gather that the parameters of IAS and height are used as gates at certain points in these manoeuvres, but even so the smallness of the runway could give a visually-misleading impression of height. Is that a known factor in aerobatics training, or irrelevant?
"Not really "decent" - only 1036 m of hard runway."
This type of flying is completely unfamiliar to me, and I've yet to read the AAIB report. I did float a tentative question soon after the accident, however, which was not answered and I now hesitate to repeat.
The proportions of the Shoreham hard runway (length/width) are not unlike those of a typical fast-jet runway, which would be over double the length. I gather that the parameters of IAS and height are used as gates at certain points in these manoeuvres, but even so the smallness of the runway could give a visually-misleading impression of height. Is that a known factor in aerobatics training, or irrelevant?
Cognitive errors can be caused by externals, and, although I have told this true story before, it may be worth repeating in this context.
I was the duty Met forecaster at either Leeming or Topckiffe C. 1967: when I was permanently posted to the one or the other I often did detachments vice-versa. Perfectly normal hassle called career development.
Such that one day a familiar voiced Leeming Flt Lt rang Met. and asked me for a forecast .
"Met Leeming duty forecaster" BUT I WAS AT TOPCLIFFE. AND SO WAS HE.
"Ah! David, a quick brief for short trip to ....... [wherever]"
So I did the brief, and he did the flight.
And rang back later:
"You rotten sod, you disorientated me!"
After kicking the tyres and lighting the fires he sat in his cockpit fat dumb and happy but increasingly uneasy.
The light dawned, and all lived happily everafter.
I WOULD ADD THAT MEMORY FADES, AND IT COULD JUST AS EASILY HAVE BEEN THAT I WAS AT LEEMING AND SAID TOPCLIFFE.
But a single external input was enough.
I was the duty Met forecaster at either Leeming or Topckiffe C. 1967: when I was permanently posted to the one or the other I often did detachments vice-versa. Perfectly normal hassle called career development.
Such that one day a familiar voiced Leeming Flt Lt rang Met. and asked me for a forecast .
"Met Leeming duty forecaster" BUT I WAS AT TOPCLIFFE. AND SO WAS HE.
"Ah! David, a quick brief for short trip to ....... [wherever]"
So I did the brief, and he did the flight.
And rang back later:
"You rotten sod, you disorientated me!"
After kicking the tyres and lighting the fires he sat in his cockpit fat dumb and happy but increasingly uneasy.
The light dawned, and all lived happily everafter.
I WOULD ADD THAT MEMORY FADES, AND IT COULD JUST AS EASILY HAVE BEEN THAT I WAS AT LEEMING AND SAID TOPCLIFFE.
But a single external input was enough.
18 pages and I am yet to read 'Too slow, too low'
The aircraft was carrying out a manoeuvre involving both a pitching and rolling component, which commenced from a height lower than the pilot’s authorised minimum for aerobatics, at an airspeed below his stated minimum, and proceeded with less than maximum thrust. This resulted in the aircraft achieving a height at the top of the manoeuvre less than the minimum required to complete it safely, at a speed that was slower than normal.
PDR1 - bang on. Recency and currency on type is everything. Didn't an ex-Red and 747 Captain crash a KingCobra some years back? Being Sierra Hotel in a Hawk or Jumbo has almost no relevance to flying a big piston warbird. Neither does an ATPL.
Thanks for that Thud - I was wondering if my comment had offended people (which wasn't my intention). I would observe that the opposite is (IMHO) equally true - that ten years and thousands of hours flying single-seat jets low and fast is not proof of ability to fly a 747 or A380 through the middle of europe, or to fly one into LHR on a dark stor5my night close to minima. I'm not in any way suggesting one skill/experience set is superior to the other - just that they are *different* skill sets.
PDR
PDR
Hompsap
If I may belatedly try and put that specific comment/hint/query to bed, as far as hours goes as an example I left the RAF in the late 80s with around 2400 hours total flying after 12 years "full time". That was the total of flying training, 2 X FJ tours which totalled all of 1000 hours in just over 5 years years - (you didn't get lots of hours in the FJ world), and my final postings were two instructing short tours, which made up the other thousand'ish hours at the back end of my RAF career in about 3 years - AH I gather only did one instructing tour. In short as far as time in the air goes I think out AH's numbers sound fairly reasonable for someone flying FJs in the RAF in the 80's and early 90's.
As far as time/years served there can be all sorts of legit reasons: AH may have been on a short service commission (? 8/12 years), if he was an ex-University cadets he could leave at the 12 year point of a permanent commission ( which could actually mean only serving 9 years full time post Uni), or he may have taken Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR), at any time and as many did: the reason for that being being in the very very late 80s and 90s when BA where recruiting hard from the military a lot of folks who could see they were not destined for senior rank in the services didn't hang around marking time in the RAF when BA were offering jobs.
In conclusion a "very short RAF career" was not at all unusual and is not a sign that someone left the RAF in unusual circumstances or under a cloud..now back to the more technical stuff.
Finally the Hunter accident, ex RAF pilot on JPs, Hawks and Harriers, but over twenty years ago and quite low hours, around 1600 and a very short RAF career, I'm not sure why
As far as time/years served there can be all sorts of legit reasons: AH may have been on a short service commission (? 8/12 years), if he was an ex-University cadets he could leave at the 12 year point of a permanent commission ( which could actually mean only serving 9 years full time post Uni), or he may have taken Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR), at any time and as many did: the reason for that being being in the very very late 80s and 90s when BA where recruiting hard from the military a lot of folks who could see they were not destined for senior rank in the services didn't hang around marking time in the RAF when BA were offering jobs.
In conclusion a "very short RAF career" was not at all unusual and is not a sign that someone left the RAF in unusual circumstances or under a cloud..now back to the more technical stuff.
Last edited by wiggy; 8th Mar 2017 at 17:50.
at the time that they were overhauling these engines they didn't have the knowledge then as anyone working on them at the time knew. lots of engines off overhaul at east kilbride that didn't make it to airtest , so where now would they find the expertise now ? Will be from the books i guess. Recall in the early 80's lots of issues mainly with the 100 series , recall the guys at yeovilton struggling to fulfil the contract due to engine problems. Seem to recall them trying to take it away from RR but wasn't allowed. Must be plenty of other engine guys recall this time !