AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he failed to realise it, which was the statement of yours that the previous poster queried.
He may instead have judged that he still had sufficient height to complete the loop (and of course he was very close to being correct).
At the risk of being boring and quoting yet again from the report, the AAIB did indeed allude to this possibility and declined to rule it out.
He may instead have judged that he still had sufficient height to complete the loop (and of course he was very close to being correct).
At the risk of being boring and quoting yet again from the report, the AAIB did indeed allude to this possibility and declined to rule it out.
He may instead have judged that he still had sufficient height to complete the loop (and of course he was very close to being correct).
Last edited by H Peacock; 18th Mar 2017 at 23:55. Reason: Typo
Gate heights and speeds-set in stone for FJ display pilots-otherwise why have them in the first place?
Mr Angry-who knows.
Lack of experience on type/LL aeros in a swept wing aircraft?
Poor judgement?
Overconfidence?
Why does there have to be a reason? Other than he made a catalogue of errors?
Lack of experience on type/LL aeros in a swept wing aircraft?
Poor judgement?
Overconfidence?
Why does there have to be a reason? Other than he made a catalogue of errors?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We owe it to the pilot who probably would rather not see his reflection in the bathroom mirror when he shaves every morning, for feelings of guilt.
All the while there is doubt we should continue to ask 'why?'. 'How?' And, at a mercenary level how can we be sure that the insureds' insurance companies provide decent provision for those so tragically killed. Maybe we will never know.
I personally don't believe the AAIB report goes far enough. Nevertheless, this is a place where people from all walks of life - victims, industry, engineering, and science can put their tuppenceworth into the hat.
Around 2/3 of posters here think it was basically pilot error. On the balance of probabilities they are probably right. However, the report has only recently been published and there is plenty of time for us to pick over the bones. There have been a number of recent posts that add fresh thinking.
There is no harm in letting people speculate. Surely that's what any forum bulletin board is about?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Indeed you are provably correct DRUK...
There is of course the possibility that he realised full well that he hadn't achieved his gate and was physically unable to do anything about it until it was too late, at which point he attempted to recover anyway. Once again, difficult to prove though but no more or less valid than DRUKs opinion.
Incidentally, the margin of error given for the speed at pull up means that he could have been at 325 knots indicated, not 310. Still missing that gate and readily discernible on the airspeed indicator from 350 knots but 25 knots slow and not 40. He might have thought from experience that was fast enough and it might have been for a straight-ahead loop (i.e. no bending, particularly before being vertical), full throttle, and optimum timing and amount of pull.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does there have to be a reason
So families affected can understand why
so we can learn from the errors of others and prevent future accidents
To enhance safety
You seem to have another agenda
Ascribing blame
Not much value in that for me
so we can learn from the errors of others and prevent future accidents
To enhance safety
You seem to have another agenda
Ascribing blame
Not much value in that for me
Mr Angry we've learned lots from this accident.
How important it is for display pilots to stick to their height and speed gates.
How important it is to be trained in escape manoeuvres if said gate heights and speeds are not met.
Two errors we can learn from?
How important it is for display pilots to stick to their height and speed gates.
How important it is to be trained in escape manoeuvres if said gate heights and speeds are not met.
Two errors we can learn from?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
This illustration doesn't look right. Minor problem: the run-in should probably be along a line denoted by the radar hits.
The pull-up was next to the bend in the river. The radar doesn't lie.
Neither does the camera.
Last edited by Tay Cough; 19th Mar 2017 at 01:07.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radars don't have perfect accuracy. If radar is to be used evidentially then the possible error on either side of the recorded track should be superimposed. There are several factors that affect the accuracy.
There is of course the possibility that he realised full well that he hadn't achieved his gate and was physically unable to do anything about it until it was too late, at which point he attempted to recover anyway. Once again, difficult to prove though but no more or less valid than DRUKs opinion.
But you are correct in that a number of the AAIB's findings contain an "either/or" where two or more alternative scenarios exist and the evidence is insufficient to determine which one is actually what happened.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's actually a pretty deep and complex question, seeing as no one understands how humans develop conscious thought in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We make astonishingly few mistakes given our supposed weaknesses. When did you last have a car crash that was your fault? Almost all accidents follow a sequence of problems. I guess most of us here looked very hard at the Air New Zealand Flight 901 Erebus crash. Gordon Vette's Impact Erebus is a compelling read because of his careful research and, of course, coming from Captain Vette. For me, that narrative defines the chain of events leading to an accident - even if you don't agree with Vette's conclusions the line of reasoning is compelling. Impact Erebus is also a must-read for any pilot being both informative and gripping. My copy is pretty dog-eared now.
Well nearly every car crash Is going to be the fault of one or both drivers involved. Not sure how else they can happen.
Flight 901 is indeed chilling, but really does highlight the need to ensure you are - and stay - VMC if that is the intended plan! Never mind the excuse of not being where you thought you were, VMC is relying totally on the pilot to see ahead and keep clear of any terrain.
Flight 901 is indeed chilling, but really does highlight the need to ensure you are - and stay - VMC if that is the intended plan! Never mind the excuse of not being where you thought you were, VMC is relying totally on the pilot to see ahead and keep clear of any terrain.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or one of the drivers might have had some kind of medical problem such as loss of consciousness. Would that, in your opinion, be a 'fault' of the driver or just a symptom of a body weakness?
Last edited by Lemain; 19th Mar 2017 at 18:21. Reason: spelling of 'or'
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from experience investigating accidents, it is extremely rare for any car accident not to be the fault of one of the drivers. Even in cases of sudden mechanical failure, that is usually down to deferred maintenance, the manner of driving, or ignoring warning lights io the dashboard. Sudden ill health is no excuse either. With the exception of a sudden massive heart attack, which generally happens after warning symptoms that have gone unrecognised, a vehicle can normally be brought to a controlled stop for help to be sought.
Misjudging speed or the severity of a bend is probably the number one cause of single vehicle accidents. Bears a remarkable similarity to the events at Shoreham, just in a vertical axis. (I was going to say plane, but that might have come across rather flippantly).
Looking back through my records, there isn't a single accident that I dealt with where blame could not be placed firmly on one or more of the drivers involved.
Misjudging speed or the severity of a bend is probably the number one cause of single vehicle accidents. Bears a remarkable similarity to the events at Shoreham, just in a vertical axis. (I was going to say plane, but that might have come across rather flippantly).
Looking back through my records, there isn't a single accident that I dealt with where blame could not be placed firmly on one or more of the drivers involved.
