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
Hi LOMCEVAK
Yes, and no. Unless there is some initial speculation vital clues and evidence can be missed. For example, the pilot's qualifications and medical are looked into speculatively. In this AAIB report there are some odd omissions. For example the radar track is taken as gospel. Did a radar expert check the system? There is no measuring system in existence that is 100% accurate - factors such as antenna location, nature of antenna, and the digital processing can be important. I don't see any explanation in the report yet the radar track is considered evidential.
Lemain,
You say "I personally don't believe the AAIB report goes far enough". Within the remit of AAIB reports, which present data and analyse it, what else do you think should have been included? Opinion and speculation are quite deliberately, and correctly, not included in their reports.
You say "I personally don't believe the AAIB report goes far enough". Within the remit of AAIB reports, which present data and analyse it, what else do you think should have been included? Opinion and speculation are quite deliberately, and correctly, not included in their reports.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The blame game being played by certain contributors over the last few pages is predictable but a little sad to read.
Over the last 20+ years display aircraft have been moved further and further away from the display line and more restrictions have been placed upon dynamic manoeuvres towards the crowd. There is always room for improvement, modernisation and organisation on the airfield, but if high performance aircraft are to be displayed then complete safety off the airfield can never be guaranteed.
In this horrible situation at Shoreham, the people killed innocently driving past were incredibly unlucky but the group of people standing next to the Police sign saying "No Stopping Here" were very foolish. Inside the airfield perimeter they would have been on or very close to the display line, which obviously would not have been permitted. Unfortunately therefore they must accept some blame towards their own demise.
Although this sounds incredibly callous I believe the insurance companies involved will take this into account in their deliberations.
100% safety on but especially off the display area can unfortunately never be achieved.
Over the last 20+ years display aircraft have been moved further and further away from the display line and more restrictions have been placed upon dynamic manoeuvres towards the crowd. There is always room for improvement, modernisation and organisation on the airfield, but if high performance aircraft are to be displayed then complete safety off the airfield can never be guaranteed.
In this horrible situation at Shoreham, the people killed innocently driving past were incredibly unlucky but the group of people standing next to the Police sign saying "No Stopping Here" were very foolish. Inside the airfield perimeter they would have been on or very close to the display line, which obviously would not have been permitted. Unfortunately therefore they must accept some blame towards their own demise.
Although this sounds incredibly callous I believe the insurance companies involved will take this into account in their deliberations.
100% safety on but especially off the display area can unfortunately never be achieved.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I being picky? Radar is radar. The run in WAS along the line denoted by the radar hits (obviously?). According to the AAIB video, the green line shows where it should have been.
The pull-up was next to the bend in the river. The radar doesn't lie.
Neither does the camera.
The pull-up was next to the bend in the river. The radar doesn't lie.
Neither does the camera.
Radar maps can often be 'adjusted' to match (or not match) the physical position of airports, it was only after ADS-B was brought in that some misalignments were found at some airports. With awareness of those possibilities it is also important to ensure that the raw radar data is considered as processing can also add similar artifacts
Lemain,
The pilot's qualifications and medical are fact - there is documentary evidence. With respect to the causal and contributory factors, why was greater analysis of the radar track accuracy required? The workload in producing a report such as this is immense. Therefore, if something is of academic interest and not totally relevant to establishing the causes of an accident then why spend time on it.
The pilot's qualifications and medical are fact - there is documentary evidence. With respect to the causal and contributory factors, why was greater analysis of the radar track accuracy required? The workload in producing a report such as this is immense. Therefore, if something is of academic interest and not totally relevant to establishing the causes of an accident then why spend time on it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, of course the qualifications and medical are facts. But it was speculation that the pilot might have been under qualified or not medically fit that made the investigating team check that out. I realise this seems pedantic and I chose the quals and medical because it's so obvious. You cannot investigate without speculation.
Moving on the radar track: The report draws upon the radar track to support the conclusions. Once introduced as evidence, the AAIB should have considered whether that evidence is accurate. We know that no measurement system is 100% accurate so there must be tolerances. Maybe the AAIB did consider those. Maybe they didn't. But they should have mentioned it in the report.
I'm not arguing that there was, necessarily, any significant error in the radar track. I'm casting doubt about the competence and diligence of the AAIB team that issued an accident report.
Moving on the radar track: The report draws upon the radar track to support the conclusions. Once introduced as evidence, the AAIB should have considered whether that evidence is accurate. We know that no measurement system is 100% accurate so there must be tolerances. Maybe the AAIB did consider those. Maybe they didn't. But they should have mentioned it in the report.
I'm not arguing that there was, necessarily, any significant error in the radar track. I'm casting doubt about the competence and diligence of the AAIB team that issued an accident report.
Lemain, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your concern about the radar data accuracy. There is plenty of video evidence of the manoeuvre, and the exact ground track flown bears no bearing on the cause of the accident. Do you want the AAIB to go into minute detail on every piece of evidence they have used, state it in the report and explore the almost infinite variation of every tolerance? How many more pages did you want??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But nice effort to blame them for their deaths.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi H Peacock
I was simply using one example to show that there was lack of due diligence in the report. The AAIB has not been as critical of their report as they should have been. For example just one sentence addressing the accuracy of the radar data might have sufficed. They considered the accuracy of the ASI and altimeters in some detail. Yet they introduce radar evidence without explaining what the tolerances are. How difficult could that have been?
If the argument is that the radar track is irrelevant why put it into the report? They could have said that they considered it irrelevant and left it there. All evidence must be subject to scrutiny and criticism particularly since lives were lost.
Lemain, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your concern about the radar data accuracy. There is plenty of video evidence of the manoeuvre, and the exact ground track flown bears no bearing on the cause of the accident. Do you want the AAIB to go into minute detail on every piece of evidence they have used, state it in the report and explore the almost infinite variation of every tolerance? How many more pages did you want??
If the argument is that the radar track is irrelevant why put it into the report? They could have said that they considered it irrelevant and left it there. All evidence must be subject to scrutiny and criticism particularly since lives were lost.
But the accuracy of the ASI and altimeter potentially have a direct and significant part to play. They were being used by the pilot who crashed. If they found the altimeter over-read by a 1000ft that would have explained why the loop was continued. The accuracy of the radar plots had nothing to do with what Andy and his T7 did that day; however, the radar track is relevant to the inquiry.
Do you want to know the experience and currency of the lead AAIB Inspector, just in case that is relevant?
Do you want to know the experience and currency of the lead AAIB Inspector, just in case that is relevant?
Last edited by H Peacock; 20th Mar 2017 at 16:35.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ASI and Altimeter were tested on the bench and were found to be working fairly accurately. However, the aircraft system couldn't be tested due to damage nor could they be seen in any footage to confirm that they were fully operational either. So it is an assumption that they were and the pilot either ignored them, mis-read them or carried on regardless, therefore, only one of these could therefore be fact but which one.
I agree there are chunks missing from the AAIB report, such as due to the seemingly poor maintenance standards (out of date cartridges, MPD's not complied with, part no incorrect, faulty G counter and unknown servicing schedules) in the last 6 years that have been highlighted by the report. It seems odd that the CAA have not given more of an in depth report on the standard of the rest aircraft frame. After all the seat cartridges being out of date are irrelevant to why, as is the compliance of the MPD if this wasn't the why. I know they are solely to recommend improvements for safety but an aircraft poorly maintained or not to standard is a safety risk. They seem to have gone through the pilots info with a fine toothcomb and his log books but not so much on the aircraft and its books.
I agree there are chunks missing from the AAIB report, such as due to the seemingly poor maintenance standards (out of date cartridges, MPD's not complied with, part no incorrect, faulty G counter and unknown servicing schedules) in the last 6 years that have been highlighted by the report. It seems odd that the CAA have not given more of an in depth report on the standard of the rest aircraft frame. After all the seat cartridges being out of date are irrelevant to why, as is the compliance of the MPD if this wasn't the why. I know they are solely to recommend improvements for safety but an aircraft poorly maintained or not to standard is a safety risk. They seem to have gone through the pilots info with a fine toothcomb and his log books but not so much on the aircraft and its books.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the radar track is, as you say, relevant to the inquiry then surely the accuracy of that track is relevant?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my personal view I don't think this will ever be put forward to trial by the CPS. Whilst there is a lot of public pressure because there were tragic deaths and 'somebody must pay', the burden of proof has many holes in it.
To be found guilty of 'Manslaughter by gross negligence' you have to show that the defendant wilfully ignored information that might have caused another competent pilot to take a different, safer course of action. This must be proven 'beyond any reasonable doubt'.
- The pilot was correctly licenced but was not required by the authority to carry out his display revalidation on every type he was to be licensed.
- His display training mandated by the authority did not include an 'escape manoeuvre' from inverted exits at low level, nor was he required to be tested on same.
- The maintenance history of the pitot & altimetry systems was found to be incomplete with instances of unidentified controlled components found fitted.
- This airframe had a history of altimetry issues which might have affected both airspeed and altitude indications.
The way I see it there is ample 'Reasonable Doubt' in this case. There may be a lot of public pressure for a conviction but the CPS has to ask if there is any remote prospect at all of a guilty verdict.
To be found guilty of 'Manslaughter by gross negligence' you have to show that the defendant wilfully ignored information that might have caused another competent pilot to take a different, safer course of action. This must be proven 'beyond any reasonable doubt'.
- The pilot was correctly licenced but was not required by the authority to carry out his display revalidation on every type he was to be licensed.
- His display training mandated by the authority did not include an 'escape manoeuvre' from inverted exits at low level, nor was he required to be tested on same.
- The maintenance history of the pitot & altimetry systems was found to be incomplete with instances of unidentified controlled components found fitted.
- This airframe had a history of altimetry issues which might have affected both airspeed and altitude indications.
The way I see it there is ample 'Reasonable Doubt' in this case. There may be a lot of public pressure for a conviction but the CPS has to ask if there is any remote prospect at all of a guilty verdict.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, should the pull be continued into heavy buffet, which would be easy to do, the aircraft will continue to turn, but energy is being washed off at a very rapid rate. The available speed, hence G, will be less. The only safe way is to keep pumping energy in with max thrust, and keep flying the light buffet. Jesse Pinkman gave a very clear explanation why earlier.
Lemain,
You say "But it was speculation that the pilot might have been under qualified or not medically fit that made the investigating team check that out". I disagree; qualifications and medical fitness are de facto potential causal factors that have to be checked in any such accident. They did not just check these because there was speculation about these being potential causes in this case.
You also say "If the radar track is, as you say, relevant to the inquiry then surely the accuracy of that track is relevant?" The radar track was relevant but within the uses for it (building awareness of the display pattern) then numerical accuracy was not. There are no conclusions, causal or contributory factors in the report that are affected by numerical accuracy data for the radar track.
You say "But it was speculation that the pilot might have been under qualified or not medically fit that made the investigating team check that out". I disagree; qualifications and medical fitness are de facto potential causal factors that have to be checked in any such accident. They did not just check these because there was speculation about these being potential causes in this case.
You also say "If the radar track is, as you say, relevant to the inquiry then surely the accuracy of that track is relevant?" The radar track was relevant but within the uses for it (building awareness of the display pattern) then numerical accuracy was not. There are no conclusions, causal or contributory factors in the report that are affected by numerical accuracy data for the radar track.
The Hunter is a swept wing aircraft, and indeed I'm sure the TP's are right about turn radius, when the aircraft is flown accurately on the light buffet.
However, should the pull be continued into heavy buffet, which would be easy to do, the aircraft will continue to turn, but energy is being washed off at a very rapid rate. The available speed, hence G, will be less. The only safe way is to keep pumping energy in with max thrust, and keep flying the light buffet. Jesse Pinkman gave a very clear explanation why earlier.
However, should the pull be continued into heavy buffet, which would be easy to do, the aircraft will continue to turn, but energy is being washed off at a very rapid rate. The available speed, hence G, will be less. The only safe way is to keep pumping energy in with max thrust, and keep flying the light buffet. Jesse Pinkman gave a very clear explanation why earlier.
My original point was simply speculating about whether the pilot judged that his relatively low speed at the top of the loop would mitigate the low apex height by allowing a tighter radius in the second part of the manoeuvre.
We don't know whether he thought that or not, though we know that if he did, he was mistaken.
DRUK,
A maximum IAS is usually applied to a gate height due to the increase in radius but I have never known of a gate height being lowered because of reduced radius at low speed. As has been mentioned before, min radius speed is not as slow as you can get.
A maximum IAS is usually applied to a gate height due to the increase in radius but I have never known of a gate height being lowered because of reduced radius at low speed. As has been mentioned before, min radius speed is not as slow as you can get.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reviewing various videos of the flight, I see a slight hesitation in pitch as the aircraft is descending through the vertical. The pitch change seems to stop for just a second or so before continuing. This might be a video artifact, the pilot realising he has a big problem, or simply the angle between the camera and the aircraft.
It may be that the hesitation was an attempt to maximise airspeed in order to pull a higher G recovery in the final quarter of the loop. I don't think it has a great deal of relevance to the final outcome, but it might serve to indicate that the pilot was fully aware that there was a problem at that point and was doing his best to try and recover the situation.
It also might suggest that the pilot was trying to invent a recovery procedure without having trained for that eventuality before hand.
Lemain
I must take issue with you suggesting that the AAIB investigators were not completely competent and exercising due diligence throughout this investigation. Such comments are unworthy of this forum.
It may be that the hesitation was an attempt to maximise airspeed in order to pull a higher G recovery in the final quarter of the loop. I don't think it has a great deal of relevance to the final outcome, but it might serve to indicate that the pilot was fully aware that there was a problem at that point and was doing his best to try and recover the situation.
It also might suggest that the pilot was trying to invent a recovery procedure without having trained for that eventuality before hand.
Lemain
I must take issue with you suggesting that the AAIB investigators were not completely competent and exercising due diligence throughout this investigation. Such comments are unworthy of this forum.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magplug thinks it will not get to trial and lists the reasons. From what little has so far been published about AH, it would seem to me a plea that he is not fit for trial may well be in store. Is it not the case that he cannot remember anything about the whole incident, from start to finish and cannot therefore comprehend what the whole fuss is all about.