Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 22 August 2015, 16:21:54
-
Police are reporting casualties. :'(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260)
http://www.airlive.net/2015/08/breaking-were-receiving-reports-of.html (http://www.airlive.net/2015/08/breaking-were-receiving-reports-of.html)
-
Reported that there are 7 dead and 1 critical about 10 mins for where I used to live
-
Am I right in thinking that's 3 crashes at airshows this summer? :-\ :'(
-
Absolutely tragic that it dropped onto a busy road. :'(
-
I know the area very well... Dad lives 5 minutes away and his office is on the airport.
Knowing the road very well the pilot did an amazing job of reducing the devastation by "landing" on the empty side where the traffic was being held by a red light. Had the lights been green then fatalities would almost certainly have increased tenfold.
-
What a classic case of ,wrong place wrong time for these poor people, massive condolences to to the bereaved families and also the relatives of all those affected. You just don,t know what life has in store for you when you leave the house in the morning.
-
Tru dat...
Nasty. Seemed to run away A bit as it came round from the top of the loop :-\ A touch higher or faster and he would have recovered it. That picture of the fireball from the road is quite eerie... Those marshalls? on the right seem to have absolutely no idea of their fate :'(
Will doubtless open up the whole debate of operating classic airframes in such diplays...
-
Tru dat...
Nasty. Seemed to run away A bit as it came round from the top of the loop :-\ A touch higher or faster and he would have recovered it. That picture of the fireball from the road is quite eerie... Those marshalls? on the right seem to have absolutely no idea of their fate :'(
Will doubtless open up the whole debate of operating classic airframes in such diplays...
Do these display aircraft have black boxes? Are the pilots even older than the aircraft?....
I often have to use the A27 on our migrations from Cornwall to East Sussex. It is a crap road at the best of times, I wasn't aware that we were in the firing line as well :(
-
Erm, how on earth has the pilot survived that?!?!?!?! (not that continued survival is guaranteed)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34029764
-
The pilot is in a critical condition in hospital, so I assume he must have ejected. The problem is that as it is an old aircraft I pretty certain from a crash at RAE Farnborough many years a go that they are 50kts / 50ft seats with other restrictions compared to 0/0 modern seats.
-
Can only hope that that Daimler was between jobs :-\
-
Can only hope that that Daimler was between jobs :-\
I thought the same thing when I saw that :-\ :-\
-
Possible the pilot suffered a G-force blackout at the bottom of the loop? :-\
-
Possible the pilot suffered a G-force blackout at the bottom of the loop? :-\
I wondered that too.
-
The pilot is in a critical condition in hospital, so I assume he must have ejected. The problem is that as it is an old aircraft I pretty certain from a crash at RAE Farnborough many years a go that they are 50kts / 50ft seats with other restrictions compared to 0/0 modern seats.
Nope... He was pulled from the wreckage :o :o
Possible the pilot suffered a G-force blackout at the bottom of the loop? :-\
Time will tell but I would say it looked like it was going wrong towards the top of the loop... My money would go on mechanical failure, possibly bird related.
-
During the final stages he had a very high angle of attack and he looked pretty much stalled at impact. I'd say he exited the loop pulling as much G as he dared bit still didn't clear the ground. Possible a flameout or something lost him some energy in the loop? :'(
-
In this video of the Hunter there is a flash from engine just at top of the loop,there's loads of birds around too so possible bird strike,I can't believe the pilot lived through the impact
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shoreham-airshow-crash-video-show-6302632
-
Typical Mirror sensationalism... 'flash' is merely sunlight catching a pitot probe on the starboard wing.
Apparently the limo was on it's way to collect a bride and groom, so small mercies there :-\
-
.. 'flash' is merely sunlight catching a pitot probe on the starboard wing.
I'm not so sure :-\ I would have said it was sun glint on the lens.
But I certainly don't think it's proof of engine troubles ::)
-
And another one. A very bad year
http://www.rt.com/news/313146-switzerland-airshow-plane-crash/
-
Indeed. Just like Motorsport though, it is a dangerous pastime and accidents happen.
Very sad though. The Shoreham crash has really hit me quite hard and I'm not sure why. Perhaps because we had planned to go. Perhaps because I know the area. I don't know :'( :'(
-
Indeed. Just like Motorsport though, it is a dangerous pastime and accidents happen.
Very sad though. The Shoreham crash has really hit me quite hard and I'm not sure why. Perhaps because we had planned to go. Perhaps because I know the area. I don't know :'( :'(
Possibly the familiarity of the site... I cannot count the number of times I have driven over that junction :-\
-
I see the usual array of educated idiots crawled out from under their stones to give the nation the benefit of their wisdom on TV news last night and this morning. The general "wisdom" was that this type of event should now be banned unless it can be staged over the sea, with the public watching at a safe distance from the beach.
They would like to remove all element of risk from life. We might l live a little longer in that scenario, but it would seem like we had lived a hell of lot longer, as life would be unbearably tedious.
It was a terrible tragedy, but apparently its the first time it has happened in this country for many decades. Hopefully it will be even longer, (if ever) before it happens again.
-
Indeed. Not so many years back that crash could have happened into the crowd, and such incidents did happen from time to time. You can't display an aircraft without the extended trajectory sometimes intersecting a member of the public. That it's as rare as it is is safety enough, IMHO.
-
I think this accident has hit all of us hard where it has involved innocent people going about their personal business, a bit like the helicopter crash in Vauxhall a few years a go.
What might be a sensible thing to do is use bigger airfields for airshows and/or a low population, quiet road area adjacent to the airfield, so all aerobatics can be performed within the confines of the airfield / low population areas. This is how things are pretty much performed at Farnborough and since 1953, always on the non-crowd part of the airfield. Yes, they do fly outside of the confines of the airfield, but don't do aerobatics whilst doing so. I know at Farnborough that all displays have to be approved by an experience team who vet them and they also have the authority (which is used and was during a trade day a few years a go) to call a halt to any display at anytime if the pilot is deemed to be acting dangerously by making mistake(s), acting recklessly or if he departs from his approved flying program. When a display is halted, he is ordered to stop and land, no questions, no ifs, no buts! :y :y :y :y The reasons why are discussed afterwards. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ Does anybody know if all other airshows have the same high standards?
Having said that, pilots are human and will make mistakes and they are essentially showing off and there will also be other issues at times from equipment failures to bird strikes. Yes, make them safer, but like many dangerous things we humans do, no they shouldn't be banned. Sadly, the most dangerous thing we all do is travelling around and in the UK it kills 1 in 200 of us in our lifetimes, in many other countries it is much higher. :'(
-
Indeed. Just like Motorsport though, it is a dangerous pastime and accidents happen.
Very sad though. The Shoreham crash has really hit me quite hard and I'm not sure why. Perhaps because we had planned to go. Perhaps because I know the area. I don't know :'( :'(
Possibly the familiarity of the site... I cannot count the number of times I have driven over that junction :-\
Could be. We were supposed to have gone for the air show this weekend... Dad's office on the airfield means priority tickets when they are released. Only reason we didn't is because both U.S. and them were too busy to commit.
I see the usual array of educated idiots crawled out from under their stones to give the nation the benefit of their wisdom on TV news last night and this morning. The general "wisdom" was that this type of event should now be banned unless it can be staged over the sea, with the public watching at a safe distance from the beach.
They would like to remove all element of risk from life. We might l live a little longer in that scenario, but it would seem like we had lived a hell of lot longer, as life would be unbearably tedious.
It was a terrible tragedy, but apparently its the first time it has happened in this country for many decades. Hopefully it will be even longer, (if ever) before it happens again.
All these "experts" make me sick.... This accident was a freak occurrence. The pilot concerned is very highly skilled and I still maintain that he seems to have stayed at the controls despite the obvious issues, possibly to,avoid the queuing traffic. I just hope that they manage to get to the bottom of this for the sake of the families involved. From pictures I have seen, it looks like he hit one car (a Corsa) and this is what caused the airframe to break apart.
Daily Fail websites is amusing though... They've got all,the history of the aircraft and note that it is a 2 seat trainer version yet in the same article refer to it as a single seater! ::)
-
Daily Fail websites is amusing though... They've got all,the history of the aircraft and note that it is a 2 seat trainer version yet in the same article refer to it as a single seater! ::)
I've learnt from bitter experience that you can be as careful as you like briefing the press about an event, give them only the simple, basic, impossible-to-misinterpret facts and explain them over and over again. Every time, they are regurgitated with a sizeable dollop of bullshit added. >:(
Aviation is, unfortunately, an area where they are particularly clueless. ::)
Maybe we should look at restricting airshows to the larger airfields, and Rods2 ponders, but, even Farnborough has a load of offices on the crowd-free side of the airfield now. Where we once had prudence in developing too close to an airfield, we now see every acre of space as ripe for development.
Airshows are also really pulling in the punters in a big way these days, and there are only so many weekend days in each summer.
-
Unfortunately Shoreham Airfield is slightly too far inland for the option of the display over the sea being viable. People attend air shows to see aircraft doing amazing things close up, much like Motorsport, cycle racing, marathons etc...
As for the press :-X :-X :-X ::)
-
G-HURR Huricane was lost at this show a few years ago :(
Very sad for all concerned :(
More footage from the hills, with an eye witness account from the camera man in the description https://youtu.be/9Jh8JN42kf8 (https://youtu.be/9Jh8JN42kf8)
-
Sadly death toll now 11 and may rise further. :'( It must have been instant for the poor people in several cars where it sliced off the roofs. :( :( :( :(
-
more footage on the news today, does look like left hand wing dipped suddenly. :-\
-
Sadly death toll now 11 and may rise further. :'( It must have been instant for the poor people in several cars where it sliced off the roofs. :( :( :( :(
Not sure where you got that from... It didn't slice any roofs off, just sprayed them with burning aviation fuel. The only car that it is confirmed to have struck is the silver Corsa that it crushed.
The rising death toll is very sad though... I believe there are still around 30 people "missing" according to the police records, hence the appeal to update if they have returned.
-
This is a very tragic accident........so sad for all the families and those who have lost their lives.
Yes, with all airshows there is an element of risk, but there is with all flying. Recent events in the airline world prove this.
We have had a 737 on the motorway at East Midlands, A40 at Northolt, And narrowly missed a tragic event at Heathrow. Also a car park at Blackbush. Plus many other tragedies around the world.
They are screaming for another runway ay Heathrow. What if, something with 500 people falls out of the sky over London. Will flying be scrapped into Heathrow. The public have no choice in aircraft over London, if the aforementioned happens, after the initial sorrow...all will be forgotten in the interests of profit.
Most airshows are safe. Sadly things do go wrong, as in any walks of life.
-
The CAA have already imposed new restrictions that mean Aerobatic displays by vintage jets are now a thing of the past. Personally speaking, it seems a shame and a knee jerk reaction to make this decision before the AAIB findings are published, unless there has been a preliminary report that we are unaware of :-\ :-\
-
This is a very tragic accident........so sad for all the families and those who have lost their lives.
Yes, with all airshows there is an element of risk, but there is with all flying. Recent events in the airline world prove this.
We have had a 737 on the motorway at East Midlands, A40 at Northolt, And narrowly missed a tragic event at Heathrow. Also a car park at Blackbush. Plus many other tragedies around the world.
They are screaming for another runway ay Heathrow. What if, something with 500 people falls out of the sky over London. Will flying be scrapped into Heathrow. The public have no choice in aircraft over London, if the aforementioned happens, after the initial sorrow...all will be forgotten in the interests of profit.
Most airshows are safe. Sadly things do go wrong, as in any walks of life.
I mostly agree with this, where there have not been any bystander fatalities at an airshow in the UK since 1952. But now there has been I think it would be sensible to review the current CAA display rules and see what sensible improvements can be made to diminish the risks to the public still further. Generally when things go wrong, the tragedy is used to review current rules and recommendations are made on how they can be further improved, this is how safety is improved. Shoreham airfield is very small and adjacent to one of the south's busier major roads, With display flying allowing a 1km distance with a 100ft minimum altitude at an air display compared to the normal 500ft minimum, this airfield may in the future fail to meet any revised safety criterion.
Spectators at events like motor racing, airshows etc. are aware and consent to the element of slight danger, innocent people driving down a road don't and the dangers to them must be sensibly minimized.
-
The CAA have already imposed new restrictions that mean Aerobatic displays by vintage jets are now a thing of the past. Personally speaking, it seems a shame and a knee jerk reaction to make this decision before the AAIB findings are published, unless there has been a preliminary report that we are unaware of :-\ :-\
What they have done is impose a series of temporary restrictions which is normal after an accident and entirely sensible, pending a full review of current air display standards.
When something like this happens, IMO they would have been failing in their duties if they had not imposed some restriction pending a full review of the rules and standards.
-
Good word is sensible. :y
-
The CAA have already imposed new restrictions that mean Aerobatic displays by vintage jets are now a thing of the past. Personally speaking, it seems a shame and a knee jerk reaction to make this decision before the AAIB findings are published, unless there has been a preliminary report that we are unaware of :-\ :-\
What they have done is impose a series of temporary restrictions which is normal after an accident and entirely sensible, pending a full review of current air display standards.
When something like this happens, IMO they would have been failing in their duties if they had not imposed some restriction pending a full review of the rules and standards.
Ahh... That's ok then. Only saw the newsflash briefly.
-
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your last post, the final sentence is 'dangle berries'... Any where were a road crosses an aircraft approach the roads are suitably signed, whether that be th A23 at Gatwick, the M27 at Southampton, around Hatton Cross and yes the A27 either side of the crash site...
Reverse the wind direction on the day, and it could just have easily been a block of flats on Shoreham beach, or the A259 viaduct, or the Shell garage next to the airfield...
Sadly, shit happens... Sometimes you see it coming and sometimes you don't.
-
Preliminary report is that the pilot started the loop at 200ft, which is 300ft below the minimum licensed height of 500ft for such aerobatics! :(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html)
-
If it was done deliberately or carelessly, he's beneath contempt. Is it possible that the altimeter could have malfunctioned, or is that covered in the "no defects found"?
-
Hoefully the pilot will recover to uncover the truth :-\
-
If it was done deliberately or carelessly, he's beneath contempt. Is it possible that the altimeter could have malfunctioned, or is that covered in the "no defects found"?
There was a cockpit camera, so I suspect they would have mentioned a altimeter malfunction in the report.
-
If it was done deliberately or carelessly, he's beneath contempt. Is it possible that the altimeter could have malfunctioned, or is that covered in the "no defects found"?
There was a cockpit camera, so I suspect they would have mentioned a altimeter malfunction in the report.
:) I know nothing about planes so I didn't know if an altimeter would be big enough to read on a video?
-
It's a primary instrument so not small
-
Preliminary report is that the pilot started the loop at 200ft, which is 300ft below the minimum licensed height of 500ft for such aerobatics! :(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html)
It's hard to believe such an experienced pilot would make a basic and fundamental mistake like that... I'm sure the report I saw (and not the Daily Fail crap) had his radar trace and showed him climbing after the low pass before commencing the loop :-\
-
All humans are fallible and make mistakes. :'(
-
All humans are fallible and make mistakes. :'(
Indeed... Time will tell
-
Preliminary report is that the pilot started the loop at 200ft, which is 300ft below the minimum licensed height of 500ft for such aerobatics! :(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html)
It's hard to believe such an experienced pilot would make a basic and fundamental mistake like that... I'm sure the report I saw (and not the Daily Fail crap) had his radar trace and showed him climbing after the low pass before commencing the loop :-\
Without the spin:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-on-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi
Pass at 100ft, 200ft for start of loop.
-
Preliminary report is that the pilot started the loop at 200ft, which is 300ft below the minimum licensed height of 500ft for such aerobatics! :(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html)
It's hard to believe such an experienced pilot would make a basic and fundamental mistake like that... I'm sure the report I saw (and not the Daily Fail crap) had his radar trace and showed him climbing after the low pass before commencing the loop :-\
Without the spin:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-on-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi
Pass at 100ft, 200ft for start of loop.
Although it does also state that the data is all from radar updating at 6s intervals. But it doesn't look great :'( Should he survive the pilot will either have more evidence or have to live with the consequences of his error, if that is the case :(
-
Before or after the public have hung, drawn and quartered him? (Even before the report came out I've seen people suggest he should be tried for murder..)
-
Before or after the public have hung, drawn and quartered him? (Even before the report came out I've seen people suggest he should be tried for murder..)
Anyone would think he did it on purpose,poor bugger probably wishes he died in the crash.
-
I agree, I remember reading many years a go about an RAF pilot, instructor and ex-Red Arrows pilot who said he was careless during a flying display by not double checking his height before starting a loop and realizing on the downward pullout he was in trouble with his altitude but managed to get away with it just, he said that taught him a valuable lesson on complacency, which he always passed on when teaching aerobatics.
Pilots want to go home to their families and friends after a day at the office.
-
Has anyone thought that he might have mixed up meters and feet? I am pretty sure the Hawker works in old money and most of the planes he works on with BA are likely to be in meters. :-\
-
Has anyone thought that he might have mixed up meters and feet? I am pretty sure the Hawker works in old money and most of the planes he works on with BA are likely to be in meters. :-\
I thought (but it could be because everything I've flown is old) that altimeter was always in feet :-\
Must admit, I wondered if there was an issue with the setting of it but can't see there being a big enough change in pressure to cause that much inaccuracy. Couldn't even be a mix up of AGL vs ASL because the ground isn't that much higher.
Time will tell but it's certainly a sad situation. I hope that they get to the bottom of it
-
Before or after the public have hung, drawn and quartered him? (Even before the report came out I've seen people suggest he should be tried for murder..)
So anyone who kills someone in a car crash should also be tried for murder then? ::) ::)
Some people......
-
Before or after the public have hung, drawn and quartered him? (Even before the report came out I've seen people suggest he should be tried for murder..)
So anyone who kills someone in a car crash should also be tried for murder then? ::) ::)
Some people......
All cyclists who crash in to cars and kill the occupants should be. Gits they are ::) ;D
-
Has anyone thought that he might have mixed up meters and feet? I am pretty sure the Hawker works in old money and most of the planes he works on with BA are likely to be in meters. :-\
All aviation in the UK and internationally works in "old money" although I've flown gliders from Europe with metric instruments, which are confusing. If he flew any types with metric instruments he would have been well used to converting to and from feet as that's what air traffic control work in. A Hunter wouldn't have been fitted with metric instruments.
The Fail have jumped to the conclusion that the pilot was at error, but I can't see anything of that in the AAIB bulletin.
The only altitude reference is from secondary radar, which has an altitude resolution of 100 feet, isn't referenced to QNH of the day and the report mentions the 6 second update rate. A lot can happen in 6 seconds, certainly, a gentle climb from 200 to 500 feet before entering the loop wouldn't have been apparent from that data. Secondary radar is designed to identify aircraft at cruising flight levels. Who knows how accurate it is that close to the ground?
I don't actually believe the entry height of the manoeuvre is relevant. Whilst an aircraft with low wing loading and low or no thrust such as a glider essentially conserves energy through a loop, exiting at close to the entry height and speed if flown properly, an aircraft with a high wing loading such as the Hunter would be very "lossy", relying on thrust throughout the manoeuvre.
The interesting thing would be to know his height and speed at the top of the loop. Here he would decide if he could "pull through" the vertical axis and recover level flight safely above the ground, and he would have the opportunity to roll back level and abort the figure if not.
-
reading between the lines in the report, i picked up:
"He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), ..to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of .. 500 ft during
Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres. "
"[he] then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle
of about 45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre [the loop]"
amsl is above mean sea level, the 500 feet would be above ground level. not that that makes a lot difference - he started his manoeuvre at 200 feet above sea level and he was licensed to start it at 500 feet above ground level. he was out by about 400 feet assuming the crash site was 100 ft above sea level.
it will be interesting to see how the pilot is treated compared to the Glasgow bin lorry driver who killed only 6.
-
Do note the massive limitations on the altitude measurements that they have relied on!
How accurate do you think a device that measures altitude in 100ft steps is, when that close to the ground?
A Hunter can climb quite a long way between 6 second updates too!
Also, a manoeuvre only becomes "aerobatic" when the pilot exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank.
Had he started the manoeuvre 400 feet higher, whilst he might have missed the ground, it would still have been a very close call, and taken him below his display floor.
Whilst the media are baying for blood it's not as simple as starting the loop too low.
-
its seems the airport is only 7 feet amsl so assuming the crash site is similar he was only 307 feet out. 500 feet agl starting point for the maneouvre is the minimum he is licensed for mind.
-
All cyclists who crash in to cars and kill the occupants should be. Gits they are ::) ;D
All cyclists should be tried for something. Give me time and I'll figure out what it should be :P
So anyone who kills someone in a car crash should also be tried for murder then? ::) ::)
Some people......
I know some people who truly believe that :( Possibly not helped by the fact that we're all told now there is "no such thing as an accident" (it's an "incident") and someone is always at fault because where there's blame there's a claim... :(
[edit] I am, of course, in no way saying the pilot should be tried for murder. I'm sure if it turns out he was at fault because he failed to realise his altitude then he'll end up being tried for something, even though he'll have to live with the guilt (guilty or not!) for the rest of his life.
-
Has anyone thought that he might have mixed up meters and feet? I am pretty sure the Hawker works in old money and most of the planes he works on with BA are likely to be in meters. :-\
All aviation in the UK and internationally works in "old money" although I've flown gliders from Europe with metric instruments, which are confusing. If he flew any types with metric instruments he would have been well used to converting to and from feet as that's what air traffic control work in. A Hunter wouldn't have been fitted with metric instruments.
The Fail have jumped to the conclusion that the pilot was at error, but I can't see anything of that in the AAIB bulletin.
The only altitude reference is from secondary radar, which has an altitude resolution of 100 feet, isn't referenced to QNH of the day and the report mentions the 6 second update rate. A lot can happen in 6 seconds, certainly, a gentle climb from 200 to 500 feet before entering the loop wouldn't have been apparent from that data. Secondary radar is designed to identify aircraft at cruising flight levels. Who knows how accurate it is that close to the ground?
I don't actually believe the entry height of the manoeuvre is relevant. Whilst an aircraft with low wing loading and low or no thrust such as a glider essentially conserves energy through a loop, exiting at close to the entry height and speed if flown properly, an aircraft with a high wing loading such as the Hunter would be very "lossy", relying on thrust throughout the manoeuvre.
The interesting thing would be to know his height and speed at the top of the loop. Here he would decide if he could "pull through" the vertical axis and recover level flight safely above the ground, and he would have the opportunity to roll back level and abort the figure if not.
It is relevant in so far as had he started at or above the minimum height he would have gained more time to deal with any problem. The top of the loop was 2600ft, 100KIAS.
-
the reports didn't seem sure about the height of the loop "The maximum
altitude recorded during the final manoeuvre was 2,600 ft amsl (recorded by Heathrow
radar), which may not reflect the peak altitude achieved because the radar data was not
continuous."
hopefully the cameras will show it or it can be calculated from the imges, if so it's strange it isn't in the initial report.
i'm surprised the jet didn't seem to have the power to pull up at the end given the rate of climb of the hunter is apparently 87m/s and it has a reasonably high thrust to weight ratio - it clearly stalled at the end
-
its seems the airport is only 7 feet amsl so assuming the crash site is similar he was only 307 feet out. 500 feet agl starting point for the maneouvre is the minimum he is licensed for mind.
It's a grey area, and display pilots don't seem to agree on what the rule means. The limit for flypasts was 100'. The limit for aerobatics was 500'. So what happens if you perform a flypast and then go straight into a loop? Some display pilots seem to be saying it is acceptable to perform the flypast at 100', and then pull up into a loop, but the loop must be completed without busting the 500' deck on the way back down. To ensure that happens the pilots should fly to a system of 'gates' whereby they must ensure they reach a certain altitude and speed at the TOP of the loop before they attempt to complete the second half of the manouver - i.e.the way down. If the gate height/speed isn't reached, then the manouver should be thrown away - that is the pilot should continue to build height/speed before starting to come back down.
So the important bit of the report isn't that the start of the loop was at 200' - but rather that the top of the loop was 2800' and 100kts. I have yet to see any qualified Hunter display pilot say if this is an acceptable 'gate' for such a loop. The further complication is that it wasn't a 'loop' - or if it was, it wasn't flown correctly. It may have been a quarter clover - or some variation of a modified quarter clover. Different manouvers require different gate parameters because the additional rolling involved steals energy.
-
i'm surprised the jet didn't seem to have the power to pull up at the end given the rate of climb of the hunter is apparently 87m/s and it has a reasonably high thrust to weight ratio - it clearly stalled at the end
Power is largely irrelavent when pulling out at the bottom of the manouver. Whilst the nose is pointed downwards, power just increases your speed towards the ground - and gravity is already pulling you down. What you need is lift - which can only come from getting the wings level. Similarly too much speed/power over the top of a loop is a bad thing, since that extra speed will increase the radius of your (vertical) turn, meaning you need more altitude the faster you're going.
Once you go past the top of the loop, and your nose is pointed down past around 45 degrees then your fate is sealed. Too much speed, or not enough altitude at that point and you've had it.
-
its seems the airport is only 7 feet amsl so assuming the crash site is similar he was only 307 feet out. 500 feet agl starting point for the maneouvre is the minimum he is licensed for mind.
It's a grey area, and display pilots don't seem to agree on what the rule means. The limit for flypasts was 100'. The limit for aerobatics was 500'. So what happens if you perform a flypast and then go straight into a loop? Some display pilots seem to be saying it is acceptable to perform the flypast at 100', and then pull up into a loop, but the loop must be completed without busting the 500' deck on the way back down. To ensure that happens the pilots should fly to a system of 'gates' whereby they must ensure they reach a certain altitude and speed at the TOP of the loop before they attempt to complete the second half of the manouver - i.e.the way down. If the gate height/speed isn't reached, then the manouver should be thrown away - that is the pilot should continue to build height/speed before starting to come back down.
So the important bit of the report isn't that the start of the loop was at 200' - but rather that the top of the loop was 2800' and 100kts. I have yet to see any qualified Hunter display pilot say if this is an acceptable 'gate' for such a loop. The further complication is that it wasn't a 'loop' - or if it was, it wasn't flown correctly. It may have been a quarter clover - or some variation of a modified quarter clover. Different manouvers require different gate parameters because the additional rolling involved steals energy.
A Hunter won't do that, if it comes out at the entry height then the manoeuvre has gone well.
-
I have yet to see any qualified Hunter display pilot say if this is an acceptable 'gate' for such a loop.
That's the bottom line. :y
If he missed the gate, then he had an opportunity to avoid the accident. If he didn't, then something went wrong on the way down, that he may have not been able to do anything about.. :(
-
I have yet to see any qualified Hunter display pilot say if this is an acceptable 'gate' for such a loop.
That's the bottom line. :y
If he missed the gate, then he had an opportunity to avoid the accident. If he didn't, then something went wrong on the way down, that he may have not been able to do anything about.. :(
I'll wait for detailed reports before judging :y But, IMO, something looks off about 1/4 of the way down the second half of the "loop", although it could be camera trickery :-\
-
A Hunter won't do that, if it comes out at the entry height then the manoeuvre has gone well.
It will - If you go in at 500kts 100' full throttle, you can go up and over the top, throttle back, and complete the loop above entry height. Effectively you're trading initial kinetic energy (speed) for final potential energy (altitude) - and all the engine has to do is replace the energy lost to drag. Since we know the engine must be able to produce more thrust than there is drag (otherwise the plane would never get off the ground) then the extra thrust on the way up will also add to the exit altitude.
-
Power is largely irrelavent when pulling out at the bottom of the manouver. Whilst the nose is pointed downwards, power just increases your speed towards the ground - and gravity is already pulling you down. What you need is lift - which can only come from getting the wings level.
i'm surprised at that for a fighter aircraft, even for an old one. i would have thought if you put on full power and pull back on the stick it would pretty sharply turn up, not increase your speed towards the ground.
even if the stick is pulled back too much i'd expect it to be more difficult to stall the jet than it appeared, providing power was on full. at the end it looks like he pulled back without power and it fell like a stone. didn't hear any engine noise increase.
-
Power is largely irrelavent when pulling out at the bottom of the manouver. Whilst the nose is pointed downwards, power just increases your speed towards the ground - and gravity is already pulling you down. What you need is lift - which can only come from getting the wings level.
i'm surprised at that for a fighter aircraft, even for an old one. i would have thought if you put on full power and pull back on the stick it would pretty sharply turn up, not increase your speed towards the ground.
even if the stick is pulled back too much i'd expect it to be more difficult to stall the jet than it appeared, providing power was on full. at the end it looks like he pulled back without power and it fell like a stone. didn't hear any engine noise increase.
Lift can only come from two sources - the wings providing aerodynamic lift, and/or the engine thrust being pointed downwards.
The axis of engine thrust is basically in line with the fuselage. If the nose is pointed down, then simple physics says a proportion of that thrust is accelerating the plane towards the ground. This doesn't stop until the fuselage is level, at which point all the thrust is accelerating the aircraft forwards. If you're coming down off a loop, then gravity is already accelerating you towards the ground, so you don't really want the engine thrusting you even faster downwards. AIUI, the normal technique is full power from 6 to 10 o-clock (to gain height), then ease off the throttle between 11 and 12 o-clock on the way up, and then feed the throttle back in again at about 5 o-clock on the way down (once you know you're pulling out successfully).
The Hunter isn't a particularly powerful aeroplane - not when compared to a modern jet like an F-16, Typhoon or Tornado or F-4. Pulling hard on the stick will create a lot of drag, which will cause a loss of speed/energy. If the engine isn't producing enough thrust to overcome the loss of energy then the plane will eventually stall. There is an optimum speed and power setting to achieve a min radius turn/loop - but the critical point is not at the bottom - it's at the top. If you don't hit your gate speed/altitude then it doesn't matter what you do on the way down you are going to bust the minimums.
There was a fatal F-4 phantom crash on the practice day for RAF Abingdon back in the late 80's. The main factor was found to be that the pilot had spent too long with the throttles full open at the top of the loop. This meant that his speed through the "gate" was too high, and therefore the radius of the turn in the second half of the loop was wider than he expected, and ultimately greater than the altitude available to recover.
Everyone needs to wait for the full AAIB report before coming to any conclusions here.
-
The Hunter isn't a particularly powerful aeroplane - not when compared to a modern jet like an F-16, Typhoon or Tornado or F-4.
Exactly.. and quite heavy too.
Pulling hard on the stick will create a lot of drag, which will cause a loss of speed/energy.
Also very significant. If your basic problem is a lack of energy, you are better off not loading the wings heavily too close to the stall, as the whole thing becomes very draggy, losing you more energy. Better to do what he did, and pull steadily, keeping the airframe efficient, until it becomes a last ditch attempt to avoid the ground.
The AoA looked very high in the last stages, and it was just dropping a wing as he crashed, so I'm guessing he probably pulled harder and stalled at that point. The drag induced at that point probably lost him some energy and made the crash more survivable, It also pitched the nose up so the tail contacted first. That probably saved his life, but I'd bet there was nothing he could have done for the other victims at any point during the last half of the loop.
Everyone needs to wait for the full AAIB report before coming to any conclusions here.
Amen to that. :y
-
A Hunter won't do that, if it comes out at the entry height then the manoeuvre has gone well.
It will - If you go in at 500kts 100' full throttle, you can go up and over the top, throttle back, and complete the loop above entry height. Effectively you're trading initial kinetic energy (speed) for final potential energy (altitude) - and all the engine has to do is replace the energy lost to drag. Since we know the engine must be able to produce more thrust than there is drag (otherwise the plane would never get off the ground) then the extra thrust on the way up will also add to the exit altitude.
I personally think that would be exceptionally difficult in a Hunter, for some of the reasons you highlight in your next reply. As you also say though we are not going to know anything for sure until the investigation progresses and produces a final report.
-
He also wouldn't be the first pilot to be trying too hard to pull out of such a situation, where a high AoA / drag situation rapidly reduces speed (without the pilot increasing throttle and power) and increases your sink rate. :(
-
have a look at this video which is of a hunter test pilot having some similar trouble - "seconds later i found the ground was abnormally close and I was pointing vertically at it..". its also the two seater version, similar but earlier than the shoreham one.
http://youtu.be/weV-9Sj8F5Y?t=19m16s (http://youtu.be/weV-9Sj8F5Y?t=19m16s)
I must say the jet looks pretty powerful and manoeuvrable there.
-
Ah he's so very British.
-
Proper jet fighter and good weapons platform :y
-
I see reports are now that the pilot has been discharged from hospital and has returned home..
..comments on those news reports are now baying for blood, of course. Humans are a wonderful sort.
-
As a bloke who proud to say he spent 7 years working front line on fast jets and working / playing hard with the aircrew, this is MY take on it .......................
Pilot has only 40 ish hours on type in 4 years.
Aircraft fuelled to 75% plus including fuel in the under wing tanks during the display.
Hot day (23+ degrees) so engine performance would be down.
23deg flap (which is permitted for manoeuvring under 0.9 mach) used. With the aircraft inverted and during the trip down, imo, these would increase drag and provide little or no lift benefit so increasing the time / distance travelled before airspeed was high enough to give the aircraft controllable lift from the aerofoil :(
Lack of energy as he pulled over the top due to various reasons :(
The bang seat fitted iirc is the Martin Baker mk4 seat (as fitted to the EE Lightning) and is rated at 90 knots airspeed / Zero feet in level flight.
It should be noted that the pilot endeavoured to avoid more heavily populated areas to the point that he stayed with the aircraft when he could have very easily ejected much earlier ;)
Hard bit to say this BUT imho, it looks like pilot error plain and simple :( :(
Thoughts with ALL the families of the victims of this terrible ACCIDENT :'(
-
I see reports are now that the pilot has been discharged from hospital and has returned home..
..comments on those news reports are now baying for blood, of course. Humans are a wonderful sort.
We all make mistakes and when we do, we have to live with the consequences. For the majority of people, the majority of the time it fortunately does not result in somebody's injury or death. In cases where any unreasonable negligence is clearly established it is then best to let the law take its course. Of course this does not maximise daily rag sales, compared to trial by tabloid! :( :( :(
-
Well, the report is out:
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015 (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015)
Bottom line: Pilot entered the manoeuvre below his target height and airspeed, engine wasn't providing maximum thrust on the way up, but not able to determine if that was due to pilot input or a failure. Aircraft was below gate height at the apex and it wouldn't have been possible to pull through the loop from there. Pilot could have executed an escape manoeuvre at that point but didn't, and hadn't even trained to do so, with tragic consequences. :(
But: A whole host of other findings concerned with the regulation and organisation of the display and operation and maintenance of the aircraft, display approval of the pilot, etc.
I doubt there's anyone in the whole chain who won't have a sleepless night tonight.
Looks like a bit of a shambles, IMHO. :(
-
Well, the report is out:
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015 (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015)
Bottom line: Pilot entered the manoeuvre below his target height and airspeed, engine wasn't providing maximum thrust on the way up, but not able to determine if that was due to pilot input or a failure. Aircraft was below gate height at the apex and it wouldn't have been possible to pull through the loop from there. Pilot could have executed an escape manoeuvre at that point but didn't, and hadn't even trained to do so, with tragic consequences. :(
But: A whole host of other findings concerned with the regulation and organisation of the display and operation and maintenance of the aircraft, display approval of the pilot, etc.
I doubt there's anyone in the whole chain who won't have a sleepless night tonight.
Looks like a bit of a shambles, IMHO. :(
Was reading that earlier,proper catalogue of errors,fair play to the pilot though as he didn't bang out untill impact when the plane ejected him :-X
-
A shambles , probably maintenance not up to scratch can't imagine what it must cost to look after a plane like that properly. Just tragic for everyone involved.
.
-
Just been watching the news , all pretty damning stuff coming to light about the pilot, but conveniently he can't remember anything according to his solicitor.
-
Just been watching the news , all pretty damning stuff coming to light about the pilot, but conveniently he can't remember anything according to his solicitor.
Unfortunately he will be the scapegoat, despite errors from many people along the way :'(
As for memory, I doubt it is a convenience... I highly doubt anyone would put their body through the trauma he did and remember things clearly.
He has made a mistake that will haunt him forever. But the catalogue of errors leading up to it, including approval for a manoeuvre he was inadequately trained for, can't all be laid at his feet.
Once again, my sympathies go out to the families who have had their worlds torn apart in this terrible tragedy as well as all who responded.
-
Yep, he was, of course, in a medically induced coma for some time after the incident and before that he saw the trees hit his canopy at 300 kts. Now the world expects him to have perfect recall. I have a lot of sympathy for him, to be honest.
As said, he made a mistake. Other factors mentioned in the report may or may not have been at play, but when you make mistakes in an aircraft with that much energy, they can have tragic consequences. As a former RAF fast jet instructor and commercial airline pilot, he will have understood that, and I can't believe he wouldn't have taken what he was doing very seriously.
I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, but, then, if people weren't prepared to take that risk and display aircraft, we wouldn't have air shows to go to, and I for one would be very sad not to see old aircraft like the Hunter flying, because I find seeing them static in museums pretty depressing.
-
Looks like pilot error.
If so he must feel beyond bad. :-\
-
Tilbo its plain to me that from those your last 2 posts on this subject, you know sweet f**k all about mentality of aircrew, or anything about the maintenance of aircraft :-X :-X
-
Looks like pilot error.
If so he must feel beyond bad. :-\
Simply put .................. Yes :(
-
Looks like pilot error.
If so he must feel beyond bad. :-\
It was a major factor, but there were other things at play also.
-
Tilbo its plain to me that from those your last 2 posts on this subject, you know sweet f**k all about mentality of aircrew, or anything about the maintenance of aircraft :-X :-X
.
Did I say I did ? It is you who is giving the expert opinion !
-
Tilbo its plain to me that from those your last 2 posts on this subject, you know sweet f**k all about mentality of aircrew, or anything about the maintenance of aircraft :-X :-X
.
Did I say I did ? It is you who is giving the expert opinion !
Apparently it seems that if you're driving like a twunt on the A27 pushing your car to the limits, ultimate responsibility rests with you. Not the bloke at quickfit who did the tyres... not your mom... not the MOT man... YOU.
However if you're showing off in an aircraft near populated areas for no legitimate reason the same clearly doesn't apply. ::)
Still, at least the pilot isn't a biker it seems, as one would assume that if he was he'd be blaming the cars for cutting him up/spilled diesel... in the sky.
-
Looks like pilot error.
If so he must feel beyond bad. :-\
It was a major factor, but there were other things at play also.
That the aircraft came down where it did is partly due to organisers of the show.
The actual cause of the crash is purely down to the pilot attempting manoeuvres too low to the ground and without enough speed to complete them. From what I hear, much of that is due to him being both poorly prepared and inexperienced in type. Which makes it very difficult to feel any sympathy for him.
-
IP
Looks like pilot error.
If so he must feel beyond bad. :-\
It was a major factor, but there were other things at play also.
That the aircraft came down where it did is partly due to organisers of the show.
The actual cause of the crash is purely down to the pilot attempting manoeuvres too low to the ground and without enough speed to complete them. From what I hear, much of that is due to him being both poorly prepared and inexperienced in type. Which makes it very difficult to feel any sympathy for him.
.
Quite agree we all have a duty of care each time we are in control of a vehicle to our passengers and to the general public/fellow motorists, this is where the pilot in question has failed either through lack of training or a poorly maintained aircraft.As for my comment regarding his lack of memory regarding the incident in my 20+ years in H.M.P.S I have lost count of the number of men who have told me they can't recall the details of a life changing incident, especially when blame or guilt can be proven. However this pilot in my opinion did not commit a crime but must face up to the consequences of his actions.
-
Big difference in the mindset of paid up Unison members and a commercial pilot trying to deliver a show in a classic aircraft for free...
You could perhaps compare the pilot to a twenty something bloke who has been driving for 9 years and crashing an uncles restored E type after misjudging a familiar bend.
-
Two words he won't forget in a hurry:
Sink rate.
-
Tilbo its plain to me that from those your last 2 posts on this subject, you know sweet f**k all about mentality of aircrew, or anything about the maintenance of aircraft :-X :-X
.
Did I say I did ? It is you who is giving the expert opinion !
Eh no ::)
I was giving MY opinion based on nearly 7 years of working with aircrew, maintaining fast jets and understanding what makes them fly, limited stick time in single engine light aircraft and the od jolly in fast jets which I performed the od trick when the jockey of the day allowed me too :D
If you actually LOOK at what I put back in post 79, I think I got it pretty much spot on :(
At the end of the day, the pilot oppsed up.
He went over the top far too slow with nowhere enough energy to finish the manoeuvre.
If he could do it all again, he would have reversed the manoeuvre at the top, pushed the nose down a little while keeping the throttle open and flew off in the opposite direction.
He didn't and we all know what happened after that :(
As for blame ??
You can bleat on about training, experience, health and safety, risk assessment till your blue in the face but at the end of the day, the pilot flew the manoeuvre and oppsed it up, simples ........ :(
-
And I was giving my opinion, I never mentioned knowing anything about aircraft maintenance but you seemed fit to jump in feet first as for 7 years experience not exactly a lifetime is it !
-
And I was giving my opinion, I never mentioned knowing anything about aircraft maintenance but you seemed fit to jump in feet first as for 7 years experience not exactly a lifetime is it !
I suggest you re read post 83 ::)
Reference your signature at the bottom of ALL your posts .............
" When you are old you know everything,trouble is you have to deal with people who know nothing." It really doesn't do you any favours now does it :)
Ever heard of the saying, "when in a hole, stop digging" :)
-
Really clutching at straws now, "Please feel free to give it back in the same spirit" Always amuses me when individuals like to dish it out but don't like it returned.
😂😂😂
-
Tilbo or whatever your real name is ::)
Your just not worth it chum ;)
-
Well....I put 'don't be offended' in my sig but, when I call someone a fat, ignorant pig, they go and get all offended like. Sheesh.... ;D
-
Well....I put 'don't be offended' in my sig but, when I call someone a fat, ignorant pig, they go and get all offended like. Sheesh.... ;D
And you can break off :P ;D
-
Tilbo or whatever your real name is ::)
Your just not worth it chum ;)
.
I can assure you the feeling is mutual.
-
Well that was worth posting...
-
Well that was worth posting...
So was that.
-
Well that was worth posting...
So was that.
And that... ;D
-
;D