Forum menu
Tom_W1987I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.
Duxford is hardly in an isolated position either. And this is the problem, in the UK we are a small island with a high population density, especially in the south. Look at all the roads and houses around virtually any airfield in the UK and it's the same.
Whilst this incident is shocking, frankly, with any chaotic situation like an airplane maneuvering in 3 dimensional space at high speed, estimating the "end position" at any moment in the future is impossibly difficult. Had this pilot been 30foot to the left, or pulled up 0.5 sec later or earlier, he would have impacted a field rather than the A27 and the result would have been very different. And of course, by the same token, he could also have impacted a large busy pub full of people, or the School just down the road.
And that's the point: You cannot talk specifics, but must work by the law of averages.
The currently rules have prevented any 3rd party injuries or deaths for 60 years, so they are NOT grossly wrong. However, we need to look at this incident in proper detail, understand what happened and why, and the critical [b]chain[/b] of events that lead to the crash (no accident ever has a single cause). If those investigations point to a change that could make a statistically significant reduction in average risk, then that change needs to be made. Luckily, the AAIB are extremely good and doing just that.
I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.
Perhaps you're being ironic, but Duxford isn't a great example as the M11 goes past the end of the runway and, for exmple, wreckage from the P38 that crashed a few years ago there went onto the motorway.
convertAlso - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.
This is an interesting point for discussion^^^
What is the benefit for things we do "for fun"? I would argue that in many ways, these are the things that make life worth living in the first place! If you asked me if i wanted too:
1) live for 80 years, just living on bread and water (carried by those lorries) but not able to partake in any other activity that wasn't directly necessary for life.
OR
2) accept the 1 in a billion (or more) chance that i'd die tomorrow from some freak incident but be able to fill my life with enrichening experiences like airshows.
then it's 2) for me please!
But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.
Perhaps you're being ironic, but Duxford isn't a great example as the M11 goes past the end of the runway and, for exmple, wreckage from the P38 that crashed a few years ago there went onto the motorway.
It's still better than Shoreham though....at the end of the day it is less built up and toward the south of the airfield there is plenty of room to carry out manoeuvres in a way that won't risk crashing into a main road or a heavily built up area. Perhaps limit the types of manoeuvres done, so that the only high G manoeuvres allowed would be those that result in a crash directly on the airfield - whilst limiting the rest to low G stuff with a low risk of stall or pilot disorientation.
@50.8361369,-0.296974,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x487599ef6cb32407:0x3dd527ac04e875c
@52.0772275,0.1397246,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d870963894862d:0x7c69bf53a1c0382d
You could mitigate the risk at Duxford so that the only risk to the main roads was from a mechanical failure. Hundreds of airfields and airports around the UK put main roads at the risk of being hit by an aircraft suffering from a mechanical issue.
convert
But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.
Actually they did. Ok, maybe they didn't go to [b]that particular[/b] airshow, but i bet they, their children or family have been to [b]an[/b] airshow, or even watched one on telly etc.
As a Child, what you see, experience, imagine, and even dream about really does influence what you do and make of your life.
For me, i grew up in the early 1980's under Concordes Flight path out of Heathrow in South Oxfordshire. Hearing and seeing that futuristic White dart spear upwards between the clouds every morning at 11am helped to get me interested in science and engineering. It was a real, tangible link to a subject that could have been very dull and boring, and as Children we NEED that excitement to dream about! Fast forwards 30 years to today and i am now a very successful and high regarded engineer, and have been privileged to work on some incredible engineering projects.
Would i be where i am today if we had banned Concorde for being "Too noisy" back in 1978?
Well who knows, but i'm going to suggest that banning something because it isn't directly necessary to support our lives is a short sighted action.
?
A fighter needs so much space for a loop the chances of staying within a designated area seem low.
What a load of drivel. Yes they need a big area for vertical manoeuvres but display flying is strictly controlled and they have designated areas and gates they normally stay within.
For whatever reason; mechanical, failing to reach gate height, pilot incapacitation etc etc, the jet failed to recover from its manoeuvre.
It was an accident. Accidents happen. Sometimes we can ensure they don't re-occur. Generally, however, accidents by their nature are repeatable events. Sadly bystanders were involved. That's extremely rare. But this happens in all manner of activities everyday. Let's not get all wrapped around the axle here.
Ironically the bystanders on the road chose to expose themselves to far more risk through driving than death by airshow mishap.
Did you read all my post, Miketroid? I'm fully aware that pilots have to fly their display within a limited area and therefore question whether it would be possible for a fighter to complete a loop within a designated "safe" area at that airport.
I'm not proposing a ban, just questioning whether that was a sensible place to allow an old fighter to do a low-level loop.
The idea of what is sensible is changing with time. I have a vivid memory of watching a Harrier jump jet landing and taking off at close quarters around 1970. I'm not so sure of exactly where it was but my memory says it was in Birmingham city center! I was standing on the top of a building and the Harrier landed on another building. Perhaps an aviation buff can confirm because Google can't (edit: I'll ask may mother the next time I give her a ring).
I'm fully aware that pilots have to fly their display within a limited area and therefore question whether it would be possible for a fighter to complete a loop within a designated "safe" area at that airport.
Clearly it was perfectly possible because the aircraft / pilot were given permission to do it.
Same with all the bollocks earlier in the thread about restricting aerobatics to aircraft that were "designed for it".
It's a ****ing jet fighter - it saw front-line service in the RAF for 20 years, of course it's designed for it!
And the pilot, was he designed for it? Still fit for it? Loops are a pretty good way of draining the blood from your brain.
Edukator
just questioning whether that was a sensible place to allow an old fighter to do a low-level loop.
I'm not sure the age of the aircraft has anything to do with it. Currently, we have no evidence to suggest mechanical failure rather than pilot error. In fact, the aircraft looks to have responded extremely well in the last 2 secs before impact, the point where the pilot fully realises their error and initiates a "max pull" in an attempt to tighten the loop exit.
At this point, subject to a full and proper investigation by the AAIB, i'm going to suggest that pilot incapacitation or improper spacial awareness is the most likely cause.
i'm going to suggest that pilot incapacitation or improper spacial awareness is the most likely cause
I agree, it looked to me like too much G, pilot starts to lose control, G reduced, regains control and adds more G but too late. I wasn't sitting next to him though so I can't be sure and nor can anyone else on here.
I think quite simply he was too low. It was a very hot day, maybe humid, which will have affected air density, he will have done that maneuver before at the same airspeed/altitude, but he may well have not taken into account the affect on aircraft performance the conditions may have had on this occasion.
I don't see any loss of control, just a lack of recovery altitude, the swerve may well have been pilot reaction to try and recover or avoid highway.
He's former red arrows I think.
Let's hope he recovers and answers can be provided.
Devastating for all concerned.
I'm not sure the age of the aircraft has anything to do with it. Currently, we have no evidence to suggest mechanical failure rather than pilot error.
Currently we have no evidence to suggest ANYTHING - I think the mindless speculation has just got out of hand and moved into the slightly distasteful to be honest.
If you find it distasteful, leave it to those who don't find such a discussion distasteful to discuss, Crazy-legs.
I don't find the discussion mindless or out of hand.
Were are discussing something in the news, like most other things discussed on STW. Charlie Hebdo, tube disasters, wars ... they all get discussed with people chipping in opinions and ideas.
The Gs involved in doing Cubans and loops etc are brutal, turning you into a gargoyle and pulling the helmet off your head. Even an experienced pilot's body/brain is going to be taking that strain and wallops. I did it twice (as a passenger) but never again and my mate sold his share in the Yak due to a couple of close calls. Dangerous stuff all round.
But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.
No but ironically they were doing something far more dangerous at the time, driving or cycling on the UK's road network, where as we know around 6-7 people are wiped out on a daily basis, often through no fault of their own, yet normally this isn't even considered newsworthy! Let's get things in perspective shall we?
I'm sure the AAIB will conduct a very thorough investigation as usual and find the absolute or most likely cause of this dreadful accident.
The BBC have posted some new footage and it appears that there may have been a loss of power as the aircraft appears to suddenly stall just as it should be pulling out of the bottom of the loop. Obviously too early to speculate as to why that may be.
BBC.CO.UK Very tragic event
I don't find the discussion mindless or out of hand.
The *discussion* isn't, it's the speculation and blame game that's already being played out.
There's a subtle difference between stating an opinion and putting that opinion forward as fact with no evidence to support it.
I really don't think perspective has anything to do with it. In the same vein would you have been in favour of no changes to Ro-ro ferry design or operating procedure after the Spirit of Free Enterprise sinking because it was a one off? I mean people don't die on ferries very often so even though there was a glaringly obvious improvement that could be made it was nothing like as dangerous as driving on the road so we 'should all have had a bit of perspective' and lived with the risk. Re-evaluating the risk benefit balance and making changes is a healthy exercise for any activity and comparisons to other unrelated activities is just a fatuous irellevance. Again, I don't think banning is a correct response to many things but I fail to comprehend why adding a bit more margin for error to the licencing of air shows (which might lead to changes of venue or routines) would not be a reasonable response or be considered by any one as 'knee jerk'.Let's get things in perspective shall we?
We've all watched the video. And people are being careful not to present their ideas as fact.
No but ironically they were doing something far more dangerous at the time, driving or cycling on the UK's road network, where as we know around 6-7 people are wiped out on a daily basis, often through no fault of their own, yet normally this isn't even considered newsworthy!
Anyway thinking about this again - I'm not sure this is actually true. How many man minutes have been spent by people stood (or sat in cars) at the end of a jet aircraft aerobatic display line per death in the UK vs. how many man minutes of cycling or driving (or being a passenger in a car) are there in the UK per death? Given the 100s of millions of minutes of time on the road every single day of the year by the UK population and the remarkably few times anyone is ever likely to be placed under a jet aircraft display path, I'd be willing to bet with this 11 deaths yesterday, even if these were the only deaths ever, you are statically more likely to suffer death by Hunter crash than using the national road network.
piedi di formaggioThe BBC have posted some new footage and it appears that there may have been a loss of power as the aircraft appears to suddenly stall
I'm not sure i see a "classical stall" there tbh.
The airplane is coming from a positive energy condition, it doesn't need excess power to overcome the drag from the high AOA required to pull put hard from that maneuver, in fact, to avoid overspeed, i'd expect the throttles to have been pulled back during the descent (depending on what setting they were at in order to make the apogee of the loop, which depends on the entry speed etc)
What i think it does show is the pilot pulling relatively (<< relative is, er relative here) gently out of the loop post apogee, and then, during the finaly seconds of the exit phase when he realises he has insufficient altitude, he pulls very hard and the aircraft mushes slightly tail first, right at the onset of stall, as the loss of directional control shows in the "wobbles" you see from the airframe. In reality, whilst the wings might be transiently "stalled" in a pure aerodynamic sense, due to the excessive AOA, we are not talking what a lay person might associate with a "stall" (ie, going too slow, a wing drops and the plane suddenly loses altitude)
In reality, we don't know if the aircraft was within it's normal, or even emergency flight envelope pulling out of the loop or if the loop apogee was simply too low to have made recovery impossible no matter what the pilots control inputs. The fact that the plane impacts tail down, at a relatively low vertical rate of descent shows that he very very nearly made it. Ie had he pulled harder, earlier, there is a good chance he would not have stuck the ground.
It is for the AAIB to establish the critical facts for this maneuver, like insufficient entry speed or if the roll out on apogee was initiated too early for the conditions that day.
This post very quickly went from talking about a dreadful tradgedy and offering condolences to a load of people forming opinions and theories about something most of you appear to know less than zero about. Are any of you actually pilots or air accident investigators?
The real story is that this is a really dreadful thing to happen for all concerned especially the people that were there and the families of the deceased.
The actual cause and outcome is best left to the experts.
sorry thats balls maxtourque...he was pulling high aoa whilst still losing height....ergo he had to little energy going into the loop or juat executed it to low. You can pull as much aoa as you like but if your airspeed was too low going into the loop youre going to have a shock.
And the pilot, was he designed for it? Still fit for it? Loops are a pretty good way of draining the blood from your brain.
No pilot is 'designed' to tolerate Gz of the order you need to fly a loop (4g). However training, experience and G-Pants all mitigate G-Loc.
Loops don't tend to go wrong like that due to G-Loc anyhow for a variety of reasons. Looping manoeuvres tend to go wrong due to insufficient energy prior to manoeuvre or a simple case of pulling too hard over the top and not reaching your Gate.
It does look like he was pulling like a b*****d on his way out but the wing rock looks like classic accelerated stall. it's just that the Hunter was so well designed it's stall characteristics wouldn't necessarily result in massive wing drop in this situation.
Anyhow we don't know what happened here or why. Let's leave that to the experts.
Duir agree with you completely
I wouldn't suggest for a second I am a pilot but I've done quite a bit of flying (not solo) and flew RC planes and gliders so have some appreciation.
The BBC have a new angle from the ground and it reinforces my view the loop was "twisted" the plane rolls as it reaches the highest point and then spends too long going straight down. A classic loop is "straight". @pied the plane effectively stalls as it approaches the ground as the pilot is pulling up "too much" trying to rectify the situation hence the "belly flop" o to the road. IMO the twist is indicative of an issue (inc pilot error) and the time spent going straight down also.
We need to wait for the full investigation but the videos taken will provide a lot of info.
Sadly the death toll has risen. This is a really terrible accident
Re-evaluating the risk benefit balance and making changes is a healthy exercise for any activity and comparisons to other unrelated activities is just a fatuous irellevance.
Yes but we still don't know exactly what happened here do we, so calls from people to "ban this" or "change that" are a little premature and completely knee-jerk and based sadly (but probably) on viewing sensationalist and speculative media coverage.
I'm all for increasing safety where practically possible, but all too often rules and measures designed to increase safety end up strangling and killing off the very activities that they were designed to make safer in the first place. That doesn't do anyone any favours and means that life becomes duller and less rewarding for everyone as a result. A life almost completely free from risk surely wouldn't be worth living in the first place?
Words like "huge flying bomb" just reek of sensationalism! You car is also a "large high speed bomb packed full of highly explosive fuel just waiting to immolate innocent bystanders" but i bet you don't think that when you get in it to 'nip down the shops'...........
No offence was intended, I was highlighting the fact that a 15 ton jet engined vehicle filled will hundreds of litres of aviation fuel is potentially a very very dangerous object. And yes, I also consider cars as extremely dangerous objects, particularly when riding or walking in close proximity to them - and also whilst driving them, I consider the implications of my actions.
From memory I don't think anyone on this thread called for a ban. In fact, quite the opposite - if you read my comments again you'll realise that I was at said air show as a spectator. The aftermath of this tragedy has me questioning the safety of innocent bystanders (naturally). No one is trying to take away the adrenaline fuelled life experiences, but I think it was convert that made the point that those killed did not intend to join in with this partucular joie de vivre at that moment in time.
I merely commented that I'm keen to hope that any changes made to further mitigation at future shows drastically decrease the chances for similar tragedy's.
Convert - your point about minutes per death in correlation to activity is also bang on point.
From memory I don't think anyone on this thread called for a ban
skydragon did
but heIt's time to stop air show displays IMHO.
used to hold a pilots license, instrument and night rating, etc
so he's an expert and has the CAA on speed dial for when he is policing airshows. 🙄
Thanks duir for trying to steer this back.
Whatever caused the tragedy is not yet known, ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting helps no one, least of all the victims families.
Tom_W1987 - Member
sorry thats balls maxtourque...he was pulling high aoa whilst still losing height....ergo he had to little energy going into the loop or juat executed it to low. You can pull as much aoa as you like but if your airspeed was too low going into the loop youre going to have a shock.
So if you are at max pull and unable to increase you positive pitch rate (and hence unable to tighten your trajectory), going faster will help?
Too little speed [b]INTO[/b] the loop is critical, too little speed past the Apogee, generally, isn't (note the word "generally" nothing is set in stone or certain.)
You'll also note i used the words "classical stall" to differentiate what the man in the street might call a stall from the pure physical situation where the wing cannot support the load you require at the AOA you are asking it to act. Obviously the dynamics of the wing and airframe loading are complex in this situation and at this point, i don't think we can separate the likely scenarios due to a lack of evidence. Again, generally speaking the reason making the min safe height at the apogee of a loop maneuver is so critical is because this sets the eventual exit height. IE if you are too low at apogee, you have to add power to increase the peak dynamic wing load, but this extra speed then requires a higher wing loading as the G force to maintain the same turn radius also increases. IN fact, the only exit scenario which works is a complete abort at apogee and a full roll out to upright. If you continue the roll beyond a few deg nose down your fate is sealed. Unfortunately, this is what looks to have occurred here. ;-(
ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting
I only ever login when its "Speculation Track World"
or is it Same Ten W..... never mind.
MoreCashThanDashWhatever caused the tragedy is not yet known, ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting helps no one, least of all the victims families.
This is an "Discussion Forum". Its entire purpose is to allow discussion on the topics started within its virtual walls. As long as that discussion is:
1) Honest
2) Non inflammatory
3) Respectful
Then i fail to see the problem. Yes, some commentators are not as "expert" as others, but why should that mean they can't be included in the discussion?
I due course, the truth will be revealed, until then, it is a natural human reaction to want to talk and discuss events that have occurred, be they good or bad.
Anyway thinking about this again - I'm not sure this is actually true. How many man minutes have been spent by people stood (or sat in cars) at the end of a jet aircraft aerobatic display line per death in the UK vs. how many man minutes of cycling or driving (or being a passenger in a car) are there in the UK per death? Given the 100s of millions of minutes of time on the road every single day of the year by the UK population and the remarkably few times anyone is ever likely to be placed under a jet aircraft display path, I'd be willing to bet with this 11 deaths yesterday, even if these were the only deaths ever, you are statically more likely to suffer death by Hunter crash than using the national road network.
That's perhaps the single worst/most dishonest use of statistics that I've ever seen. It should be done with flying minutes per accident for the aircraft, or flying minutes during any aerobatic routine.
Otherwise you are narrowing your sample size down and quantifying risk to that specific event as opposed to a generalized risk. There are plenty of instances where you can raise the risk of driving by doing the same.
Now lets keep in mind that aerobatics also includes the RAF doing ACM/BFM training and every hobby flier who dabbles in mild aerobatics.
For those claiming that speculation is disrespectful.. With all due respect, errrrr, **** off..
As if the families of those involved are looking to the wisdom of the regular posters on an obscure mtb forum for answers.
Get a grip
Chaps I have to say on balance the [i]discussion[/i] so far has been pretty reasonable and considered, and it has been interesting to read.
This was a truly dreadful incident and I hope all those involved can have some form of closure in the coming days and weeks.
You'll have probably seen the brutal murder of Don Lock in Worthing last month. I'd known him for a number of years through cycling and it was a sad privilege to have been part of the funeral cortege.
The abrupt and savage way he was taken from his family and friends has similar resonances to what happened yesterday. It was touching to see the number of people paying their respects along his funeral route and I'd like to hope the various communities affected by yesterday's events can come together in a similar fashion.
So if you are at max pull and unable to increase you positive pitch rate (and hence unable to tighten your trajectory), going faster will help?Too little speed INTO the loop is critical, too little speed past the Apogee, generally, isn't (note the word "generally" nothing is set in stone or certain.)
Too little speed at the top of the loop for a given height is an issue, if you don't have an f-16 level thrust ratio to apply to get yourself out of the mess.
AoA doesn't indicated continuous turn rate, you can be pulling high aoa - creating loads of drag and be travelling on the same vector you were before....eg cobra maneuver/why thrust vectoring isn't all that amazing.
Dogfighting and aerobatics is all about energy, energy, energy.
Yup , 1 1/2 miles from my house ...
I heard the crash and saw the aftermath
That's perhaps the single worst/most dishonest use of statistics that I've ever seen. [b]It should be done with flying minutes per accident for the aircraft, or flying minutes during any aerobatic routine.[/b]
If that's genuinely the worst you have seen you don't do much statistics 😉
Not in the slightest - that would be measuring a completely different thing not related to the discussion. We are not talking about the risk factor to the pilot or the plane but very specifically the risk factor in being on the ground at the end of the low level routine path. The vast majority of military aerobatics and 'hobbiest' aerobatics does not qualify for this as most is done away from the air field above 2000ft. The number of people and their time spend in 'the zone' is key to working out the statistic if you are going to quantify it against something like the national number of road deaths.
I stand by my notion that it's probably now statistically more dangerous to stand where they were stood that drive a car but (its a big but) only if you are comparing risk per minute. In reality we spend a lot more time on roads so the cumulative risk over time is higher.
@convert, you could argue that if you commute past areas of high aerial intensity on a regular basis it's only a matter of time.
A1 has three MATZ it runs through in a relatively short stretch of road.
it's only a matter of time.
You probably could - but it would be a very long time - like millions and millions of minutes. A bit like the number of minutes you would have to pedal around the streets of London before being 'statistically' knocked off and killed.