Forum menu
I will add, we won't know until the investigation was done. He did appear to dip a wing which means he pulled up hard at the last minute....which I guess could mean he wasn't at the limit of his turn rate earlier on in the loop....or perhaps had too much speed.
It was a weird loop as well, like some kind of odd combat turn.
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 the time 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.
Good point. It's still pretty easy to flat spin into the ground from 2000 feet.
The carfest accident as sad as it was, only pilot that lost his life, the location is very sparsely populated but the A303 and M3 are pretty close though.
From Oulton Park, about 200 miles close ❓
Tom_W1987
I will add, we won't know until the investigation was done. He did appear to dip a wing which means he pulled up hard at the last minute....which I guess could mean he wasn't at the limit of his turn rate earlier on in the loop....or perhaps had too much speed.
Agreed! The entire short display seems somewhat disjointed to me. Even the "snap roll" at the start of the display is frankly untidy (over rotation followed by reversal back to the necessary exit bank angle), and the subsequent entry to the loop seems delayed.
The exit trajectory certainly looks to be nowhere near max rate, although of course, without knowing the aircrafts operating conditions on this particular day that is difficult to call. The one fact that looks certain is that when the pilot eventually did demand a max pull, the aircraft looks to have responded well, right up to the start of an incipent stall, with the characteristic wing wobble of a short cord swept wing aircraft.
One significant advantage the investigation will have is that there is plenty of footage from different angles, allowing a very precise trajectory analysis and simulation to be constructed via triangulation (ie time synchronization of the footage, back from the impact event, in conjunction with knowing where each bit of footage was filmed from, allows a true 3d flight path to be generated)
The wobble being talked about as a stall...if he was on the display/runway line he would have been heading for queueing traffic on the westbound carriageway just before the traffic lights, it could have been intentional turn to the right to crash onto the junction between the lights as it was probably the only bit of tarmac without a stationary queue.
Joining the speculation track world did anyone notice a small blu grey bloom of what looks like smoke or mist from the rear centre of the plane shortly before the wobble? Would a leaking hydraulic system reduce elevator throw to a degree where full deflection became impossible? Just askin'
@duir - as I said in my post 'IMHO' - if your opinion differs to mine that's fine.
(Btw I've never claimed to be an expert, only someone who has some real-world experience of aviation and who is concerned by what has happened)
@duir - as I said in my post 'IMHO' - if your opinion differs to mine that's fine.(Btw I've never claimed to be an expert, only someone who has some real-world experience of aviation and who is concerned by what has happened)
Fair enough but to the untrained eye you appear to be calling for airshows to be banned?
I too have some real world aviation experience, I'm a 737 skipper with thousands and thousands of flying hours in the airlines. As such I am completely unqualified to pass opinions on flying a Hunter at an airshow as I have never done it! So if I am not qualified, the STW armchair pilots mafia definitely are not!!!
To be good enough to display a fast jet you need to be something pretty special, there is only one person that knows what really happened, I really hope he makes it.
Well here's what his mate thinks, according to the BBC:
Neil McCarthy, a friend of pilot Andy Hill, told the BBC News Channel that the loop manoeuvre was regarded as "one of the most dangerous" to attempt.
He said: "If you don't have the right entry speed, the right pull back on the stick, the G-force, the right gate height at the top of the loop manoeuvre, it can go wrong pretty quick".
I haven't read every post but has anyone wondered why the Hunter was exiting a loop over a main road & not along the length of the runway?
@Duir - ok, let me revise what I posted earlier. What I should have perhaps written, is that UK air shows in their current form should be banned. My personal opinion.
I haven't commented on what was the cause of the accident at Shoreham, nor am I commenting on the specifics of a fast jet display.
I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?
I believe there have been eight crashes at UK air shows in the last five years. If correct that is disappointing.
[quote=esselgruntfuttock ]I haven't read every post but has anyone wondered why the Hunter was exiting a loop over a main road & not along the length of the runway?
Trying not to speculate too much, so this is only what I've worked out from what I've seen, and trying to answer the point: it looks to me like the loop wasn't all executed in the same vertical plane as a pure pitch manoeuvre as you'd expect for a classic loop - there seems to be some roll or yaw going on there, resulting in it exiting the loop in a different direction from the one it entered. Now I've no idea whether it was planned as a pure pitch loop, or something more complex (and not going to rely on media commentary for that), so maybe that was planned, but it seems possible something went wrong regarding his exit direction - certainly he shouldn't have been exiting the loop there.
(I've never flown an airliner, but have done aerobatics (badly) with RC model aircraft, so have some idea of the dynamics involved and the speed/height requirements - I've also had the ground get in the way when I've got it wrong - which probably makes me just about as unqualified to comment on flying a Hunter at an airshow as duir is).
Reading this thread I can't help but envisage an Airplane type scenario where a panic stricken stewardess asks over the intercom "is there a pilot on board???", and 2 passengers wearing STW t-shirts jump up "yes ma'am, we both have put many flying hours into our RC model aircraft".
I have also noticed the word "ergo" being used on at least one occasion and feel pretty certain that at least one person has typed in "I concur" before thinking better off it.
More sad news in the last hour, it seems even the latest tally of 11 deaths is going to increase significantly as there are still people unaccounted for.
It looked like a barrel roll of sorts.
The BBC can't be trusted in cases like this; I've seen some appalling reporting and this appears to be no different.
The loop isn't the most dangerous manoeuvre. It's very straightforward..... A barrel roll, however, is harder to coordinate and sadly has claimed more lives.
Even a wingover which is regarded by many as a benign manoeuvre has its dangers. A friend span off one due to low energy entry and it claimed his life.
Anyway we'll see what the experts come up with. I would say that his wing rock would be heavy buffet (stall) related rather than a last minute attempt to change direction. Andy Hill is an incredibly experienced pilot and would have known not to sacrifice pitch ability (which sadly he'd lost the battle at that stage) for turn capability.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/shoreham-air-show-crash-first-three-victims-named ]Guardian video[/url]
Watching the Guardian video above, it looks like the engine surges about 4 seconds in?
Not sure about a surge looks more like it could be something else in shot briefly, perhaps a bird?
From that video, to me it looks like he was coming out of the loop OK, but then loses thrust.
Sky News reporting that Police stating death toll may rise to 20+
Terrible news
Tragic incident.
re: the debate debate, debate is healthy, if kept respectful.
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
For some reason, it looks like the start of the loop was without enough speed. At the top it looks to be travelling at 90 degree from entry heading, with a turn flung into the last half to try and recover heading. But not enough speed for the amount of elevator he pulls; stalled, and terrible result.
It all looks smoother in the Guardian vid. The speculation of the "aviation experts" in the various media is just as wild/wilder than anything on this thread.
Like the pilot I'm quite old now, the last time I was offered a drive in a rally car I turned it down. Aging reflexes, a lack of regular competition driving, narrow roads and unfamiliarity with a 300bhp/tonne car seemed a recipe for disaster. I've sold my BMX and jump bikes too.
Terrible news this moringing about likely death toll
As for those thst think airshows should be banned we had the private jet crash on landing at Blackbushe straight into the car auction site which is at the end of the runway. AccIdents happen
Terrible that it could now rise to over 20 people that have died. Starting to hear from friends and friends of friends as we all head back to work who were very near and lucky to just miss it but were witness to some terrible sights.
As for those thst think airshows should be banned
I've been through the thread again and can only see one person who says that in his opinion all air shows should be stopped, so can we move on from this now as 70 out of the 71 that have commented on this so far aren't of the opinion that they will or should be banned.
[quote=scott_mcavennie2 ]Reading this thread I can't help but envisage an Airplane type scenario where a panic stricken stewardess asks over the intercom "is there a pilot on board???", and 2 passengers wearing STW t-shirts jump up "yes ma'am, we both have put many flying hours into our RC model aircraft".
I hope you weren't getting that impression from my post - I'd have no idea how to fly an airliner based on that, and I tried to point out the limitations of my experience. If the worst came to the worst then I'd probably have some idea what to do as I've sat in the cockpit of a big jet whilst flying and even taken the controls of a light aircraft, but then I'd put the skills of somebody who'd played flight sim on a computer above mine and doubtless there would be at least one of those on board. I suspect most people who've flown RC aircraft or airliners recognise the vast disparity in skills (and the vast difference between either of those and flying a display in a Hunter).
[quote=muggomagic ]I've been through the thread again and can only see one person who says that in his opinion all air shows should be stopped
I can't be bothered to go through the thread again, but I got the impression that rather more than that were suggesting that airshows should be significantly curtailed (ie only straight and level flight in anything which isn't a current operational military aircraft).
[i]The loop isn't the most dangerous manoeuvre. It's very straightforward...[/i]
Depends really, at 5000ft with clear skies and plenty of space...yep, at 1000ft or lower with confined airspace in a fast jet...something else entirely.
Condolences to all.
Some have suggested that they should look at aircraft of a certain age being restricted to certain maneuvers, but that's very different from banning airshows.
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-shoreham-plane-almost-hit-my-car-115068 ]from LBC/Davod Cook[/url]
Some have suggested that they should look at aircraft of a certain age being restricted to certain maneuvers, but that's very different from banning airshows.
Can't find it right now but some "expert" somewhere has already stated that the age of the aircraft was not a factor (or won't have been a factor, something like that). Quite how he knows that is beyond me, it could quite easily be more wild speculation that the news media are desperate to quote.
"Age" in years is largely irrelevant, flying hours is what aircraft are measured in.
I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?
You don't know that the pulot was flying at the autherised altitude, do you?
Can't find it right now but some "expert" somewhere has already stated that the age of the aircraft was not a factor (or won't have been a factor, something like that). Quite how he knows that is beyond me, it could quite easily be more wild speculation that the news media are desperate to quote
Because only static vinatge aircraft are originals, flying examples are almost always basically new builds. The Spitfires you see flying probably have 1-5 percent original parts and none of those will be structural.
some "expert"
David Learmount "A former pilot and RAF flying instructor" (quote from Grauniad website/story)
Writes safety stuff for FlightGlobal
Quite how he knows that is beyond me,
Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.
Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.
Yes I just couldn't find the original quote and that, combined with the current speculation elsewhere about age of aircraft, ban/restrict older aircraft did bring me to question how someone could state categorically that the age won't have been a factor in the crash.
Thank you for finding the source of that and clarifying.
The reporting methods used by the BBC have, IMO, been slightly sketchy. Typically reactionary and late into the speculation they've seemed to have ramped up that to quite a high level now. A lot of focus on the pilots ability and experience coming out...
The initial interviews from folks on the ground was interesting too.. Typically locals who all look the same 😯
Absolutely tragic.. If the pilot survives I expect he'll be tortured for the rest of his life..
Very sad.
Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.
Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.
I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?You don't know that the pulot was flying at the autherised altitude, do you?
Of course I don't. Please re-read what I've posted and think a bit harder, specifically "so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened"
Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.
Or they've grown up around the industry, are engineers or pilots themselves.
Also, actual pilots are often not much more qualified to comment on vintage flying than the general public. One of the greatet things I've witnessed was a Tornado pilot stalling and crashing a simulation of a piston aircraft because he thought he wouldn't be able to stall it with full power applied.
Was there as well, I wish i hadn't seen it, but it was hard to look away. It looked pretty obvious he wasn't going to make it long before impact, and everything went into slow motion, then it looked like he might actually pull it back...... then a giant ball of flames.
It was a very surreal experience, and quite weird watching all the photographers checking their cameras straight away to see if they caught it. Considering some of the pictures people must have, there has been a reasonable amount of restraint.
Its currently chucking it down, just to make the clear up operation even grimmer. Emergency services did a fantastic job, must have been horrible for all involved.
I'm feeling lucky to have not been more involved, but I doubt I'm alone in having a deep feeling of unease, until knowing who all the fatalities are, especially knowing there were allegedly 2 cyclists involved. They wouldn't have stood a chance crossing at that junction, which is well used by all the local cyclists.
There are extremely stringent maintenance inspections in place for all civil (and military) aircraft, which is why the XH558 Vulcan is to be grounded after this year. As has been said elsewhere, a WW2 Spitfire was designed with a lifespan of 200 flying hours, a preserved example today can clock up 150 flying hours in a year of displays so a huge amount of expense and effort is put into maintaining these aircraft to a standard well beyond the expectations of the engineers who designed and built them. Civil operators of military aircraft are subject to very tight regulation, one cannot simply buy an ex-RAF Lightning or Phantom on eBay, fill it with fuel and takeoff.
I'll wait for the findings of the official inquiry before I start arguing in favour of banning something I know very little about.
I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?
But we can't legislate for every eventuality can we, or we'd all be able to do absolutely nothing. There has to be a balance struck, and currently, despite the media and some on here drumming up a knee-jerk frenzy, the stats for airshow safety (when you consider that the last non-participants to be killed at an airshow in the UK were in 1952) are pretty exceptional.
If you look at almost any airfield capable of holding a large airshow such as this then you'll see that there's roads, buildings and all other sorts around the majority of them. We're a busy island so that's normal. It's the same for commercial airports, you only have to look at the built up areas directly beneath the approach to Heathrow, Manchester and other areas (East Midlands has the busy M1 crossing right at the end of the runway). Yet no one bats an eyelid despite a near miss with a 777 at Heathrow a few years back.
If you held an airshow far out to sea, or somewhere remote then not enough people would be able to get there to make it viable in the first place. If you banned aerobatics, old aircraft, demonstrations of flying skill etc, or kept the aircraft performing such menouvers so far away from the public that they'd have to use binoculars to see them then again no one would be interested enough to come. That's not even touching on the fact that many incidents at airshows where pilots or a plane have had issues have been saved due to close proximity of a runway. If planes had ended up in the sea then the outcome for many of these would probably have been fatal.
Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.
WFT? Seeing as he is a
former pilot and RAF flying instructor
he might well fly RC and play simulators... maybe when he's too busy with his day job of
.Writes safety stuff for FlightGlobal
Psss! I may not have been serious.
sorry - sense of humour fail on my part...
@agent007 - Agreed that you can't cater for every eventuality. I accept there also has to be a balance struck and I for one don't want to live in some super-sanitised world, but my personal opinion is that the current CAA regulations are just not adequate.
Where and how to hold airshows in UK? Perhaps Shoreham is a good example of where not to hold an airshow involving fast jets? The airfield is surrounded by densely populated areas and major roads. Landing aircraft routinely over a busy major road is accepted as part of everyday life and the risks that it poses. I'm suggesting that carrying out airshow display manoeuvres over the same busy road is not acceptable.
Without trying to claim to be some ar$hole expert, I've flown into Shoreham a few times (as a pilot) and have also attended the airshow there (as a spectator), so I have a fair appreciation of the layout and local area. Shoreham is a fairly large airfield and is probably large enough for many aircraft types to safely conduct the display elements of their routines over the airfield and on the non-crowd side of the runway 02/20. Perhaps airfields like Shoreham should have displays which focus on slower flying aircraft and leave fast jet displays to military airfields?
I'm hopeful the CAA will react positively to public pressure and changes will be made to benefit all.
[quote=Drac ]Psss! I may not have been serious.
Well I 😆
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383 ]BBC just now[/url]
Significant restrictions on vintage jets in air displays have been imposed after the Shoreham Airshow crash, the UK's aviation regulator has announced.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said vintage jets would be "limited to flypasts" and "high-energy aerobatics" would not be permitted.
No detail as to if this is just a temporary thing in the first instance. Someone is clearly differentiating between vintage and current in service jets....
Also, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34039747 ]looking at this airshow[/url] it does seems to be a rather good model as to how a place like Shoreham should have/could have/ could be with the event itself over the sea and the static display on the the air field. It would be interesting to know how one set of organisers have come to one conclusion and the other an entirely different one with very similar geographical constraints. Although Prestwick is a significantly more busy airport and could just have been a commercial decision in Scotland.