The loop isn’t the most dangerous manoeuvre. It’s very straightforward…

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.

from LBC/Davod Cook

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.

Well I 😆

BBC just now

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, looking at this airshow 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.

Seems like a step in the right direction, but unsure why they would restrict this only to ‘vintage jets’. If the shoreham crash proves to be pilot error (totally unknown at this stage however) it may well not have mattered what era the aircraft was from.

The following comment on BBC website seems sensible and leaves the door open to further measures;

The regulator added that it would be conducting “additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays”.

Seems like a step in the right direction, but unsure why they would restrict this only to ‘vintage jets’. If the shoreham crash proves to be pilot error (totally unknown at this stage however) it may well not have mattered what era the aircraft was from

It seems entirely appropriate in the current circumstances. Make a sensible restriction whilst investigating then take a more measured view after the circumstances have been explored fully. If this restricts all aircraft at airshows in the future, ( in my view unlikely) at least they have made a decision based on careful risk assessment rather than pressed by ( perhaps ill informed)public opinion

A jet like the Hunter or the Gnat has considerably more energy in it’s manouvering than an aircraft which is lighter and slower. I guess they have decided more modern fast jet aircraft have a higher safety factor in systems and controllability and so can continue to practice aerobatics at shows, and lighter propellor driven aerobatic aircraft can work within a much tighter envelope.
As far as ‘era’ is concerned, as has been posted elswhere, if the crash had been by a Tiger Moth, it would have been a very different outcome simply because of the speed/energy/fuel differences.
I bet all high performance propellor driven aerobatic aircraft are flown with more consideration over the next few months/years. As will vintage propellor driven aircraft.

Pilot error. Much too early to say of course, but it is a potential cause as is mechanical failure

As far as ‘era’ is concerned, as has been posted elswhere, if the crash had been by a Tiger Moth, it would have been a very different outcome simply because of the speed/energy/fuel differences.

I meant jet aircraft era, rather than generic aircraft.

Based on the announcement, I wonder if the CAA already have an inkling on what caused the accident.

FWIW

Watching the film he is clearly in trouble well before the dive.

My guess. He lost power in the climb, used the last of his momentum to get it over and nose down. Held the dive till he got airspeed back and was trying for a belly landing in the field. Just came up short on the height and may well have made it on a cooler day.

I expect he was on the radio all the way in, so CAA have a pretty good idea, what went wrong

prepare to be chastised for daring to have that unappologetic opinion.

samunkim, you say FWIW – I’d say it’s worth nothing.

Well the CAA have, IMO, come to the only solution given the state, the terrible state the airshow industry is in currently.
Not a bad thing at all. Never convinced a ban suitable, but I would like to see “displays” over the sea but more than happy to see flybys done over land.

Fingers crossed that the investigation brings some small relief to those that lost their lives by going about their normal daily business.

😐

This is one of the issues I have with civilian pilots, former military or not, conducting aerobatics. Who governs the training, who flight checks them to ensure they’re competent? Where is the record of training, how often had he flown in the last 6 months, was he fatigued? As a result of some high profile and fatal accidents the MAA and relevant branch authorities have tightened procedures to ensure that MoD aircrew are suitably qualified, experienced and practiced to mitigate the risk to life. So many AAIB reports show a great deal of discrepancies with pilots.

I truly hope for everyones sake it was an issue not attribute to human factors. But sadly, I have a feeling it probably won’t be.

EDIT: I just read the CAP for DA and it’s fairly loose compared to the checks I’m used to. Seems a great deal rests on the integrity of the individual.

If anyone is interested: CAA Flying Display CAP

My guess. He lost power in the climb

listen to the video footage…

Hope nobody at the CAA has skimmed their shins as they kick home the stable door.

Like driving a bin lorry?

@aracer. Very much so, the checks to to gain your display auth are stringent, but once you have it, is a very different story.

All of this is irrelevant to a degree, lots of people have died, and I’m sure there will be blame attributed on a few factors.

I believe there have been eight crashes at UK air shows in the last five years. If correct that is disappointing.

Depends on how you classify the crashes. At least two were pretty well controlled because landing gear was compromised, forcing the pilot to bring the plane in on grass to minimise damage, the Sea Fury being one I’m recalling.
Considering this is the first incident in sixty-two years involving spectators and others on the ground, where there has been loss of life, I’d say that the precautions in place have been perfectly adequate.
As regards loss of power, the engine does seem to have been running up until the actual impact, the photo from behind as it’s going over the road clearly shows heat distortion of the background, however that’s no indication of whether it had any sort of thrust at that point. I’ve not been able to watch any video where the engine note is clear enough to be sure. As a number of people have pointed out, it’s clear something happened during the loop to cause the plane to veer off to its left like it did.
The amount of video footage of pretty high quality, and still photos, are going to be a big help to those doing the inquest, we’ll just have to wait until experienced crash investigators have had time to fully analyse everything properly.

I’d say that the precautions in place have been perfectly adequate

So out of interest, what is the correct ratio for timescale per participant/member of public death?

So out of interest, what is the correct ratio for timescale per participant/member of public death?

And the crass comment of the day award goes to……….
Edit:
Perhaps I ought to qualify that statement. I believe it is innapropriate to suggest that there could be such a ratio at such a traumatic time for so many people time. My opinion for what it is worth, I am sure others will disagree.

The heat haze coming out of the exhaust is a poor indication of whether the engine was running or not. Even if the engine had shut down the engine would still be very hot and air would still be passing through the engine – they are designed to windmill if shut down, i.e. continue to be driven by the air flowing through the engine, so they can still drive the electrical generators and hydraulic pumps so all the systems on board the aircraft can still run in the event of an engine shut down – and even engine restarts attempted, therefore any airflow passing through the enigne will be heated as it passes through the hot engine and create a heat haze. it will also make the typical jet engine noise as most of the noise actually comes from the turbomachinery and the airflow through the engine rather than the combustion process of the engine, most of which will still be generated when windmilling, though obviously it wouldn’t be creating any thrust.

One observation i’ve made from the graphics on the BBC it does look odd that the aircraft started the manoeuvre parallel to the display line and as the manoeuvre progressed the loop seemed to twist 90 degrees such that it lined up with the road. Even if the pilot completed this manoeuvre safely I would have thought he would have been reprimanded as he would have come out of the loop flying in the direction of the spectators wouldn’t he? Even though he probably wouldn’t have flown directly over the spectators heads, but would have been pretty close, too close for comfort, and therefore in contravention of current rules.

jimw – I think there is a degree of sarcasm in that post you may have overlooked.

what jam bo said