Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 244

Thread: Shoreham Investigation Update

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,143
    It is quite a subject drift LOL, but just to say i have walked round Duxford on a cold winters day and if there are no school parties there can be as many people working or volunteering there as there are visitors - - - almost a tumbleweed moment.
    Getting back to the subject of Shoreham , whether it will provide closure for families or not i don't know ,whether it will make the pilot more or less of a scapegoat or villain time will tell.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Kye View Post
    A work colleague, who is also a volunteer at Duxford, mentioned to me that the altimeter may not have been calibrated properly when it was removed from the aircraft previously. Is this credible
    Not credible.

    S.O.P. is to set at least one of the altimeters (I have no idea if the Hunter had one or two) whilst running the initial cockpit check. So at my home base I will automatically set the altimeter to read 190ft on the ground as that is the height of the airfield above sea level.

    If I am then passed the pressure setting on first radio contact and the QNH is different from the number that is already in the setting window then it is instantly obvious that something has gone awry and would be further investigated.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    681
    What about closing this thread, not until Friday but until Monday as a mark of respect for the victims of this disaster?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Haslemere, Surrey
    Posts
    1,223
    One thing I do hope the report does mention or discusses is as to the reason that the accident maneuver was done outside the airfield boundary, something that I don't recall ever being mentioned in the AAIB interim bulletins.

    This is a very important point, as the same sequence was flown in the same Hunter by Andy Hill at the previous years show, but with the looping/rolling maneuver conducted over the airfield, where, afterall, you would expect it to be.

    Perhaps then we can put pay to the myth that it is normal for display aircraft to do aerobatic maneuvers over main roads or built up areas etc., as the press, and various members of the public would have you believe!

    Cheers

    Paul
    Last edited by Bradburger; 2nd March 2017 at 04:00.
    The most usless commodity in aerobatics is the amount of sky above you!

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Sorry at risk here of being out of touch. QFE field pressure setting. QNH regional setting. So set altimeter to zero on ground before t/o so any display will indicate height above ground on site QFE.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Normal practice is to set QNH before take off to ensure terrain clearance other than in the circuit. If a display aircraft opted to fly on QFE it would still show any calibration error as the ground station would pass that value instead of, or as well as, the QNH. If you recall the question I was responding to was one of an instrument calibration error, not a controlled flight into terrain caused by a setting error.

    At Shoreham anyway this becomes completely irrelevant as QFE and QNH are the same value.

    Moggy
    Last edited by Moggy C; 2nd March 2017 at 08:44.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,674
    Lets wait for the report please

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,839
    Does anyone know what injuries the pilot sustained after the Hunter crashed?
    Give a man a fish and eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he'll die praying for a fish!

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Not far from here!
    Posts
    1,547
    Bruce what a sage comment - but sadly the next response proves that you might as well be whistling in the wind. ��
    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."(Mary Baker Eddy)

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by smirky View Post
    What about closing this thread, not until Friday but until Monday as a mark of respect for the victims of this disaster?
    Cannot help but agree with this. It would also give everyone a chance to read and absorb and reflect without just posting the first impression they pick from the report.
    Martin

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South
    Posts
    49
    There are many people who were affected by this tragic incident.
    From the 11 who lost their lives, their family & friends to the thousands, including me, who were there and stood in silence feeling totally hopeless after the crash.

    I am hoping tomorrow's report will go a long way to giving closure to many of us but unfortunately I feel a whole new chapter of mud slinging will start.
    Whatever the outcome of the report and the cause, my thoughts are also with the pilot who has to live the rest of his life with the deaths of 11 people on his shoulders.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by D1566 View Post
    Cannot help but agree with this.
    I agree and I don't. For the sake of those involved, be it the families and those that were there on the day, I agree that a pause would be tasteful and respectful. However at the same time, like it or not, there is a small sense of duty for this forum, as there will be for PPRUNE and others. We know that the gutter press trawl forums now, and copy posts verbatim into news articles. If there isn't some sort of measured comment from places such as this, where knowledgeable posters tend to know what they are talking about, then the gutter press will resort to either making stuff up or trawling social media for the worst excesses of the knee-jerk reactions. Perhaps leaving the thread open tomorrow, but with some judicious moderation, might be in order?

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    We don't close threads except under the direst of provocations. We certainly don't close threads immediately after the publication of a long-awaited report in the belief it somehow shows respect for the people who died some 18 months ago. If you feel that it does then you simply need not contribute and make your own personal tribute in your own respectful way.

    Can I suggest that a financial donation here https://www.justgiving.com/sussexgiving would be more helpful?

    And yes, tomorrow's posts will be moderated.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    178
    I think Moggy's approach is right. There will be a media frenzy for 24 hours and then the dust will settle.
    If the comments here are measured and respectful perhaps just a little bit will rub off onto the press...

    The main thing is, think before you type...

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Last edited by Moggy C; 3rd March 2017 at 13:27.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Posts
    1,622
    452 pages is going to take some time to digest.

    Direct cause - too low and too slow.

    Note this quote on P2:

    The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations
    is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such
    an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
    Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame
    or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been
    undertaken for that purpose.
    which goes in some way to explain why there has been a parallel Police investigation into liability

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    808

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,245
    The AAIB do not, of course, and quite rightly, apportion blame. Their job it to investigate EVERY aspect of any incident, including examining the "due diligence" of every party involved which in any way could have contributed to this incident. In order for the AAIB to do their job properly, and to the benefit of everybody, they cannot be compelled to give evidence of their findings in court. We discussed this earlier.

    There is, of course, much to be learnt from the comprehensive details contained within the report, however, the AAIB do summarise their findings in the Conclusions.

    I make no comment at this stage but I feel the the extract from the Operation Aspects section of the Conclusions "probably" explains why the maneuver was not executed successfully. I would point out that further sections of the Conclusions go on to consider the factors that resulted in such a terrible loss of life.

    Extract from CONCLUSIONS
    Operational Aspects

    17. The minimum height loss during the downward half of a looping manoeuvre
    in the Hawker Hunter is between 2,600 and 2,950 feet (including 100 ft
    for instrument reading error), when flown at the values of aircraft mass
    and density altitude relevant to the accident.

    18. The pilot stated that he required a minimum height of 3,500 ft at the apex
    of the manoeuvre to ensure that he completed it 500 ft or more above the
    ground (as required by his display authorisation).

    19. The aircraft achieved an apex height of approximately 2,700 ft.

    20. The airspeed at the apex of the accident manoeuvre was 105±2 KIAS,
    which was at the lower end of the pilot’s declared airspeed range of
    100 to 150 KIAS.

    21. The aircraft was lower than required at the apex because it entered the
    manoeuvre below the target airspeed, because less than maximum
    thrust was applied during its upward half, and because any rolling
    element initiated before the aircraft reached the upward vertical would
    have further reduced apex height.

    22. The entry height of the manoeuvre was consistent with the 200ft minimum
    height on the pilot’s DA for a Jet Provost; the apex height and speeds
    on the accident manoeuvre were consistent with those flown in the Jet
    Provost the previous weekend.

    23. The pilot stated that he would abandon a ‘bent loop’ manoeuvre if the
    minimum entry speed, or the minimum gate height at the apex, were
    not achieved. He did not abandon the accident manoeuvre when these
    minimums were not achieved.

    24. It is possible that the pilot misread or misinterpreted speed and height
    indications during the manoeuvre, or recalled those for a different aircraft
    type.

    25. The pilot had not previously rolled the Hawker Hunter at the low airspeed
    encountered at the apex, and was not sure that a roll could be achieved
    at that speed.
    I had just got round to seeing the glass as half full instead of half empty, when some sod came and drank it......

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,245

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rochester, Kent
    Posts
    88
    Gonna stick my neck out here and prepared to be flammed. . . .

    I think the call for coy silence on this matter is wrong for the enthusiasts. We will now see a media frenzy stirring up a relentless national call for further inspection and regulations on historic flying and airshows.

    Far better for the hobby/industry to show itself capable of self-reflection and self regulation. Airshows and pilots should have already and publicly have shown they are aware of public concerns and introduced their own new rules to promote better safety. This would negate the inevitable and severe rules which are sure to come from the Authorities.

    Forums like this should be vocal in suggesting improvements in safety and not fearful of leaking issues. We to should be part of the self-reflection, calling for changes. Not assisting a cover up by insisting on silence.

    As an example, I think the resultant new rules so far affect mainly historic jets. It occurs that "too low and too slow" could equally happen to prop' aircraft. So expect new regs on them. The industry should have already started it's own new safety regs to negate need for the outsiders to impose rules we do not want.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside Stansted TMZ Great Leighs
    Posts
    2,769
    The AAIB report explains everything Otis the shear silence prove here what we all think, Families loses, the people attending the airshow, the guys waiting back at North Weald the days an weeks of disruption caused to the surrounding area it goes on and Andy Hill is alive and has to live out each day not only with the loss of life but also coming to terms with how the hell he survived that incident.
    Yes the press will have a Battle of Britain Jet crashes, a Hunter Hawker as has been written and spoken by the media but we here are closer to it all we have felt it also, the long wait for this report the actually not saying, Low and Slow allowing this report to explain in depth the events of that tragic day.
    Airshows will never be the same as what we have grown up with maybe its a good thing if it saves one life.
    I know one thing, we will see aeroplanes having incidents at airshows and just in the general day to day flying of historics, today is a day of reflection a day to move forward an day to move on.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Trolly Aux View Post
    today is a day of reflection a day to move forward an day to move on.
    Well said.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,245
    I hope I understand what you meant TA. I would have put it more like for the industry to take stock over the next days and weeks and discuss and implement all the recommendations made by the AAIB in the hope that this will prevent such a horrific loss of life happening again.
    I had just got round to seeing the glass as half full instead of half empty, when some sod came and drank it......

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,674
    Otis,

    My request for silence was to allow the report to be published. We cannot learn from the accident until we know what the lesson is.

    This is the longest accident report I have ever read, but it's principal lesson is as old as powered flight. Low and slow gets you every time. It even highlights a number of other air show accidents over the years, for which the lesson was basically the same.

    As far as the operators are concerned, the AAIB are unequivocal that technically, the aircraft was not airworthy at the time of it getting airborne on its last flight, owing to issues with the ejection seats, and with the engine fuel pump, and another issue with the altimeters. However, it accepts that the aircraft was functioning broadly correctly at the time of the accident, so the accident was not directly attributable to them.

    All in all, we haven't learnt a great deal that we didn't already know. From our point of view, there is no smoking gun, but it does reinforce our requests from the very start, not to engage in idle speculation, the vast majority of which was wrong.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SOUTH
    Posts
    38
    No real surprises in the report regarding the principal element of busted minima , botched maneuver and 'carry on itus' with lack of escape at the top of the loop. For all the comments in the aviation press slating the CAA for being 'heavy handed' in the tightening of regulations, when considering the innocent parties involved they are more than justified in tightening things a lot more. Practical drift has been exposed within the airshow community and sadly it took an event of this magnitude to change things. The AAIB should be given a great deal of credit for, as always, the professionalism and depth of a report such as this.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Can't argue with that.

    Regrettably neither can you legislate mistakes out of existence. They will happen no matter how long the rule book.

    One would hope the 'naughty field' and the road outside Old Warden will be cleared by marshals with the legal backing (indeed compulsion) to move people on.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,318
    Are display maneuvers normally performed at their minimums or would an additional safety margin be added?

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    29
    As one display pilot told me, finish your manoeuvre +500ft above your approved display minima and then fly down to your minimum allowed height, at all times leave a margin for God, was another comment!

  29. #149
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradburger View Post
    One thing I do hope the report does mention or discusses is as to the reason that the accident maneuver was done outside the airfield boundary, something that I don't recall ever being mentioned in the AAIB interim bulletins.

    This is a very important point, as the same sequence was flown in the same Hunter by Andy Hill at the previous years show, but with the looping/rolling maneuver conducted over the airfield, where, afterall, you would expect it to be.

    Perhaps then we can put pay to the myth that it is normal for display aircraft to do aerobatic maneuvers over main roads or built up areas etc., as the press, and various members of the public would have you believe!

    Cheers

    Paul
    Over here it depends on how big the box is. I think the one for the local airshow is 6x6 miles. Somewhat larger than the airfield boundary. However, if it does all go pear shaped about the only thing you'd hit would be tumbleweeds.
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,457
    Maybe now the grounding of the civilian Hunters can finally be rescinded.

    The near instant CAA response ( 72 hours) was in the understandable ' must be seen to be doing something' category' but at the conclusion of a huge and searching investigation, the aeroplane, as a type seems to be essentially blameless.

    The bigger question is how many civilian operators still have enthusiasm to set out on the road back to airworthiness.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES