Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 244

Thread: Shoreham Investigation Update

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    321
    I have been at it most of the day but I have only read 100 pages so far. What shocked me was how much higher the fatality count might have been had it not been for the safety barrier at the road side which contained the skidding aircraft and deflected its course by a few degrees rendering safe some spectators standing on two grass verges behind the barriers.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Propstrike View Post
    as a type seems to be essentially blameless.
    Agreed but is not the requirement to have ejector seats functioning going to ground all Hunters eventually if cartridges are no longer available. Even if there are supplies sitting on shelves less than 6 years old, the clock is ticking.
    I had just got round to seeing the glass as half full instead of half empty, when some sod came and drank it......

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by skyskooter View Post
    What shocked me was how much higher the fatality count might have been had it not been for the safety barrier at the road side which contained the skidding aircraft and deflected its course by a few degrees rendering safe some spectators standing on two grass verges behind the barriers.
    After the disaster I walked along the airfield perimeter by the river, to look at the wartime defensive bunkers, and made my way onto the old A27 Toll Bridge (the one where all the floral tributes were left). There were definitely warning signs on the bridge; they read, if I remember correctly, 'Police Notice - It is dangerous to watch the airshow from beyond this point, anybody doing so is liable to prosecution'.

    That was the first time I'd ever seen signs like that near an airshow (but also the first time I'd ever walked outside the perimeter of such a show).
    WA$.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    8,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Propstrike View Post
    Maybe now the grounding of the civilian Hunters can finally be rescinded.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.

    One wonders if the aircraft involved had been a Spitfire (a beloved, historic and iconic type) if the grounding would have been as long?
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    184
    A very interesting report in which nobody comes out 'smelling of roses'. I suspect that there will be more significant repercussions for the airshow scene in the coming months after the display line — crowd line investigation. Still can't believe that you can use an RV8 to qualify for a Hunter DA!

    Steve
    75-Stay alive, 76-Radio tricks, 77-Going to Heaven.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,729
    I don't see the need for interesting manoeuvres - aerobatics. Surely it is enough to see historic aircraft displayed quite sedately ? Thus it removes an element of danger of the type under discussion and protects the aircraft in question from excessive wear and tear.

    I'm thrilled by the sight and sound of a Lancaster displayed for photo opportunities, apart from aerodynamic limitations, the fact that it isn't being thrown around the sky detracts not one iota from its appearance. Perhaps with an eye to longevity and diminishing resources we need to use more 'cottonwool'.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,730
    I have nothing useful to add regarding the incident itself, but perhaps if any of the gentlemen of the press are still looking at this please stop calling aerobatics 'stunts' or worse 'tricks' as has happened repeatedly in the current wave of reporting. A debate of the kind John raises is not helped by those words.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    You may wish to add "Loop the loop" or worse still "Lood de loop" to your list BM

    The 'Should display historics perform gentle aerobatics' topic has been covered here many times and has appeared in this thread for the last time please.

    Moggy
    Moderator

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,143
    Could someone please explain to me how the pilot was "never trained" surely it is like saying i drove my car straight into an obstacle because i wasn't shown how to steer around it even though i have been driving for a while and steering all the time.
    QUOTE "It would have been possible to abort it safely at the apex of the loop but Mr Hill had not been trained in the escape manoeuvre which might have got him out of trouble" UNQUOTE .Was this a case of he didn't think there was an issue,surely if he had been flying a high performance fighter in aerobatic manoeuvres he must have had an idea of how to get out of it.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    I share your mystification.

    Can you confirm that's a direct quote from the report and not from media reporting on the report? (Just for clarification)

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

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    178
    I'm surprised by how little media 'hysteria' there has been.
    A quick glance around the tabloids websites and it seems to have pretty much faded from view.
    Perhaps the thought of wading through 400 pages of technical writing has put off the hacks...

    I suspect the real fun will start if the CPS decides to put person(s) in the dock...

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    73
    Moggy C Regarding the quote above here's a direct copy and pasted from page 71 of the report
    ‘From the apex height and airspeed achieved in the accident manoeuvre, and for up to at least four seconds after passing the apex, it would have been possible for an appropriately trained pilot to fly a straightforward escape manoeuvre in G-BXFI which would have prevented impact with the ground by rolling the aircraft through 180° back to erect flight and then pulling out of the dive to regain level flight.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    I share your mystification.

    Can you confirm that's a direct quote from the report and not from media reporting on the report? (Just for clarification)

    Moggy
    Sorry my quote was from the BBC page but i am sure i read it as such BUT this is the quote from the AAIB https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...22-august-2015

    "The pilot either did not perceive that an escape manoeuvre was necessary, or did not realise that one was possible at the speed achieved at the apex of the manoeuvre.
    The pilot had not received formal training to escape from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter and had not had his competence to do so assessed.
    The pilot had not practised the technique for escaping from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter, and did not know the minimum speed from which an escape manoeuvre could be carried out successfully."

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Thanks for the clarification. It helps to keep the actual report separate from what the media think the report says.

    I would have thought that " ... the technique for escaping from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter " would be pretty similar to the technique in other aircraft he had flown, but I am only guessing.

    If I botch a loop I tend to just let the aircraft sort itself out. But then my aeros are never below 5,000ft

    Moggy
    Last edited by Moggy C; 4th March 2017 at 14:04.
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Propstrike View Post
    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.

    Have to agree with that. Post Shoreham the jet warbirds community has been savaged because of apparent safety concerns about the maintenance and operation of classic jets.


    Rob
    Facebook page
    https://www.facebook.com/Westland.Wy...tif_t=page_fan

    B-50D Superfortress parts wanted

    wyvernfan@gmail.com

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,674
    Clearly some of those concerns were justified. However, the principal issue appears to have been one of pilot error..

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    135 metres from Boscombe Down
    Posts
    1,884
    According to what I have read today the pilot 'forgot which jet he was in'. It is said that he could have become used to a different, less powerful plane he had been flying and have forgotten he was in the Hawker Hunter, meaning he thought he could perform the stunt at a lower altitude.
    If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Close to the last operational 11 Grp 'B of B' airfield
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by WP840 View Post
    According to what I have read today the pilot 'forgot which jet he was in'. It is said that he could have become used to a different, less powerful plane he had been flying and have forgotten he was in the Hawker Hunter, meaning he thought he could perform the stunt at a lower altitude.
    A typical media 'dumb it down' description.

    But if you look at the hours on type, he had over 900 hrs on the JP (including a QFI tour on the JP in the RAF) but only 40 odd in the Hunter, so it's easy to see how a moments loss of thought process had him flying the JP in his mind rather than the Hunter...?
    I was with it all the way until letting the brakes off..........

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by J Boyle View Post
    One wonders if the aircraft involved had been a Spitfire (a beloved, historic and iconic type) if the grounding would have been as long?
    A slightly crass statement.

    Having said that, given some of the findings in the report, I wonder if those grounded Hunters have had their engines inhibited in the proper manner.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,080
    Quote Originally Posted by WP840 View Post
    According to what I have read today the pilot 'forgot which jet he was in'.
    Ok that's from some journo who knows f. all, putting it into kiddies-speak. ('stunt' did not go unnoticed either). But for me, and I stress I haven't even attempted to read beyond the first five pages of the report, the truth behind it does provide the likeliest explanation of the inexplicable I have yet heard.

    All flying relies on knowing a series of numbers, stall speed, never exceed speed. etc (Vs and Vne as they are referred to). If Andy Hill was pulling from his mind the JP speeds and heights then the result was inevitable.

    We'll never know if this was the case, apparently he has little or no recall of the event.

    Moggy

    Note: The restraint here has been admirable. Thank you all.
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Rowhedge. UK
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebird View Post
    A typical media 'dumb it down' description.

    But if you look at the hours on type, he had over 900 hrs on the JP (including a QFI tour on the JP in the RAF) but only 40 odd in the Hunter, so it's easy to see how a moments loss of thought process had him flying the JP in his mind rather than the Hunter...?
    If you trawl back over the years of CAA 'monthly bulletins', low hours on type is a common recurring factor in so many incidents. It is not unusual to see the words....

    Commander’s Flying Experience:
    10,444 hours (of which 28 were on type)
    Last 90 days - 3 hours
    Last 28 days - 1 hour
    “I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

  22. #172
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post
    After the disaster I walked along the airfield perimeter by the river, to look at the wartime defensive bunkers, and made my way onto the old A27 Toll Bridge (the one where all the floral tributes were left). There were definitely warning signs on the bridge; they read, if I remember correctly, 'Police Notice - It is dangerous to watch the airshow from beyond this point, anybody doing so is liable to prosecution'.

    That was the first time I'd ever seen signs like that near an airshow (but also the first time I'd ever walked outside the perimeter of such a show).
    Prosecution for what exactly? Loitering with intent to look in a particular direction?
    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.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    8,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Meddle View Post
    A slightly crass statement.
    Not "crass" at all.
    Merely a semi-cynical expression that the bureaucrats had to be seen to be doing something after the accident. So, they grounded [
    Hunters (post-edit) even after it reasonably clear that there wasn't a design issue involved.

    Really, if (heaven forbid...sorry if that offends any atheists out there) a Spitfire causing the same number of casualties, would they have grounded them for more than a year?
    Last edited by J Boyle; 5th March 2017 at 07:44.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,093
    They grounded Hunters. Vintage jets were subject to restricted displays over land.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    8,826
    Quote Originally Posted by LN Strike Eagle View Post
    They grounded Hunters. Vintage jets were subject to restricted displays over land.
    Quite right, I was double checking when you posted and was about to edit my post.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  26. #176
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    537
    Please see my polite request earlier. Post #158. Moggy
    Last edited by Moggy C; 5th March 2017 at 08:28.

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,674
    Worth noting that there had been concerns over fuel systems in civil Hunters before the accident, as noted in the report. The ban, then, made an assumption that a similar fuel system issue could have caused this incident (and the aircraft was shown to be suffering from that problem), and that the rest of the fleet might also be so suffering. I see no harm in wanting to be certain that there were no ongoing issues, though it has taken too long for the aircraft to be exonerated.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    2,410
    Indeed- although faults were found and there will now be ongoing maintenance requirements that will either ground most of the UK's vintage jet fleet or at the very least make it extremely difficult and expensive for them to be rectified, the Hunter on the day at Shoreham was in no way to blame for what happened.

  29. #179
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post
    ..... 'Police Notice - It is dangerous to watch the airshow from beyond this point, anybody doing so is liable to prosecution'......
    'Police Notice' or 'Polite Notice'? A photograph would help clarify the official standing of the notice.

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebird Mike View Post
    Indeed- although faults were found and there will now be ongoing maintenance requirements that will either ground most of the UK's vintage jet fleet or at the very least make it extremely difficult and expensive for them to be rectified, the Hunter on the day at Shoreham was in no way to blame for what happened.
    Repairing the fuel systems is a function only of money. If the owners feel it is worth spending their hard earned on rebuilding aging fuel systems, then it will happen. If not, they will be grounded.

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