Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59

Thread: Plane crash at Shoreham, UK airshow.

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Me thinks this could be the tipping point for all future air displays...

    10nm ON GROUND no go zone for all public around airshows (excepting paying customers)
    No aircraft older than nn years to perform stunts
    Pilot must have xx rating/hours on type to perform stunts
    No flying lower than n hundred feet

    etc., etc.

    I loathe the 'nanny state', but none of the 11 dead (so far) deserved any of this

    VAZ

  2. #22
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vaztr View Post
    Me thinks this could be the tipping point for all future air displays...

    10nm ON GROUND no go zone for all public around airshows (excepting paying customers)
    No aircraft older than nn years to perform stunts
    Pilot must have xx rating/hours on type to perform stunts
    No flying lower than n hundred feet

    etc., etc.

    I loathe the 'nanny state', but none of the 11 dead (so far) deserved any of this

    VAZ
    My red, bold type will effectively kill off all air displays, including coastal displays such as Eastbourne etc.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,844

    Default

    Airshows don't need to be this dangerous...if you watch the video and see the low altitude at which he began his loop it's obvious this was an extremely poor decision. This is very much like the Thunderbirds crash in Montana in which the pilot used MSL instead of AGL altitude when planning his loop maneuver and didn't have enough room to pull out of it...luckily that was performed over the middle of the airfield and not over the perimiter with a busy highway as was the case here. Very bad decision making from the pilot...

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,844

    Default

    I mean the guy started to pull into his loop at what must have been between 100-200ft off the ground...just ridiculous...

  5. #25
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    Airshows don't need to be this dangerous...if you watch the video and see the low altitude at which he began his loop it's obvious this was an extremely poor decision. This is very much like the Thunderbirds crash in Montana in which the pilot used MSL instead of AGL altitude when planning his loop maneuver and didn't have enough room to pull out of it...luckily that was performed over the middle of the airfield and not over the perimiter with a busy highway as was the case here. Very bad decision making from the pilot...
    This raises a question. There is a minimum 500 feet altitude restriction over people and structures.

    The pilot looked to be at about 200 feet Above Ground Level (and in the case of Shoreham also Above Mean Sea Level as the airfield is just 7 feet AMSL.)

    The aircraft came from North Weald which is 321 feet AMSL.

    321 + 200 = 521 feet.

    So....did the pilot make a fatal mistake with his altimeter setting ? The Air Accident Investigation Branch will no doubt be paying a lot of attention to the altimeter/s
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    This raises a question. There is a minimum 500 feet altitude restriction over people and structures.

    The pilot looked to be at about 200 feet Above Ground Level (and in the case of Shoreham also Above Mean Sea Level as the airfield is just 7 feet AMSL.)

    The aircraft came from North Weald which is 321 feet AMSL.

    321 + 200 = 521 feet.

    So....did the pilot make a fatal mistake with his altimeter setting ? The Air Accident Investigation Branch will no doubt be paying a lot of attention to the altimeter/s
    Yes Brian, assuming he had a correct altimeter setting when departing North Weald, when he began his maneuver at Shoreham he would have had an altimeter reading around 200 ft...which should have been sounding alarm bells for him if he saw it. And a casual glance out the window would have made it obvious he was well below 500ft. The only way he could think he was at 500 from the altimeter would be if he had an incorrect altimeter setting from the start. This is a basic mistake too.

  7. #27
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    This raises a question. There is a minimum 500 feet altitude restriction over people and structures.

    The pilot looked to be at about 200 feet Above Ground Level (and in the case of Shoreham also Above Mean Sea Level as the airfield is just 7 feet AMSL.)

    The aircraft came from North Weald which is 321 feet AMSL.

    321 + 200 = 521 feet.

    So....did the pilot make a fatal mistake with his altimeter setting ? The Air Accident Investigation Branch will no doubt be paying a lot of attention to the altimeter/s


    To some extent, this is a no-win scenario...many airshow crashes happen when there's a control surface failure...so if you are higher, it's that much easier to veer off into the crowd.

    I also don't like to hear "The pilot made a bad decision"(Not_posted by Brian)...That gives the implication the dude is saying, "I formally and in full knowledge, decide to make this loop 300 feet too low"...

    Yeah, sure, bad call, but there's usually something much more insidious afoot...with comfort, complacency and "everything looks great just like it always does" often being part of the equation.

    As to restrictions...yeah, I know of a couple recent Blue Angel shows where the turn outs are done over very populated areas...yeah, safety margins are good, but then again, there's a reason you don't make more than 60 degree banks and 30 degrees of pitch for "plain old operations".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    Yes Brian, assuming he had a correct altimeter setting when departing North Weald, when he began his maneuver at Shoreham he would have had an altimeter reading around 200 ft...which should have been sounding alarm bells for him if he saw it. And a casual glance out the window would have made it obvious he was well below 500ft. The only way he could think he was at 500 from the altimeter would be if he had an incorrect altimeter setting from the start. This is a basic mistake too.
    Surely he would have re-set his altimeter to local/regional QNH settings 2-3 times during the run down from North Weald to Shoreham.

  9. #29
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HalcyonDays View Post
    Surely he would have re-set his altimeter to local/regional QNH settings 2-3 times during the run down from North Weald to Shoreham.
    That is what is supposed to happen.....but did it happen ?
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    222

    Default

    UK's aviation regulator announces "significant restrictions" on vintage jets in air displays after Shoreham crash
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

  11. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Also a full review under way, restrictions on Hunter flights and additional risk assessments on future displays to see if further restrictions applied.

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    Is there any evidence at all to indicate the age of the aircraft was a factor in this accident?

    To me (and here comes the parlour talking...), it looks like the maneuver was just performed too low, and at the bottom when the pilot tried to pull up to avoid the ground, the aircraft just said "no". Aka an accelerated stall.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjwk View Post
    An update on the above:
    The Civil Aviation Authority said [vintage jets] would be "limited to flypasts", which meant "high-energy aerobatics" would not be permitted in displays over land.
    ...
    A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed that all Hawker Hunter aircraft had been grounded until further notice.
    The regulator added that it would be conducting "additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays".
    Is grounding of aircraft normal in this sort of situation, or does that imply some sort of finger pointing at aircraft failure?

  14. #34
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,883

    Default

    Do you really need an altimeter at all to tell that you are 5 and not 500 ft AGL???

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  15. #35
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjwk View Post
    Why? Was the fact that it was a vintage a factor? It looks like the jet was respondoing quite well to the pilot's inputs.

    Better ban pilots that don't design, train and perform the maneuvers well within the flight envelope (including the aerobatic flight envelope) and with a good margin of safety to be able to recover if something goes wrong, and with a projected impact point that is free of people if something goes even worse.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  16. #36
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    many airshow crashes happen when there's a control surface failure...so if you are higher, it's that much easier to veer off into the crowd.
    What? Control surface failure must be the least common cause. Yes it has happened, but unable to clear the ground in high Gs / high AoA pull ups out of dives and loss of control (tipically in a stall and/or spin condition) are by far the most common ones. And altitude is what will let you recover from something going wrong in those cases. If you plan to recover ant 500 ft and are 300 ft too low, you will still recover (at 200ft) and I hope that you will take this as a very serious lesson learned and go and find out what on Earth you did wrong and how you prevent that it ever ever happens again. If you planned to recover at 50ft and end 100ft too low, well, look at the video.

    I also don't like to hear "The pilot made a bad decision"(Not_posted by Brian)...That gives the implication the dude is saying, "I formally and in full knowledge, decide to make this loop 300 feet too low"...
    I cannot imagine that the pilot didn't know that he was extremely low. You don't perform aerbatics by instruments or in IMC. But maybe he wasn't 300ft too low but about where he wanted to be, he had pulled this maneuver before pulling out skimming the ground, and this time he pulled a up a bit too much in the up run or a bit too little in the beginning of the low part, or he was a bit faster or slower than the corner speed, or started just 50 ft below what he intended, and because he had no margins built in the design of the maneuver, he colud not recover from that little mistake. Maybe.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  17. #37
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,883

    Default

    If they were not of such a tragedy, I would say that these photos are excellent. Unfortunately, they are very sad.

    Very detailed close-up photos of the sequence of the crash. View at your discretion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtbHD8rf_AY

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  18. #38
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HalcyonDays View Post
    Surely he would have re-set his altimeter to local/regional QNH settings 2-3 times during the run down from North Weald to Shoreham.
    Surely, he glanced at the airspeed from time to time on short final.

    Surely, he evaluated if pulling up the whole time might have something to do with the fast, wallowing descent.

    Surely, he remembered to add in some power as the flaps and gear came down.

    Surely, they remembered to extend the flaps for takeoff.

    Surely, they checked to see that they were on the correct runway.

    Surely, they kept their eye on the aircraft that ATC was calling out to them.

    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #39
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Do you really need an altimeter at all to tell that you are 5 and not 500 ft AGL???
    ...kind of looking for the elusive middle ground here...

    "This maneuver should begin at 500 ft AGL so if you blow it on the pull out and sag 300 feet too low, you have a buffer"... (definite unsubstantiated BS parlour talk).

    So ideally (that's ideally from my keyboard at 0 ft agl and 0 kts) you glace at the altimeter (and ASI) (but definitely NOT the AOA monitor) as you enter a loop...

    ...then again, you've done it a thousand times and everything feels and looks fine...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #40
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Do you really need an altimeter at all to tell that you are 5 and not 500 ft AGL???
    Flying that low you can scratch the paint of the airplane....
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

Posting Permissions

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