Also a full review under way, restrictions on Hunter flights and additional risk assessments on future displays to see if further restrictions applied.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Plane crash at Shoreham, UK airshow.
Collapse
X
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by sjwk View Post
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".
Comment
-
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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by sjwk View Post
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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Postmany 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"...
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
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.
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by HalcyonDays View PostSurely 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostDo you really need an altimeter at all to tell that you are 5 and not 500 ft AGL???
"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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostWhat? Control surface failure must be the least common cause.
...I do not think that has any relevance to this crash.
2) Ummm...I think control failures are fairly common in air show crashes...not so much fighter jets, but when you see those hot little aerobatic planes crashing while appearing to be out of control...I can think of several of those where the control surface failure was visible in the film- so I dare say it's not uncommon.
(And would repeat your words from above, that the plane in this incident seemed to be functioning quite well and dutifully responded as it was driven into a situation where it could not avoid ground contact.)Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
And so it is the 'nanny state' wins...
I feel for the families who lost loved ones, but surely sanity must prevail.
The pilot was negligent/made a mistake/was incapacitated/was a terrorist/had an in flight failure/etc. and the whole of aviation pays.
Where I live it is against the law to leave a child alone in a car, why? because 1 individual did this and cooked his kiddie while they went to the casino for nn hours - these don't need to be laws, it's (un)common sense
Remember when you got a knife and fork with your airline meal? And shoes weren't weapons of mass destruction???
What did we used to do in the bad old days???
Comment
-
Originally posted by vaztr View PostAnd so it is the 'nanny state' wins...
But restrictions on doing asinine things with an airplane over a populated area...? Naaaaany Staaate.... Naaaaany Staaate....
Comment
-
That's one perspective.
Here's other perspective: many regulations exist because certain delusional people think that it's possible to legislate all unhappiness out of life and if you do so everyone will be happy all the time.
And another: many regulations exist because legislators are constantly being bombarded with people trying to make this, that, and the other thing illegal, and sometimes they give in for no good reason other than to make the whiny people go away. And/or because they "were sent there to do something" therefore they have to do something... even if it's the wrong thing.
I live in a state where it used to be illegal to sell donut holes, it's still illegal to kiss in public on Sundays (please explain to me how a dumb person doing that could cause harm to a smart person or anyone else), and it's illegal to do ANY of your own plumbing work. A homeowner cannot legally even change a washer in a faucet.... seriously!
I actually consider myself a liberal and think there is a legitimate place for some regulations to protect people against the ill-considered or deliberate harmful acts of others. And I think maybe 10% of regulations fall into that category. The others? Not so much.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostHere's other perspective: certain regulations exist because certain delusional people think that it's possible to legislate all unhappiness out of life and if you do so everyone will be happy all the time.
The decision to place a restriction on vintage planes illustrates how those whom we elect based on their charisma to create our legislation often know nothing about what they are legislating and have no interest in learning.
Comment
Comment