Gnat Crash At Carfest

[eharding]

kurt535 said:

You clearly have no evidence or knowledge what training 'amateurs' go through in order to gain CAA Display approval and keep it.

Having held a CAA aerobatic Display Authorisation, I can tell you that the process in general can be something of a Curate's Egg.

In this particular case, however, having flown with the principal pilot of the team, I simply cannot believe that *any* of the team members were not up to his extremely high and exacting standards, regardless of whether they were paid to fly for a living or not. Close formation flying is a matter of utter trust - and that trust is very hard won.

[dr_gn]

Not sure how many hours the pilot had on the Gnat, but according to the team's website he started flying them in 2005. Given his previous RAF training I'd have thought he knew what he was doing.

[eharding]

Zulu 10 said:

This isn't only about formation flying though, is it?
How much high-g training do any of the non-RAF aircrew manage to achieve each year?
Indeed how much does the CAA mandate that they get?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'high-g training' - but g-tolerance, whilst being a frangible commodity, is also to a degree an acquired, instinctive reaction - at least without mechanical assistance - I've no experience of g-suits. You can quickly lose tolerance, but in my experience having acquired the correct technique it doesn't take long to regain tolerance - but that does require a process of progressive exposure.

Over and above general recency requirements, there aren't any CAA requirements on how hard you've pushed or pulled recently to maintain a DA.

[Mojocvh]

aeropilot said:

converted lurker said:

Amateurs in 50 year old jets are just pushing those odds.

At least two of the six Gnat Display Team pilots were far from amateurs, one being an ex-ETPS grad and ex-BAe Typhoon TP. However, I understand your statement regarding the Gnat in respect of possibly the other 4 team members.

Even the late-great Ray Hanna, who lead the Arrows for 4 years flying the Gnat, wouldn't fly one again solo when he was given the chance back in the late 1980's (being some 15+ years since he'd last flown one) and flew it from the front seat with the then current Gnat type rated, Bob Thompson in the rear seat.

That is indeed telling.

[converted lurker]

kurt535 said:

Sorry, but your opinions are incredibly inflammatory. You clearly have no evidence or knowledge what training 'amateurs' go through in order to gain CAA Display approval and keep it. Additionally nearly every aerobatic/display team I can think of has at least one ex RAF pilot on it ( sometimes 5 or 6) so am unsure how you define 'better trained'.

Poorly researched opinions!

It's not inflammatory it's just honesty on an anonymous Internet forum.

The dead guy had a very short RAF career. Even Chuck Yeagar got old and rusty and whilst graduating from Valley is quite an achievement let's not place it on too high a pedestal.

The accident site was mere seconds flying time away from groups of innocent people going about their weekend business with their kids. As much as I love these old Cold War era jets and seeing them fly my enjoyment of that is no reason to take unnecessary risk flying the sharper, faster, single engine ones in high g format over their heads.

For all the vaunted experience levels of this team the truth is the guy did Tucanos and Hawks never completed OCU, never joined an operational unit, left the military and went into banking instead. As for the team as a whole it's very much a mixed bag...


2 pilot's with military career background and one a very experienced test pilot, really no problems here.

1 Pilot, RAF (1998-2001), UAS, IOT and some flying on Tocano's and Hawks, but didn't progress onto OCU, question previously asked why?

3 Pilots, only military experience is UAS or AEF (Chipmunks, Gliders, Bulldog), with PPL, CPL, or ATPL civil qualifications background.


I don't think my research is poor.

Edited by converted lurker on Monday 3rd August 06:12

[GGibbo]

converted lurker said:

It's not inflammatory it's just honesty on an anonymous Internet forum.

The dead guy had a very short RAF career. Even Chuck Yeagar got old and rusty and whilst graduating from Valley is quite an achievement let's not place it on too high a pedestal.

The accident site was mere seconds flying time away from groups of innocent people going about their weekend business with their kids. As much as I love these old Cold War era jets and seeing them fly my enjoyment of that is no reason to take unnecessary risk flying the sharper, faster, single engine ones in high g format over their heads.

For all the vaunted experience levels of this team the truth is the guy did Tucanos and Hawks never completed OCU, never joined an operational unit, left the military and went into banking instead. As for the team as a whole it's very much a mixed bag...


2 pilot's with military career background and one a very experienced test pilot, really no problems here.

1 Pilot, RAF (1998-2001), UAS, IOT and some flying on Tocano's and Hawks, but didn't progress onto OCU, question previously asked why?

3 Pilots, only military experience is UAS or AEF (Chipmunks, Gliders, Bulldog), with PPL, CPL, or ATPL civil qualifications background.


I don't think my research is poor.

Edited by converted lurker on Monday 3rd August 06:12

The big misunderstanding here is the assumption that an RAF career will prepare you for the demands of display flying. If the pilot had 3000hrs of recent FJ experience none of this discussion would have happaned. However 3000hrs spent on CAP, doing BFM or OLFing around Scotland would not necessarily prepare someone for the rigours of LL formation and display flying, although clearly the experience would not be irrelevant. A few individuals in the RAF display aircraft, but then often only for a season and it would seem to more stringent minima than their civilian counterparts.

Display flying of this nature is a very specific skill set, and it is short sighted to assume that because an individual doesn't have a huge amount of FJ hours in the military that they are not suitably qualified display a FJ.

G-LOC I think has to be considered as a likely possibility here, having seen the video. And unfortunately the Bournemouth Reds crash is proof that experience and hours will not entirely defend against it.

Referring to the deceased as 'the dead guy' seems somewhat callous considering the recency of the crash.

[MG Mark]

There'll doubtless be an AAIB investigation, and an accident report published in due course. Until then, opinions and conjecture are just that.....

MG Mark

[Eric Mc]

GGibbo said:

The big misunderstanding here is the assumption that an RAF career will prepare you for the demands of display flying. If the pilot had 3000hrs of recent FJ experience none of this discussion would have happaned. However 3000hrs spent on CAP, doing BFM or OLFing around Scotland would not necessarily prepare someone for the rigours of LL formation and display flying, although clearly the experience would not be irrelevant. A few individuals in the RAF display aircraft, but then often only for a season and it would seem to more stringent minima than their civilian counterparts.

Display flying of this nature is a very specific skill set, and it is short sighted to assume that because an individual doesn't have a huge amount of FJ hours in the military that they are not suitably qualified display a FJ.

G-LOC I think has to be considered as a likely possibility here, having seen the video. And unfortunately the Bournemouth Reds crash is proof that experience and hours will not entirely defend against it.

Referring to the deceased as 'the dead guy' seems somewhat callous considering the recency of the crash.

I'm guessing now -

FJ = Fast Jet?
BFM - haven't a clue
OLFing - Operational Low Flying?
LL - no idea

I do know what G-LOC means though.

[GGibbo]

Eric Mc said:

I'm guessing now -

FJ = Fast Jet? Correct
BFM - haven't a clue- Basic fighter manoeuvres- air combat
OLFing - Operational Low Flying? Correct
LL - no idea- Low level

I do know what G-LOC means though.

Apologies, other people acronyms annoy the hell out of me now I'm doing it! You got most of them!

[aeropilot]

GGibbo said:

The big misunderstanding here is the assumption that an RAF career will prepare you for the demands of display flying. If the pilot had 3000hrs of recent FJ experience none of this discussion would have happaned. However 3000hrs spent on CAP, doing BFM or OLFing around Scotland would not necessarily prepare someone for the rigours of LL formation and display flying, although clearly the experience would not be irrelevant. A few individuals in the RAF display aircraft, but then often only for a season and it would seem to more stringent minima than their civilian counterparts.

Display flying of this nature is a very specific skill set, and it is short sighted to assume that because an individual doesn't have a huge amount of FJ hours in the military that they are not suitably qualified display a FJ.

Maybe, maybe not. Individuals can still make mistakes, but, proceedures should try and minimise any potential risks.
Even very experienced display pilots can make mistakes, you only have to read the AAIB report on the crash of the T-33 at Duxford ten years ago to see that even a very well regarded, experienced display pilot with over 20,000 hrs as a commercial pilot (but no FJ background) can make an elementary mistake through lack of experience on type, that can result in a serious accident that in this case though, by a miracle, as well as remarkable presence of mind by the qualified Engineer on board resulted in no loss of life.

As a result the operator changed their own rules, to quote from the AAIB report:
"Following the accident, the operator decided only to use pilots with a military background to operate their remaining F86 Sabre, and an experienced QFI in the Royal
Air Force, current on jet aircraft, has been appointed as the operator’s QFI. At the time of this report, all their pilots were experienced fast jet pilots with a display
background. The operator also instigated a stricter regime of supervision for pilots who had been engaged on other flying duties prior to operating the F86."


And as it happens, a very good friend of mine knew the deceased pilot, I got a txt from him yesterday in a state of shock as he'd found out while abroad on holiday

[Eric Mc]

GGibbo said:

Eric Mc said:

I'm guessing now -

FJ = Fast Jet? Correct
BFM - haven't a clue- Basic fighter manoeuvres- air combat
OLFing - Operational Low Flying? Correct
LL - no idea- Low level

I do know what G-LOC means though.

Apologies, other people acronyms annoy the hell out of me now I'm doing it! You got most of them!

Many thanks. I knew your post was informative - but just couldn't work out how informative it really was

[GGibbo]

aeropilot said:

Maybe, maybe not. Individuals can still make mistakes, but, proceedures should try and minimise any potential risks.
Even very experienced display pilots can make mistakes, you only have to read the AAIB report on the crash of the T-33 at Duxford ten years ago to see that even a very well regarded, experienced display pilot with over 20,000 hrs as a commercial pilot (but no FJ background) can make an elementary mistake through lack of experience on type, that can result in a serious accident that in this case though, by a miracle, as well as remarkable presence of mind by the qualified Engineer on board resulted in no loss of life.

As a result the operator changed their own rules, to quote from the AAIB report:
"Following the accident, the operator decided only to use pilots with a military background to operate their remaining F86 Sabre, and an experienced QFI in the Royal
Air Force, current on jet aircraft, has been appointed as the operator’s QFI. At the time of this report, all their pilots were experienced fast jet pilots with a display
background. The operator also instigated a stricter regime of supervision for pilots who had been engaged on other flying duties prior to operating the F86."


And as it happens, a very good friend of mine knew the deceased pilot, I got a txt from him yesterday in a state of shock as he'd found out while abroad on holiday

I agree that miltary fast jet experience is always going to be highly desireable for this kind of display flying however, in my mind, this will always introduce increased risk when not combined with relevant experince on type. This raises the issue of how you gain relevant experience now that virtually all the pilots who display these aircraft didn't fly them when they were in service, epsecially when you consider the high cost of flying fast jets.

That said I agree that the miltary way of approaching aviation is well suited to the rigours of display flying. The BBMFs safety record serving as evidence that aircraft can be safely displayed by pilots who may not have huge amounts of experince on type. However the scrupulous training and supervision under which the BBMF operate is most likely not going to be recreated by a commercial venture.

Unfortunately the appetite for risk is, I assume, only going to go down over time and will make it increasingly difficult for aircraft such as those discussed to be operated in the future.

[scubadude]

Eric Mc said:

However, I do think that air displays are not that suited to car type events - especially when the venue isn't an airfield - although my reservations are more to how they fit in to the overall event rather than related to safety issues.

I see what you mean but I think air displays at venues other than airfields can have good significance and since they are "in the air" are rather unlimited, even if the ground venue is.

I was at Tankfest a few weeks ago and there was a fantastic display from a Spitfire (although he had to pull out and orbit around while the Coastguard rescue helicopter came past on a shout at one point!) not only did he display the aircraft right over the venue (although not very low) but it was very evocative seeing it above while WWII era tanks performed in the arena.

Some popular air displays aren't at airfields- Bournemouth springs to mind.

[kurt535]

converted lurker said:

kurt535 said:

Sorry, but your opinions are incredibly inflammatory. You clearly have no evidence or knowledge what training 'amateurs' go through in order to gain CAA Display approval and keep it. Additionally nearly every aerobatic/display team I can think of has at least one ex RAF pilot on it ( sometimes 5 or 6) so am unsure how you define 'better trained'.

Poorly researched opinions!

It's not inflammatory it's just honesty on an anonymous Internet forum.

The dead guy had a very short RAF career. Even Chuck Yeagar got old and rusty and whilst graduating from Valley is quite an achievement let's not place it on too high a pedestal.

The accident site was mere seconds flying time away from groups of innocent people going about their weekend business with their kids. As much as I love these old Cold War era jets and seeing them fly my enjoyment of that is no reason to take unnecessary risk flying the sharper, faster, single engine ones in high g format over their heads.

For all the vaunted experience levels of this team the truth is the guy did Tucanos and Hawks never completed OCU, never joined an operational unit, left the military and went into banking instead. As for the team as a whole it's very much a mixed bag...


2 pilot's with military career background and one a very experienced test pilot, really no problems here.

1 Pilot, RAF (1998-2001), UAS, IOT and some flying on Tocano's and Hawks, but didn't progress onto OCU, question previously asked why?

3 Pilots, only military experience is UAS or AEF (Chipmunks, Gliders, Bulldog), with PPL, CPL, or ATPL civil qualifications background.


I don't think my research is poor.

Your research is poor and lacks expert knowledge, understanding and hard facts about the deceased person's experience. He may well have flown every weekend in the Gnat since he first flew them (2007?); we simply do not know and won't know until AAIB, etc have gone over the evidence.

Edited by converted lurker on Monday 3rd August 06:12

[Eric Mc]

scubadude said:

Eric Mc said:

However, I do think that air displays are not that suited to car type events - especially when the venue isn't an airfield - although my reservations are more to how they fit in to the overall event rather than related to safety issues.

I see what you mean but I think air displays at venues other than airfields can have good significance and since they are "in the air" are rather unlimited, even if the ground venue is.

I was at Tankfest a few weeks ago and there was a fantastic display from a Spitfire (although he had to pull out and orbit around while the Coastguard rescue helicopter came past on a shout at one point!) not only did he display the aircraft right over the venue (although not very low) but it was very evocative seeing it above while WWII era tanks performed in the arena.

Some popular air displays aren't at airfields- Bournemouth springs to mind.

I think coastal air displays work very well - because of the unobstructed view towards the horizon. Air displays at Silverstone and Goodwood Circuit work OK - because they are airfields in their own right so give reasonable views of the flying. Other motoring venues often offer restricted views of the aircraft because of trees, buildings etc.

And often, at motoring events, coordinating the flying with the on track action is often difficult. Goodwood Revival is the best event where it, mostly, works according to plan. But there is nothing worse when some chap is doing his damndest to put on an exciting air display when the commentary team is spending its time talking about what is going on on the track - and vise versa.

[pushthebutton]

Eric Mc said:

I'm guessing now -

FJ = Fast Jet?
BFM - haven't a clue
OLFing - Operational Low Flying?
LL - no idea

I do know what G-LOC means though.

I probably saw it linked from PH and so most may have seen it already, but I liked Elon Musk's alternative stance on the use of acronyms:

[Eric Mc]

I'm not going any further with this. It's been debated to death previously and most of us have had our say on the subject - plus it pulls the thread off topic. The poster very graciously answered my questions and we should leave it at that.

[Ari]

NeMiSiS said:

I would imagine fast jet aerobatics is well up there in the adrenaline rush charts and Jester would have signed out on a high.

'Jester'?

[Scotty2]

Deceased's nickname.

[converted lurker]

Personally I think referring to him as the dead guy is a lot less insulting than calling him Jester as:


The iconic Top Gun quote featuring the name is Maverick whooping excitedly "Jesters dead!"...

Jester is almost certainly not what he was nicknamed in RAF service or in the display team.

It is extremely naff to reference Navy Tomcat operations to piddling about in a 1960's training aircraft


But that's just me. Turns out the seats were live and ejection may have been initiated as the canopy seems to have been blown. I suspect the report on this one won't take that long.