Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Gandahar said:
I've read the full report now, very comprehensive as you would expect after all the time to do it.
Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.
I think that will sum up the views of many, certainly the general public.Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 01:21
After Shoreham, and the high number of 'total innocents' killed, I would expect that most of the general public would hope that the older aircraft are no longer allowed to do acrobatics etc.
The age of the aircraft rarely has anything to do with any warbird aircraft crashes. In fact, I can only think of one vintage aircraft crashes that had anything to do with this - and even then that was down to an error in maintenance as much as age.
By far and away the major cause of airshow crashes (of any sort of aircraft) is pilot misjudgement.
By far and away the major cause of airshow crashes (of any sort of aircraft) is pilot misjudgement.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As has been mentioned before, the most similar crash to Shoreham in the past was a USAF Thunderbirds crash caused by the pilot making a basic error in altitude. Not merely a full time fast jet pilot but a full time display pilot.I can understand that in terms of precision of flying regular practice makes a massive difference. In terms of avoiding simple mistakes I have my doubts.
Eric Mc said:
To be honest, the Red Arrows are not the only "mnodern" aircraft you see doing aerobatic manoeuvers - and on occasion, even the displays of modern military aircraft can go awry.
But again, rarely down to anything going wrong with the aeroplane.
Didn't the Kingcobra (Bancroft-Wilson) have an aileron jam or am I misremembering?But again, rarely down to anything going wrong with the aeroplane.
Simpo Two said:
Didn't the Kingcobra (Bancroft-Wilson) have an aileron jam or am I misremembering?
Don't think so, he went into the manoeuvre too slow, having already done something similar but less serious in a previous manoeuvre. The P38 (Hoof Proudfoot) may have done but the informed speculation was that if so it was likely to have been due to a loose item in the cockpit.The Mosquito was a mechanical issue but with a newly replaced or overhauled carb. Maintenance induced possibly but nothing to do with the age of the airframe.
Dr Jekyll said:
Simpo Two said:
Didn't the Kingcobra (Bancroft-Wilson) have an aileron jam or am I misremembering?
Don't think so, he went into the manoeuvre too slow, having already done something similar but less serious in a previous manoeuvre.In many ways the Biggin P-63 crash had similarities with the Hunter crash at Shoreham, in that an experienced pilot, but with too few hours on type, was being allowed to display an aircraft in this way. Probably another sad case of pressonitis.
It was also an ad-hoc display, not pre-planned, so this combined with only 13 hours on type (despite being an ex-Reds pilot) was far from ideal. Also as said, an earlier manoeuvre had caused a departure from flight, and thus one of the observing display committee members concern, but he was unable to contact ATC in the tower in time to red card the display before the P-63 speared into the ground a few minutes later.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can't find the MAA report but I do believe the red arrows had a version of the running break that they routinely carried out that wasn't an authorised manoeuvre. In recent times 2 pilots have been lost with the reds, one to a-loc (so not an aircraft issue) , the other to a flaw with an ejector seat and its parachute. Whilst Martin baker was to blame for not informing the MOD about overtightening a bolt which led to the parachute not deploying correctly the actual ejector handle that caused the activation had 7 RAF personnel, including the pilot, have 19 opportunities to check it was in an unsafe position however no one noticed it was in the unsafe position.Flying is a dangerous job even before you add in aerobatics however with good legislation, engineering support and human factors taken into consideration it should still be an enjoyable past time for spectators and pilots. As has been mentioned the weak link is normally the pilot (and sadly looking that way for the latest crash in the UK in Snowdonia)
ecsrobin said:
I can't find the MAA report but I do believe the red arrows had a version of the running break that they routinely carried out that wasn't an authorised manoeuvre.
I think it came out following Bournemouth, and the break they traditionally did at landings was not authorised, but I might be wrong. Not sure I have ever read a report in to Bournemouth though.Robertj21a said:
After Shoreham, and the high number of 'total innocents' killed, I would expect that most of the general public would hope that the older aircraft are no longer allowed to do acrobatics etc.
I think your hope is probably misplaced. I really believe that the majority of the public couldnt care less about air shows or Shoreham, might not be what some want to here though!anonymous said:
[redacted]
A very good argument though. Fortunately though we don't have to listen to your opinion we just get to humour you by replying. As for the previous poster, about 3/4 years ago I would suggest that a privately run aircraft would have a better engineering background than the reds (although I'm led to believe they have sorted their issues out now)
However let's not forget that the hawk T1 is an old airframe (40 years old this year)
although from first flight to service was quite a short turn around back then wasn't it?anonymous said:
[redacted]
I made no such contention. I questioned your contention that privately owned warbirds were inevitably shonkier and therefore should be restricted, the onus of proof is on you. Incidentally it may well have been a technical issue, uncommanded reduction in thrust has been known on that type of engine in RAF service. A technical issue does not necessarily mean poor maintenance.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, because the bit they don't care about is the accidents. I believe that people still want to be able to go to air shows even if they don't actually go.Of course if you carry out research in to this it will be very dependent on what the actual question is. If you ask "Should air shows with aerobatics go ahead?" you are likely to get a different answer than if you ask "Following the Shoreham accident should air shows with aerobatics be allowed to go ahead?"
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff