Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
The thread will probably start going round in circles again. I don't think there is much to add to this discussion that hasn't been said already.
Sadly with legalities as they are investigations take time and need to be watertight.
I'm sure when the authorities are ready they will provide answers.
Too low on entry? Not a problem if you've got that much turbojet behind you... you're going straight up anyway. Even the 'little' Avon in the T.7 makes 7,500lb of thrust - double that of the hottest Viper in the BAC Strikemaster. No, in my view, AAIB and Rolls-Royce glossed over the matter of the historically troublesome fuel control unit - why were they fitted with an override switch? The Avon 200s don't have them, and are known to be less troublesome. Something went wrong on the way up. There looked to me to be a vibration suggesting the engine wasn't running well... Andy Hill had flown the same display perfectly the year before (although Chris Heames subsequently claimed to have flown it that day!). The one thing the Hunter does NOT like is large aileron inputs at low airspeed - it WILL flick and spin. I was told that by Bill Bedford himself, who I had the privilege of calling a personal friend, and who was frequently to be seen at Kingston LONG after his retirement. Now, the Hunter will spin like a top until you tell it to stop, a bit of out-spin rudder and aileron and it will kick out of the spin instantly, but when you've not got a lot of height to play with in the first place, it might seem more prudent to try to complete the manoeuvre and pile on the G - although the Hunter was officially rated for 7G, it will actually take 12G quite happily. The only realistic alternative would be to abandon the loop at the top and go into a gentle inverted descent, build some airspeed THEN half-roll out...
If the engine had been working properly, it really wouldn't have mattered that he went in a bit low. It is quite customary, as the AAIB report highlighted, for pilots to start a manoeuvre on the low side, as long as they can be confident of meeting their ceiling height and the floor on the way back down. Andy Hill had no reason, at the moment he started, to suppose that he would not be able to do so. The major unanswered question remains, what went wrong with the engine... the Avon 121/122 has long had a bit of a reputation, the Hunter F.5 with the big Sapphire was a more reliable aircraft, and consequently the Avon 200s used a different compressor design, more closely related to that of the Sapphire, and a redesigned FCU... but for whatever reason the T.7s were never re-engined.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Even regarding the climb as part of the manoeuvre, how far below the floor was it? He clearly ended the loop at least 500 feet too low, and could hardly have entered it that low, so something else seems to have happened. Making any low entry a contributory factor only. RoverP6B said:
The only realistic alternative would be to abandon the loop at the top and go into a gentle inverted descent, build some airspeed THEN half-roll out...
So why didn't he...?He should have seen he hadn't hit his gates at that point (for whatever reason) and exited the manoeuvre as per the established escape as you describe.....which is what every experienced ex-Hunter pilot that I've seen comment have said.
If the conclusion was that the aircraft was fine and not a factor in the crash, then what does that leave us with? A big white piloty-looking elephant that some people are just not willing to see standing in the room. And without even calling it a failing or error on the part of the pilot, there has to be some acceptance that some factor, associated with or acting upon the human behind the controls, is more likely to be the probable cause.
RoverP6B said:
If the engine had been working properly, it really wouldn't have mattered that he went in a bit low. It is quite customary, as the AAIB report highlighted, for pilots to start a manoeuvre on the low side, as long as they can be confident of meeting their ceiling height and the floor on the way back down. Andy Hill had no reason, at the moment he started, to suppose that he would not be able to do so. The major unanswered question remains, what went wrong with the engine... the Avon 121/122 has long had a bit of a reputation, the Hunter F.5 with the big Sapphire was a more reliable aircraft, and consequently the Avon 200s used a different compressor design, more closely related to that of the Sapphire, and a redesigned FCU... but for whatever reason the T.7s were never re-engined.
Has it been proved there was an issue with the engine?My understanding is everything was working as it should and nothing was found to be faulty on the aircraft.
HoHoHo said:
RoverP6B said:
If the engine had been working properly, it really wouldn't have mattered that he went in a bit low. It is quite customary, as the AAIB report highlighted, for pilots to start a manoeuvre on the low side, as long as they can be confident of meeting their ceiling height and the floor on the way back down. Andy Hill had no reason, at the moment he started, to suppose that he would not be able to do so. The major unanswered question remains, what went wrong with the engine... the Avon 121/122 has long had a bit of a reputation, the Hunter F.5 with the big Sapphire was a more reliable aircraft, and consequently the Avon 200s used a different compressor design, more closely related to that of the Sapphire, and a redesigned FCU... but for whatever reason the T.7s were never re-engined.
Has it been proved there was an issue with the engine?My understanding is everything was working as it should and nothing was found to be faulty on the aircraft.
Dr Jekyll said:
HoHoHo said:
RoverP6B said:
If the engine had been working properly, it really wouldn't have mattered that he went in a bit low. It is quite customary, as the AAIB report highlighted, for pilots to start a manoeuvre on the low side, as long as they can be confident of meeting their ceiling height and the floor on the way back down. Andy Hill had no reason, at the moment he started, to suppose that he would not be able to do so. The major unanswered question remains, what went wrong with the engine... the Avon 121/122 has long had a bit of a reputation, the Hunter F.5 with the big Sapphire was a more reliable aircraft, and consequently the Avon 200s used a different compressor design, more closely related to that of the Sapphire, and a redesigned FCU... but for whatever reason the T.7s were never re-engined.
Has it been proved there was an issue with the engine?My understanding is everything was working as it should and nothing was found to be faulty on the aircraft.
As it is, all are cleared to fly again.
Robertj21a said:
Whatever the final outcome is, I just hope that some proper controls are put in place to stop anything similar happening again. It's one thing to attend an air show, it's quite another to be an innocent motorist killed when simply driving along a road.
You can have all the rules you want, but if the driver doesn't stick to them they are meaningless.eccles said:
Robertj21a said:
Whatever the final outcome is, I just hope that some proper controls are put in place to stop anything similar happening again. It's one thing to attend an air show, it's quite another to be an innocent motorist killed when simply driving along a road.
You can have all the rules you want, but if the driver doesn't stick to them they are meaningless.aeropilot said:
eccles said:
Robertj21a said:
Whatever the final outcome is, I just hope that some proper controls are put in place to stop anything similar happening again. It's one thing to attend an air show, it's quite another to be an innocent motorist killed when simply driving along a road.
You can have all the rules you want, but if the driver doesn't stick to them they are meaningless.aeropilot said:
More a simple case of human beings are by nature fallible, and will always be suseptible to making split second mistakes, no matter how onerous the rules are.
Pushing any 'acrobatics' out to sea, or over remote land (think Salisbury Plain !) would ensure that the general public is better protected from activities in which they have no wish to be involved. It's for the law makers and organisers to come up arrangements for venues that are safer, and then consider how those wishing to attend can view the activities.
Robertj21a said:
Pushing any 'acrobatics' out to sea, or over remote land (think Salisbury Plain !) would ensure that the general public is better protected from activities in which they have no wish to be involved.
It's for the law makers and organisers to come up arrangements for venues that are safer, and then consider how those wishing to attend can view the activities.
Not just displaysIt's for the law makers and organisers to come up arrangements for venues that are safer, and then consider how those wishing to attend can view the activities.
They should probably ban all flights overland, just in case
and over shipping see Dartmouth thread
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff