Crash at Shoreham Air show

[lufbramatt]

dr_gn said:

Didn't the passenger survive? The seat fell through the canopy while inverted - or something like that.

Sadly I don't think so, think it was in Australia and the pilot and passenger died.

[dr_gn]

Simpo Two said:

CAPP0 said:

dr_gn said:

Easy to assume he had all the time in the world to make that decision when you're looking at a still photograph.

Aren't there minimum heights for expected survival? And that looks like it would be below any such spec, although I guess that if you *think* you're going to die anyway, you may as well pull?

Indeed, it was too late by the time that photo was taken. I should have said 'Why the hell didn't he pull the handle before it was too late?' But as dr_gn says, it's easy to say that now. Perhaps he thought he could make it (as per Saaby's comment).

In a situation like that I wonder if the actions required for ejection would also prevent the pilot from continuing to actively pull out of the loop i.e. having to take both hands off the stick? If he did it would probably have made things worse at that point, especially if he didn't know for sure whether it would be a very close call or an impact.

[aeropilot]

Koofler said:

aeropilot said:

lufbramatt said:

lots of older jets have the seats disabled.

Hardly 'lots'.

One or two perhaps (Meteor T.7 is one IIRC, but that's a design issue, not a decision to disable per se)

As far as I'm aware, all the UK airworthy Hunters have live seats, as do the Gnats, Canberra, Sea Vixen, Vulcan (for the two front crew) Vamps and Venoms etc. There maybe the odd JP that doesn't?
No sensible pilot is going to get in any high performance jet with a disabled bang seat.

I read somewhere yesterday (but can't find the article now) that they are 'often' disabled due to the cost of maintaining them.

One example of the complete rubbish printed in the mass media. I think the The Sun, surprisingly, have been the only media to actually have sought out a real expert (a renowned TP and ex-Hunter display pilot), rather than the raft of 'so-called' experts that are anything but.

Almost all (rather than lots) of ex-mil jets on UK register that have bang seats fitted by design, have live and maintained seats.


However......the future of vintage ex-mil jet flying in the UK, EU and elsewhere (even before this accident) may well have been in doubt because of the seat issue for those fitted with MB seats at least.
The RAAF have grounded their airworthy Sabre as a result of Martin-Baker earlier this year, informing all operators of vintage jets fitted with their seats that they will be no longer supplying the necessary spares to maintain the seats, and the RAAF had run out of the bits for the early seat in their Sabre. It still had enough bits for a couple more years for their F.8 Meteor, but after that, that would be grounded for the same reason unless other options could be found.

[CAPP0]

Simpo Two said:

CAPP0 said:

dr_gn said:

Easy to assume he had all the time in the world to make that decision when you're looking at a still photograph.

Aren't there minimum heights for expected survival? And that looks like it would be below any such spec, although I guess that if you *think* you're going to die anyway, you may as well pull?

Indeed, it was too late by the time that photo was taken. I should have said 'Why the hell didn't he pull the handle before it was too late?' But as dr_gn says, it's easy to say that now. Perhaps he thought he could make it (as per Saaby's comment).

That's the only logical conclusion that one can draw as a MoP with only the information in the public domain, but I guess that takes us back into speculation mode.

[s3fella]

Dr Jekyll said:

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

Same aircraft, same venue, a previous display. Skip to the 45 minute mark.

It is very difficult to tell from that footage as there is no real visual reference, but toward the end of the hunter clip, on the manoeuvres that are more passes and rolls, the flaps are clean, but at the start for the loop and slower rolls, they are deployed.

So flaps deployed for the "loop" again, but somehow, (and again it is difficult due to lack of visual refs) it seems like the a/c may be travelling faster on the downward part of the "loop" this year? Does anyone else see that, or is my mind playing tricks? Could it have oversped with flaps deployed, destroying the lift? Despite the nose down attitude in the final moments, per the dashcam vid, the sink rate is huge with the apparent forward speed and "airspeed", if there was any normal lift from the wing, it would have just pulled out and flown level.

Could it be a stall caused by loss of lift due to the flaps and nose down attitude is trying to recover airspeed and lift?

[saaby93]

s3fella said:

Despite the nose down attitude in the final moments, per the dashcam vid, the sink rate is huge with the apparent forward speed and "airspeed", if there was any normal lift from the wing, it would have just pulled out and flown level.

Could it be a stall caused by loss of lift due to the flaps and nose down attitude is trying to recover airspeed and lift?

Can you say which vid had a nose down attitude?
The picture above has nose up, the overhead distant video showed it dropping possibly just before, the pilot survived(just), all point (with speculation) to it hitting the ground tail first (having stalled or no power or both)

[s3fella]

Search the dashcam vid from a car up the road. AC comes in with a nose down high sink rate attitude then flares at the last minute, but sink rate continues. I think the vid is on here somewhere, it shows the last second flare, but no real change in sink rate.

[saaby93]

This one from 2 pages back

Mr GrimNasty said:

That's not a new picture, it's been published with all the others in the same sequence, if you watch the video from the road, the Hunter comes in on a fairly consistent arc but suddenly dips down assuming that attitude in the last second before impact, a bit like the last up flip of a paper dart.

Edit, looks like the video I mentioned has been erased from the internet now.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Wednesday 26th August 22:43

[IroningMan]

Simpo Two said:

dr_gn said:

Didn't the passenger survive? The seat fell through the canopy while inverted - or something like that.

Pilot and passenger survived, but each thought the other had died. It was featured on the TV programme '999'; a friend of mine was in the air at the time and heard it all happening.

The two brothers who own - owned? - the Transair Pilot Shop. On their way home from a fly-in at North Weald in, I think, 1993.

[NDA]

saaby93 said:

Item about rescuing Pilot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34066274

I'm always amazed and heartened to hear the from true professionals.

It's easy to forget how many lives have been devastated by this incident.

[TTmonkey]

A question was raised earlier by someone about the weather conditions.

I was driving fairly close to the area on Saturday, basically travelling up the M3 from Winchester all the way up to the M25. (not that close geographically granted but in terms of weather across the area)

About half way up I noted a big and quite sudden jump in the temperature - it went from 23/24C to 33/34C. I think it became significantly more humid at the time too.

I noted this and mentioned to the misses that we should expect a thunder storm later, which did occur.


Could this sort of temperature difference have caused the jet to experience power/lift issues?

[9mm]

TTmonkey said:

A question was raised earlier by someone about the weather conditions.

I was driving fairly close to the area on Saturday, basically travelling up the M3 from Winchester all the way up to the M25. (not that close geographically granted but in terms of weather across the area)

About half way up I noted a big and quite sudden jump in the temperature - it went from 23/24C to 33/34C. I think it became significantly more humid at the time too.

I noted this and mentioned to the misses that we should expect a thunder storm later, which did occur.


Could this sort of temperature difference have caused the jet to experience power/lift issues?

No idea about the effect on jets but there was no weird weather change in Shoreham on that day.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

TTmonkey said:

A question was raised earlier by someone about the weather conditions.

I was driving fairly close to the area on Saturday, basically travelling up the M3 from Winchester all the way up to the M25. (not that close geographically granted but in terms of weather across the area)

About half way up I noted a big and quite sudden jump in the temperature - it went from 23/24C to 33/34C. I think it became significantly more humid at the time too.

I noted this and mentioned to the misses that we should expect a thunder storm later, which did occur.


Could this sort of temperature difference have caused the jet to experience power/lift issues?

I noticed the quick increase of temperature of about 8 to 10 degrees, that afternoon. Hot and high will decrease engine and lift performance, Shoreham is sea level but 10 degrees is a substantial shift.

The density altitude calculation takes pressure and temp into account (with a dry air assumption) in the calculation (IIRC) The current rated pilots will have this burnt into memory I suspect.

Edit: Just played with the calculation, seems a 10 degree change, only make a 2 to 3 % percent difference on the density altitude value.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 27th August 12:36

[saaby93]

Would it have affected the altimeter?

[TTmonkey]

9mm said:

No idea about the effect on jets but there was no weird weather change in Shoreham on that day.

ok, but it must be remembered that the Jet wasn't from Shoreham, it had flown there from considerably further away. In fact, it had only just got there. Could that have made a difference, as has been said, to the altimeter setting? People have said it seemed unusually low before the manoeuvre.


I remember little about how altimeters are set, but I believe its all to do with temperature/pressure. Could a substantial difference in temperature have made enough of a difference?

[charlie7777]

Shoreham ATC would have given the pilot the correct setting QFE/QNH when he spoke to them before arrival over the field.

Edited by charlie7777 on Thursday 27th August 14:42

[Mave]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Edit: Just played with the calculation, seems a 10 degree change, only make a 2 to 3 % percent difference on the density altitude value.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 27th August 12:36

Interstingly, fag packet calc suggests 10 mbar pressure difference is worth about 80m

[Eric Mc]

Traditional aircraft altimeters are pressure based. The altimeter can be set at the pressure at the airfield (referred to as QFE) or the pressure at Sea Level (QNH).

As Shoreham is pretty much a seaside airport, I would suspect that there would not be much difference in the QNH and QFE settings. An aircraft approaching an airfield will be given the QFE by the airport traffic controllers.

Edited - somebody above has already calculated the difference - which isn't much, as I suspected.

[9mm]

No reports of aircraft falling out of the skys at Gatwick that day or any of the small airports in Sussex/Kent/Surrey. Guess it's possible the weather could have played a part but I'd have thought planes, esp military, would be able operate in rather more arduous conditions than those produced on a sunny Sussex afternoon.

[IanH755]

There's two type of Altimeter used in aircraft of that age,

1. a Radio Altimeter which uses a radio signal to determine the height of the aircraft above the ground directly below it. It's accurate at low level but isn't used above 5000ft usually. As it's used for low level flying the cockpit Rad Alt display has a warning light (and sometimes warning noise) should you go below an adjustable preset height (adjusted by the Pilot via a small knob on the panel).

2. a Barometric Altimeter which uses air pressure taken from a static port on the side of the aircraft and is the height above a know datum (sea level, airfield etc). As such it's not accurate at low level and would normally only be used at low level during landing as the airfield would be set as your "zero" height.