Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Eric Mc]

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.

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

[Simpo Two]

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?

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

[aeropilot]

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.

Correct.

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.

[ecsrobin]

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)

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Except that privately owned airframes are not inevitably shonkier and in any case mechanical failure is rarely an issue in such accidents.

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why do keep spouting drivel on a subject you've demonstrated in numerous posts that you have zero knowledge and understanding of.....?

[Chrisgr31]

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.

[Chrisgr31]

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!

[ecsrobin]

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)

[eccles]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The Hawk was 40 last year, and that was just in RAF service.

[ecsrobin]

eccles said:

The Hawk was 40 last year, and that was just in RAF service.

There was me thinking I'm in 2016 although from first flight to service was quite a short turn around back then wasn't it?

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

[Chrisgr31]

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?"

[ecsrobin]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I would suggest it has not affected my credibility in the field of aviation on this forum.

I'm sure I'm far more credible than the statements you pull out from nowhere.

[ecsrobin]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How are they shonky? You provide evidence of shonky workmanship on classic warbirds and I'll take you slightly seriously.

[ecsrobin]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So in other words you can't produce any evidence to your claims so you resort to insults. Top work

[ecsrobin]

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before earlier on in the thread, having worked with 2 RAF display teams before moving into civil aviation in both fixed wing and rotary I'd hope that I know just a bit more than the regular poster and I'm happy to share the information that I do know.

With everything we have our specialisations/careers and there are certainly more knowledgable/experienced posters on this thread than myself and if you believe I have tried to impose my sense of self appointed expertise than I apologise as that is not my intention.

This all started from your post regarding the red arrows being better maintained than older aircraft.

Obviously I've already posted the following facts:

The hawk T1 is 40 years old
The red arrows engineering had a big shake up a couple of years ago due to lowering standards
The red arrows were regularly conducting an unauthorised manouvere
A red arrows pilot died after numerous people including the pilot failed to spot an unsafe position on the ejector handle

Having worked for a EASA part 145 licensed business I can assure you that standards within aviation maintenance are generally second to none and are highly regulated / audited by the CAA. Yes you will always get ones that slip through the net / choose to cut corners but in any industry you will come across that.

As has already been touched on previously it is far more common for aviation accidents to be pilot error than it is to be a mechanical failure.

I hope this clears the matter up.

[BrabusMog]

These petty arguments are in really bad taste. It seems to me that the people who are avidly pro-airshow hide behind cleverly worded arguments that absolve them of any burden of proof to back up their statements, and the people such as myself who are uncomfortable that so many innocent and non-involved people died for no reason are annoyed at their attitude, especially the dismissive nature of many posters.