Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
saaby93 said:
it's an easy mistake to set the wrong type of pressure and get the height wrong.
With my very limited flying experience, I assume you're referring to QNH vs QFE? Even as a student I knew/know there's a difference, and if someone is going to carry out stunt manoeuvres you'd rather hope they (a) also know the difference and (b) get it right. Unless of course the tower gave it wrongly.
Can't have been a 315ft difference at Shoreham anyway surely?
There may be theoretical rules and limits, but you can't continuously mentally calculate those in real time so you rely on experience, gut feel and a margin of error.
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
TTmonkey said:
What gets me is he's never made a statement. Never stood up and apologised or expressed his regret. I don't recall him expressing his condolences, maybe he did. But it doesn't seem to be public record.
11 men, the majority not even watching the air show, not involved in any way, taken from their families that day. Minding their own business, going places and doing things.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.11 men, the majority not even watching the air show, not involved in any way, taken from their families that day. Minding their own business, going places and doing things.
You don't have to take it, or hide behind it. Even if he's not to blame, he can stand up and express his regrets and condolences. He could make a statement, he didnt have to give a question and answer interview,
Caruso said:
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
Personally, if it was me, and I was operating a jet aircraft above a crowd of thousands of people and a busy main road, I would leave a massive margin for error.Caruso said:
There may be theoretical rules and limits, but you can't continuously mentally calculate those in real time so you rely on experience, gut feel and a margin of error.
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
Well yes that's taken as read, it wouldnt have happened otherwise but as far as I can tell we dont know why there wasnt enough margin for errorIt seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 21st March 22:52
saaby93 said:
Would GPS be a more accurate method of height measurement?
Not at the speeds involved I wouldn’t have thought. You only have to look at the lag when you accelerate hard in a car while the GPS speed catches up. In a stable cruise possibly, but not during the kind of manoeuvres engaged in during an air show. The technology is available - were it better I would assume it would be used in aircraft for that purpose.
saaby93 said:
Caruso said:
There may be theoretical rules and limits, but you can't continuously mentally calculate those in real time so you rely on experience, gut feel and a margin of error.
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
Well yes that's taken as read, it wouldnt have happened otherwise but as far as I can tell we dont know why there wasnt enough margin for errorIt seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
saaby93 said:
Well yes that's taken as read, it wouldnt have happened otherwise but as far as I can tell we dont know why there wasnt enough margin for error
A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
apparently too close to the ground to start with, too little power/speed to climb to required altitude at top of loop. That combination didn't result in sufficient clearance to the ground to come out of the dive so he flew it into the ground instead of completing the loop.A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 21st March 22:52
Caruso said:
saaby93 said:
Caruso said:
There may be theoretical rules and limits, but you can't continuously mentally calculate those in real time so you rely on experience, gut feel and a margin of error.
It seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
Well yes that's taken as read, it wouldnt have happened otherwise but as far as I can tell we dont know why there wasnt enough margin for errorIt seems to me in this case the margin for error was not enough to compensate for small mistakes made going into and during the manoeuvre.
A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
saaby93 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
saaby93 said:
Not really - theres more here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&...
What they havent found is why he was too low both at entry or at top of manouevre
Someone suggested earlier it may have been because the altimeter was set wrong
Has anything followed up on that
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
I'm guessing it is the pilots responsibly to ensure the instruments are reading correctly and set correctly before fight?https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&...
What they havent found is why he was too low both at entry or at top of manouevre
Someone suggested earlier it may have been because the altimeter was set wrong
Has anything followed up on that
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
I imagine everything has been looked into carefully.
There was enough guessing at the begiing of the thread, about whether as the weather conditions changed the altimeter would be wrong and it's an easy mistake to set the wrong type of pressure and get the height wrong.
At waht point does making a mistake become culpable
Someone else said they only realised theyd got it wrong when the fields were much bigger than they should be coming out of a loop.
Would GPS be a more accurate method of height measurement?
There are little mistakes, which a good pilot can recover from or allow for, and then there are glaringly obvious would-have-to-be-almost-wilfully-ignoring-it clear grounds for an abort mistakes.
A lot of the figures point to the latter.
saaby93 said:
some people seem to be missing the point
Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
The thing is, with some manoeuvres, the point at which it becomes "obviously" flawed beyond all doubt are often past the point at which a recovery can be initiated.Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
It's also a measure of professionalism as to how much of a margin of error a pilot is willing to accept. It seems in this case the pilot thought he could nibble much further in to the limits than anyone else seems to consider reasonable, hence he'll probably do some time inside.
Crossflow Kid said:
saaby93 said:
some people seem to be missing the point
Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
The thing is, with some manoeuvres, the point at which it becomes "obviously" flawed beyond all doubt are often past the point at which a recovery can be initiated.Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
It's also a measure of professionalism as to how much of a margin of error a pilot is willing to accept. It seems in this case the pilot thought he could nibble much further in to the limits than anyone else seems to consider reasonable, hence he'll probably do some time inside.
Lord Marylebone said:
Personally, if it was me, and I was operating a jet aircraft above a crowd of thousands of people and a busy main road, I would leave a massive margin for error.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. His day job legally and procedurally provides him with massive safety margins. On this occasion he failed to add them in. Chuck328 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Personally, if it was me, and I was operating a jet aircraft above a crowd of thousands of people and a busy main road, I would leave a massive margin for error.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. His day job legally and procedurally provides him with massive safety margins. On this occasion he failed to add them in. saaby93 said:
Chuck328 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Personally, if it was me, and I was operating a jet aircraft above a crowd of thousands of people and a busy main road, I would leave a massive margin for error.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. His day job legally and procedurally provides him with massive safety margins. On this occasion he failed to add them in. Lord Marylebone said:
saaby93 said:
Chuck328 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Personally, if it was me, and I was operating a jet aircraft above a crowd of thousands of people and a busy main road, I would leave a massive margin for error.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. His day job legally and procedurally provides him with massive safety margins. On this occasion he failed to add them in. If the AIB thinks 3500 ft was what would noramally be required and you add in a couple hundred feet of margin thats 3700 ft
How did he end up with 2700ft?
(On that basis he performed a miracle with it pancaking gradually into the trees)
saaby93 said:
That could be any number of things - I was asking what led chuck to belive he failed to add in a margin?
Try this (posted the page before) for starters...Not only was there no margin for error, the whole maneuver was well below regarded safe parameters.
https://news.sky.com/story/shoreham-airshow-disast...
saaby93 said:
Crossflow Kid said:
saaby93 said:
some people seem to be missing the point
Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
The thing is, with some manoeuvres, the point at which it becomes "obviously" flawed beyond all doubt are often past the point at which a recovery can be initiated.Surely he'd only think it was safe to continue from 2700 ft if everything was telling him he was at least at 3500ft
you dont think hmm 2700 ft I'll just confim i'm going to hit the ground
It's also a measure of professionalism as to how much of a margin of error a pilot is willing to accept. It seems in this case the pilot thought he could nibble much further in to the limits than anyone else seems to consider reasonable, hence he'll probably do some time inside.
Entering a manoeuvre where the minimum height required is 500" at say, 475' is a bit cheeky but recoverable as the margin is small and a pilot "might" be able to justify it, or at least get away with it and quietly learn a lesson for next time.
Entering the same manoeuvre over 300' out, well below half the height required, and not thinking that's a problem is madness or negligence or both.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 22 March 01:50
saaby93 said:
If the AIB thinks 3500 ft was what would noramally be required and you add in a couple hundred feet of margin thats 3700 ft
How did he end up with 2700ft?
A few options there:How did he end up with 2700ft?
1) the instruments were faulty/incorrectly set although the inquiry would reveal that.
2) the pilot misread the instruments (several times) and ignored other visual cues ("oooh, the trees look big!")
3).the pilot knew he was below the recommended height but decided a combination of the aircraft's performance and his ability to squeeze that performance out of it would make up the shortfall.
It would seem the AAIB et al have gone for option 2 or 3, both of which involve a degree of negligence.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff