Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Dr Jekyll]

JuniorD said:

To the vintage jet aerobatic experts - out of interest, if he had decided to to abort the manoeuver at the top of the loop, where the aircraft would be inverted, what should or could he have done ? Surely he would have been well down the path to the inevitable crash at that stage?

I'm no expert but he could have rolled the right way up.

[HoHoHo]

Dr Jekyll said:

JuniorD said:

To the vintage jet aerobatic experts - out of interest, if he had decided to to abort the manoeuver at the top of the loop, where the aircraft would be inverted, what should or could he have done ? Surely he would have been well down the path to the inevitable crash at that stage?

I'm no expert but he could have rolled the right way up.

Absolutely, he should in an ideal world realised he wouldn't complete the manoeuvre at the top and simply rolled from inverted to the right way up and flown away.

I'm guessing to a point he could have done that even having passed the top of the loop, clearly there's a point where the aircraft is heading towards the ground and it's too late.

I understand the standard practice if in doubt is to roll out and get yourself in straight and level flight and regroup as it were.

I'll add a caveat that I'm not a qualified pilot but have some flying experience, so I may be wrong.

[aeropilot]

andy97 said:

aeropilot said:

andy97 said:

Having read details of this case, they were astonished that someone could display 2 different types of aircraft with different performance characteristics. .

That on its own isn't the issue, plenty of people have done so safely over the decades without issue........

The focus would be more on the disproportionate experience on one rather than the difference in aircraft performance. But again, this has now already been addressed by the CAA since the Shoreham incident.

I can remember Mark Hanna flying an immaculate Hunter display at Duxford in the same display on the same afternoon that he flew a Spitfire display.

But Mark had several hundred hours on the Hunter obtained during his RAF service.

You only have to do it wrong once. But broadly agree with your post.

By way of simplistic examples though, i regularly drive both manual and auto cars. Sometimes on the same day. Despite being a very experienced driver, member of IAM and a race / instructor licence holder i have occasionally driven a manual and forgotten to depress the clutch / change down when approaching a junction. I have also tried to change gear manually when in the auto.
A different example. I had a new kitchen fitted about 6 years ago; every so often i still try to put waste in the bin under the sink when it was moved to a dufferent location when the new kitchen was installed.
People occasionslly revert to previous experience and make mistakes in their current environment.
I dont know the cause of this accident but i do think that the massive disparity in experience on the types may have led to mistakenly entering that part of the display in “JP mode” and not “Hunter mode”. It may also have meant that recognition of that came too late, if at all, to recover.
I dont know whether the pilot was negligent or not; i do think that the possible HF mix up by the pilot between the aircraft types may have been had a contributory factor.

Agreed.

[wobert]

HoHoHo said:

NDA said:

It became evident extremely quickly during the day as the events unfolded that Shoreham being an airfield with essentially one way in and one way out (the south side is limited by a single track road with a 2m height bridge restriction) is not suitable for fast evacuation. We were contained within the airfield for many hours and our cars weren't available to pick up until Sunday (I'm not moaning, I'm simply saying how it was). So in short Shoreham probably isn't the best airfield not because of the roads nearby, but as a venue it wasn't easy to get out when 'the perfect storm' happened.

I don't therefore think there's any issue with vintage jets 'doing stunts' providing all the boxes are ticked. Personally and having to complete H&S forms for exhibitions and events I'm amazed Shoreham got signed off!

As a former Shoreham resident and employee at Ricardo on the north side of the airfield, I would agree that having the only usable entrance / exit close to the display line is strange situation that got signed off, certainly with regards to vehicular access, for medics and fire service.

For evacuation of pedestrians there is a route alongside the river bank either north to the Old Toll bridge, south under the railway bridge or south via the south exit (with the height restriction)

[RichB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I said "at the top" ...

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Merely pointing out that trying to 'police' the designated safe areas was going to be an issue, on that day for that reason. And I wrote (which you've clearly not bothered to read) I pointed out that has no bearing on the poor souls that were just passing, they weren't part of it. Its you that has chosen to ignore that comment and then critise when I had already pointed that out...?

Try reading before making a comment...

[eccles]

andy97 said:

aeropilot said:

andy97 said:

Having read details of this case, they were astonished that someone could display 2 different types of aircraft with different performance characteristics. .

That on its own isn't the issue, plenty of people have done so safely over the decades without issue........

The focus would be more on the disproportionate experience on one rather than the difference in aircraft performance. But again, this has now already been addressed by the CAA since the Shoreham incident.

I can remember Mark Hanna flying an immaculate Hunter display at Duxford in the same display on the same afternoon that he flew a Spitfire display.

But Mark had several hundred hours on the Hunter obtained during his RAF service.

You only have to do it wrong once. But broadly agree with your post.

By way of simplistic examples though, i regularly drive both manual and auto cars. Sometimes on the same day. Despite being a very experienced driver, member of IAM and a race / instructor licence holder i have occasionally driven a manual and forgotten to depress the clutch / change down when approaching a junction. I have also tried to change gear manually when in the auto.
A different example. I had a new kitchen fitted about 6 years ago; every so often i still try to put waste in the bin under the sink when it was moved to a dufferent location when the new kitchen was installed.
People occasionslly revert to previous experience and make mistakes in their current environment.
I dont know the cause of this accident but i do think that the massive disparity in experience on the types may have led to mistakenly entering that part of the display in “JP mode” and not “Hunter mode”. It may also have meant that recognition of that came too late, if at all, to recover.
I dont know whether the pilot was negligent or not; i do think that the possible HF mix up by the pilot between the aircraft types may have been had a contributory factor.
It doesnt matter what i think, but my Chartered HF Accident Investigator thinks similarly.

With hind sight, I find it amazing that someone can get a display ticket with such a low amount of total hours on type, and very little in the months preceding the accident.

[NDA]

Robertj21a said:

HoHoHo said:

NDA said:

It may be the case that Shoreham just isn't the place to have vintage jets doing stunts.

Shoreham is no different to a lot of airfields hosting such displays which are without doubt extremely popular

As a mere bystander in all this, I'm really not interested in whether or not these displays are extremely popular. That really isn't the issue, and nor is this the best of times to be saying it.

I am, however, very interested in the safety of those people living/travelling near to one of these events, where they are totally innocent parties. Why is it acceptable to have such acrobatics carried out over populated areas ? Why not restrict them to being over the sea, moorland etc ?. If there aren't enough airports that meet that criteria then Tough - concentrate the shows where they can be safely and properly accommodated without innocent parties having to endure the additional risks.

This is my view too - totally agree.

To even introduce to the argument that 'the shows are extremely popular' is ridiculous.

[Eric Mc]

That's the Farnborough Air Show stuffed then (and it is)

[munroman]

I heard about this awful crash when I was on holiday in the Western Isles.

I got a text from my friend who is ex RAF, that morning he was clearing out his attic and found his box of old service photos.

He found a photo of himself in the cockpit of a Hunter, he had forgotten he had trained in one before moving onto Harriers.

The Hunter was G-BXFI.......

He's not an emotional sort of guy, but he was quite spooked by the timing.

[Tony1963]

I’ve been told by a couple of pilots who are enthusiastic GA pilots, not military or aerobatic that at the top of the loop there is a chance that the aircraft was going too slowly to apply any aileron inputs without stalling the wings. Not a good idea! Does anyone know his IAS at the top of the manoeuvre?

[theboss]

andy97 said:

You only have to do it wrong once. But broadly agree with your post.

By way of simplistic examples though, i regularly drive both manual and auto cars. Sometimes on the same day. Despite being a very experienced driver, member of IAM and a race / instructor licence holder i have occasionally driven a manual and forgotten to depress the clutch / change down when approaching a junction. I have also tried to change gear manually when in the auto.
A different example. I had a new kitchen fitted about 6 years ago; every so often i still try to put waste in the bin under the sink when it was moved to a dufferent location when the new kitchen was installed.
People occasionslly revert to previous experience and make mistakes in their current environment.
I dont know the cause of this accident but i do think that the massive disparity in experience on the types may have led to mistakenly entering that part of the display in “JP mode” and not “Hunter mode”. It may also have meant that recognition of that came too late, if at all, to recover.
I dont know whether the pilot was negligent or not; i do think that the possible HF mix up by the pilot between the aircraft types may have been had a contributory factor.
It doesnt matter what i think, but my Chartered HF Accident Investigator thinks similarly.

The problem with this theory is that even when flying the more familiar JP this guy still had form for ignoring safe heights and distances as evidenced at Southport. Unless he was flying in the wrong mode then, also.

[Dr Jekyll]

theboss said:

The problem with this theory is that even when flying the more familiar JP this guy still had form for ignoring safe heights and distances as evidenced at Southport. Unless he was flying in the wrong mode then, also.

The Southport incident was clearly an error, he basically fell out of the manoeuvre. Too slow probably, but no intention to go too low.

[Robertj21a]

Dr Jekyll said:

theboss said:

The problem with this theory is that even when flying the more familiar JP this guy still had form for ignoring safe heights and distances as evidenced at Southport. Unless he was flying in the wrong mode then, also.

The Southport incident was clearly an error, he basically fell out of the manoeuvre. Too slow probably, but no intention to go too low.

How may 'errors' are these pilots allowed to make ?

[IanH755]

Dr Jekyll said:

The Southport incident was clearly an error, he basically fell out of the manoeuvre. Too slow probably, but no intention to go too low.

I very much doubt he ever "intended" to go too low but in both cases thats what happened and yet even after that first "Oh S**T" moment he somehow ended up doing it again but this time neither he nor the crowd were so lucky.

[Dr Jekyll]

IanH755 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

The Southport incident was clearly an error, he basically fell out of the manoeuvre. Too slow probably, but no intention to go too low.

I very much doubt he ever "intended" to go too low but in both cases thats what happened and yet even after that first "Oh S**T" moment he somehow ended up doing it again but this neither he nor the crowd were so lucky.

According to some of the poster here he had a record of "intending" to go too low, and the Southport incident is used as evidence.

[RichB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[saaby93]

RichB said:

God are you intentionally argumentative or thick. I may not have used perfect phraseology but it was pretty clear that I meant that the lower speed could be why he lost 700' by the time he was 'at the fking top' you knob.

[Cold]

Guardian reporting on the in-cockpit GoPro footage:

Guardian article said:

As relatives of the victims sat quietly in the packed public gallery, the court was told the footage from a GoPro camera positioned behind the pilot’s seat showed Hill performing a flypast parallel to Shoreham airport’s runway, inverting the aircraft and then performing a stunt called a Derry turn.

The A27 comes into view before the camera shows the sky as Hill begins the fatal loop manoeuvre. Initially, nothing can be heard other than the sound of the engine, before the aircraft begins to judder.

Also, Hill is still maintaining that he has no recollection of events:

Same Guardian article said:

(Defence lawyer,Khalil) said Hill had no memory of the crash and “may have been suffering cognitive impairment”.

The lawyer said: “He was subjected to the increasing forces of gravity. Pilot error does not explain what happened here at all. He is not a cavalier pilot and not a pilot who, as is suggested, plays fast and loose [with the rules]. Quite the contrary. He did not deliberately fail to take evasive action.”

Immediately after the crash, Hill told emergency services he did not know what happened but felt “terrible” and had been feeling unwell, the court heard.

Countered by:

Prosecution Tom Kark QC said:

“If a pilot continued to fly an aerobatic display above a crowd of spectators, knowing that he was unwell, then that, we would suggest, would be capable of amounting to a gross breach of his duty of care,”

Guardian link

[VansDriver]

HoHoHo said:

Dr Jekyll said:

JuniorD said:

To the vintage jet aerobatic experts - out of interest, if he had decided to to abort the manoeuver at the top of the loop, where the aircraft would be inverted, what should or could he have done ? Surely he would have been well down the path to the inevitable crash at that stage?

I'm no expert but he could have rolled the right way up.

Absolutely, he should in an ideal world realised he wouldn't complete the manoeuvre at the top and simply rolled from inverted to the right way up and flown away.

I'm guessing to a point he could have done that even having passed the top of the loop, clearly there's a point where the aircraft is heading towards the ground and it's too late.

I understand the standard practice if in doubt is to roll out and get yourself in straight and level flight and regroup as it were.

I'll add a caveat that I'm not a qualified pilot but have some flying experience, so I may be wrong.

The point where rolling out no longer becomes an option depends to some degree on the roll rate of the aircraft, which depends on the type, its speed and also potentially its loading. (If it stalled or very close to the stall all bets are off).

In a fast rolling aircraft you could still have the option of rolling from inverted to the “nearest horizon” and pulling out until just a few degrees before you reach the vertical.

In a slow rolling aircraft that roll would have to be started further before the vertical.

Whatever you’re flying, the point of no return would certainly be reached by just a few degrees before the vertical on the way down. By “point of no return” I mean the point at which recovering with the least loss of height is now only by means of a straight wings level pull.