Crash at Shoreham Air show

[VansDriver]

Tony1963 said:

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?

At that point speed goes hand in had with G loading. If he was at less than 1G over the top then his stall speed would be so low that he would have roll control down to a very low speed without being at risk of stalling the wing. Conversely if he was pulling hard and close to the stall speed for that load factor then yeah- aileron deflection could stall a wing and the aircraft could depart from controlled flight.

Either way its unlikely that at the top of the manoeuvre he was trying to roll and couldn’t,- the aircraft would do something, ether roll or depart, its unlikely that it would just carry on wings level with him helplessly waggling the ailerons.

Its equally unlikely that he found himself at a G loading/speed where he wanted to roll out but knew he couldn’t because any aileron deflection would risk stalling the wing. In that case he would just unload/increase his stall margin by reducing back pressure and roll out.

Edited by VansDriver on Friday 18th January 00:23

[V8 Fettler]

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.

Motorcycle gear change options:

Left foot, up for up
Left foot, down for up
Right foot, up for up
Right foot, down for up
Hand change

Autistic behaviour reduces the risk of error.

[saaby93]

if you're talking about pilot error pulling the wrong lever at Lowestoft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp48kuVy-ww
Report in serious mock news style

[Tony1963]

saaby93 said:

if you're talking about pilot error pulling the wrong lever at Lowestoft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp48kuVy-ww
Report in serious mock news style

A seriously bad design, that mistake was going to happen at some point.

[theplayingmantis]

how common is it for display pilots to be told to stop maneuvers?

how many times has this bloke been told to stop.

at what point is a display pilot given a 'black mark against his name' or whatever the correct term is, that they are not considered for future displays?

or are stop orders/mistakes in displays too common an occurrence (but thankfully don't cause crashes) for this to be relevant.

genuinely intrigued.

[TopTrump]

The latest video showing the Hunter in its last moments before impact show how much more height he needed and the speed he was going. Shocking to see.

[HoHoHo]

TopTrump said:

The latest video showing the Hunter in its last moments before impact show how much more height he needed and the speed he was going. Shocking to see.

Horrible

It just goes to show sometimes you can literally be inches from death and it's totally out of your control.

[red_slr]

Very similar to the F-16 Ejection at Mountain Home back in 03.

[Robertj21a]

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

[theboss]

HoHoHo said:

Horrible

It just goes to show sometimes you can literally be inches from death and it's totally out of your control.

The one taken from the road which stops about one frame before impact with a car? Truly harrowing stuff.

[BrabusMog]

theboss said:

The one taken from the road which stops about one frame before impact with a car? Truly harrowing stuff.

I'm not one for being melodramatic, but I really wish I hadn't seen that video, it made me feel queasy knowing what happens after it stops.

[yellowjack]

Robertj21a said:

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

"...pilot did nothing..."

Sorry, but that sounds like it's blaming him for not doing anything to save the lives of "his victims".

All the statements quoted by that BBC article seem to come from experienced and highly qualified pilots. It suggests (to me, at least) that Andy Hill's claims that he can't remember anything might well be true. Failing to actively 'fly' the aeroplane into the manoeuvre, failing to apply control inputs that might have rectified the situation, failing to communicate with anyone outside the aeroplane. All point to someone incapacitated to the point where not only was he not doing anything to save the lives of those on the ground, but he also did nothing to save himself. And although in this case he survived, statistically he was the most likely person to die in the event that his aircraft should depart from controlled flight or hit the ground unintentionally.

Based on that small article alone, I've come away from my bias toward believing that he was a cavalier risk-taker and habitual rule breaker/bender, and moved more toward believing his version of events wherein he has no recollection of the crash or events immediately leading up to it. Perhaps he did black out after all? Maybe not G-LOC but some run-of-the-mill 'middle aged man' medical episode that hadn't previously been identified in a fit-to-fly medical?

Lots more evidence for the jury to sit through before this comes to a conclusion still, but this may well not end the way the "victims" families and the baying mob want it to. After all, the legal test is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"...

[Dr Jekyll]

yellowjack said:

Robertj21a said:

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

"...pilot did nothing..."

Sorry, but that sounds like it's blaming him for not doing anything to save the lives of "his victims".

Looking at the videos he was certainly trying hard to retrieve the situation in the last few seconds, pulling the nose up to what looked like the edge of a stall while still descending.

[SMB]

Dr Jekyll said:

yellowjack said:

Robertj21a said:

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

"...pilot did nothing..."

Sorry, but that sounds like it's blaming him for not doing anything to save the lives of "his victims".

Looking at the videos he was certainly trying hard to retrieve the situation in the last few seconds, pulling the nose up to what looked like the edge of a stall while still descending.

As an eye witness my view was the wings stalled about halfway down the descent, from that point gravity was in control. The nose high atitude was a last gasp attempt but by that point the wings weren’t providing lift. The commentator on the day noticed it as well and made a; ‘oh’ comment at the time, so I’m surprised an expert witness said he did nothing, as by then I suspect the pilot was a passenger and control inputs made little difference.

Of course that doesn’t answer the question of negligence leading up to that stage, and I’m not a legal expert to know if the evidence says that.

[Gandahar]

Summary so far is

1. Perfect weather, so not an issue

2. Almost certain the engine was working well as per other items on the plane.

3. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of approx 185ft. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft

4. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350 . The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310

5. The aircraft was lower than required at the apex because it entered the
manoeuvre below the target airspeed, because less than maximum thrust
was applied during its upward half, and because any rolling element
initiated before the aircraft reached the upward vertical would have further
reduced apex height.

6. Given 4 and 5 the plane ran out of vertical separation and hit terrain.


Will be interesting to see how this goes from here because these seems like an open and shut case on the technical side and merely boils down to how gung ho or poor decision wise the pilot was or was not.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 19th January 20:06

[VansDriver]

Gandahar said:

Summary so far is

1. Perfect weather, so not an issue

2. Almost certain the engine was working well as per other items on the plane.

3. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of approx 185ft. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft

4. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350 . The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310

5. The aircraft was lower than required at the apex because it entered the
manoeuvre below the target airspeed, because less than maximum thrust
was applied during its upward half, and because any rolling element
initiated before the aircraft reached the upward vertical would have further
reduced apex height.

6. Given 4 and 5 the plane ran out of vertical separation and hit terrain.


Will be interesting to see how this goes from here because these seems like an open and shut case on the technical side and merely boils down to how gung ho or poor decision wise the pilot was or was not.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 19th January 20:06

Think you’re bang on there. Reading the BBC reports I got the impression that some of the witnesses are closing ranks to support his “incapacitation” defence.

It looked to me like he was pulling throughout that manoeuvre and hard in the last stages, not unconscious.

The aircraft wouldn’t have continued to pull through the manoeuvre if he was incapacitated. Unless he had a whole load of “up” trim dialled in, or his body was somehow putting back pressure on the controls as he was incapacitated.

I think it was an “honest” mistake. But I really think that it was such a gross error that the defence don’t feel confident that it won’t be considered negligence by the court. Hence the “incapacitation” defence.

Interesting!

Edited by VansDriver on Saturday 19th January 21:02

[saaby93]

SMB said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Looking at the videos he was certainly trying hard to retrieve the situation in the last few seconds, pulling the nose up to what looked like the edge of a stall while still descending.

As an eye witness my view was the wings stalled about halfway down the descent, from that point gravity was in control. The nose high atitude was a last gasp attempt but by that point the wings weren’t providing lift. The commentator on the day noticed it as well and made a; ‘oh’ comment at the time, so I’m surprised an expert witness said he did nothing, as by then I suspect the pilot was a passenger and control inputs made little difference.

Of course that doesn’t answer the question of negligence leading up to that stage, and I’m not a legal expert to know if the evidence says that.

yep the feeling here on seeing the videos at the time was that he'd run out of height and speed and was trying as best he could to grab a bit more height just on the edge of stalling, in the end pancaking with minimum everything into the trees/ground, which is why he survived
Another foot or so and it wouldnt have made the papers, but it did

[Bonefish Blues]

Has there been a forensic analysis of just how close it had been?

[Piginapoke]

yellowjack said:

Robertj21a said:

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

"...pilot did nothing..."

Sorry, but that sounds like it's blaming him for not doing anything to save the lives of "his victims".

All the statements quoted by that BBC article seem to come from experienced and highly qualified pilots. It suggests (to me, at least) that Andy Hill's claims that he can't remember anything might well be true. Failing to actively 'fly' the aeroplane into the manoeuvre, failing to apply control inputs that might have rectified the situation, failing to communicate with anyone outside the aeroplane. All point to someone incapacitated to the point where not only was he not doing anything to save the lives of those on the ground, but he also did nothing to save himself. And although in this case he survived, statistically he was the most likely person to die in the event that his aircraft should depart from controlled flight or hit the ground unintentionally.

Based on that small article alone, I've come away from my bias toward believing that he was a cavalier risk-taker and habitual rule breaker/bender, and moved more toward believing his version of events wherein he has no recollection of the crash or events immediately leading up to it. Perhaps he did black out after all? Maybe not G-LOC but some run-of-the-mill 'middle aged man' medical episode that hadn't previously been identified in a fit-to-fly medical?

Lots more evidence for the jury to sit through before this comes to a conclusion still, but this may well not end the way the "victims" families and the baying mob want it to. After all, the legal test is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"...

Remember that AH had caused a previous air show to be stopped due to the manner of his flying; you don't expect that from an experienced, professional display pilot. Also, he may maintain he became incapacitated during the loop, but this doesn't explain why he started the manoeuvre grossly below the safe altitude.

[Zarco]

yellowjack said:

Robertj21a said:

Today's update from the BBC - 'Pilot did nothing'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46919...

"...pilot did nothing..."

Sorry, but that sounds like it's blaming him for not doing anything to save the lives of "his victims".

All the statements quoted by that BBC article seem to come from experienced and highly qualified pilots. It suggests (to me, at least) that Andy Hill's claims that he can't remember anything might well be true. Failing to actively 'fly' the aeroplane into the manoeuvre, failing to apply control inputs that might have rectified the situation, failing to communicate with anyone outside the aeroplane. All point to someone incapacitated to the point where not only was he not doing anything to save the lives of those on the ground, but he also did nothing to save himself. And although in this case he survived, statistically he was the most likely person to die in the event that his aircraft should depart from controlled flight or hit the ground unintentionally.

Based on that small article alone, I've come away from my bias toward believing that he was a cavalier risk-taker and habitual rule breaker/bender, and moved more toward believing his version of events wherein he has no recollection of the crash or events immediately leading up to it. Perhaps he did black out after all? Maybe not G-LOC but some run-of-the-mill 'middle aged man' medical episode that hadn't previously been identified in a fit-to-fly medical?

Lots more evidence for the jury to sit through before this comes to a conclusion still, but this may well not end the way the "victims" families and the baying mob want it to. After all, the legal test is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"...

It is blaming him for not doing enough. Can't believe Robert quoted just the first part of that headline!

Started manouver too low and not enough power (thrust?) going up, so ended up too low at end. I don't buy he was incapacitated as he was clearly trying to save the situation at the end when he realised he was far too low. Too little too late sadly.