Hawker Hunter crash

[markjay]

http://news.sky.com/story/1540055/fireball-as-airshow-jet-crashes-on-major-road

 

[markjay]

7 dead, 14 injured one critically, presumably occupants of cars on the A27. Pilot survives.

 

[markjay]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11818191/Plane-crashes-at-Shoreham-Air-Show-Live.html

 

[grumpyoldgit]

Absolutely awful.

 

[camerafodder]

A tragic event. I wonder what went wrong?

 

[Fr3ddy]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...7qyqqe95LPbOCe0Fg&sig2=HFZYhGjm1mj7iZgB68n4Qg

 

[moonloops]

A tragic event. I wonder what went wrong?

Ancient yet complex machines maintained by Dave in his garden shed with minimal budget ? We won't really know until the investigation is done..

 

[BEJ]

? doing aerobatics at an unsafe eight ? Pilot blackout? Mechanical fault? Most logical is he pulled out too low.
My thoughts are with the bereaved.

 

[Pitts Pilot]

Astonishing that the pilot, Andy Hill, is still alive; fire, rapid deceleration, and cockpit debris usually kill.

Dreadful incident, not an "accident". He started the manoeuvre too low, plain and simple, and such a basic error for a very experienced and talented pilot. If that’s correct it’s unforgiveable.

Oddly, my main emotion is anger. Innocent people have died, and there is the prospect of more bodies being found. As an air show pilot he is responsible for the safety of everyone on the ground. Safety first, airshow second.

I know this sounds harsh, but air show routines are rehearsed and rehearsed; step by step they practice the routine closer to the ground until you reach an agreed height. (Agreed with the show organisers and the CAA).


So this was no “accident”. If you don't do what you have practised X times it was the wrong decision, pilot error of the worst kind. A quick glance at his altimeter would have told him “I'm below the practised height to start this loop”, yet he went for it anyway?


I am very sorry about the loss of life and I DO hope Andy Hill makes a full recovery, but I’d like to know what he was thinking 10 seconds before the crash, because the video shows a very tight loop that he tried to tighten even more as he saw the ground – without success obviously.

So apparently no margin (ie. height) for error; that also concerns me deeply.

After the investigation I very much hope they rule this as a mechanical problem, not poor flying.


Just my read of the video, wild assumptions, and my personal opinion.

 

[Howard]

Ancient yet complex machines maintained by Dave in his garden shed with minimal budget ? We won't really know until the investigation is done..

Plane owned by a multimillionaire ...

 

[camerafodder]

I have to agree that PP's assessment sounds very plausible and let's face it, he has some experience of this activity.

I watched the video a few times and it looks very similar to this infamous clip of a typhoon demo that nearly ended in a similar way. FF to 1 minute in.

[YOUTUBE]ZKo3DuP-NOg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[MD5]

One BBC news report this morning mentioned a wedding car that was one of the cars hit. So sad.

 

[renault12ts]

One BBC news report this morning mentioned a wedding car that was one of the cars hit. So sad.

Thankfully the car was on it's way to pick up the bride.

 

[martyz]

My thoughts and feelings go out to all those affected by this tragic accident.

 

[markjay]

Plane owned by a multimillionaire ...

Youl'd have to be, to own and maintain any ex-military fighter jet.

 

[markjay]

Pilots are often tempted to try and impress spectators and in this case he may have very well deviated from what has originally been planned and rehearsed.

But the other issue is lack of margin for error. A fault reducing engine power at a critical point of time during the manoeuvre would end up in tragedy even if everything was done by the book.

The key factor is altitude. Low altitude is one of the pilot's worst enemies when it come to recovering from an unplanned situation.

And while speculating... as an ex-RAF pilot he would have the right instincts for ejecting, and perhaps seeing the cars on the road underneath him he made the decision to try and pull-up instead of ejecting. If it does turn-out that the crash was not the pilot's fault, he may yet become a hero. But, as other pointed out, we can only speculate at this stage

 

[dozypillock]

As somebody who lives half a mile from the scene it has caused chaos to the roads here. Took me 2 hours to do 1.5 miles last night, just trying to get home.
Entrance to our close is going to be right on the diversion route for all the traffic for the A27 for couple of days, I suspect. The roads here are not designed for lorries etc. Hopefully the A27 will be re-opened as soon as possible.
My heart goes out to those involved though. I drive that set of lights regularly, and did yesterday, but about 2 hours before.
It could also have easily landed on my house, as the planes fly over it when turning.

Neil

 

[markjay]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-2-planes-collide-at-airshow-in-switzerland-2015-8

 

[Pitts Pilot]

Pilots are often tempted to try and impress spectators and in this case he may have very well deviated from what has originally been planned and rehearsed.

But the other issue is lack of margin for error. A fault reducing engine power at a critical point of time during the manoeuvre would end up in tragedy even if everything was done by the book.

The key factor is altitude. Low altitude is one of the pilot's worst enemies when it come to recovering from an unplanned situation....

I agree, ego can make a fool of any one of us.

As far as speed is concerned, as you know, the downward half of a loop is where you pick up speed due to gravity, so I think a lack of speed was not his problem.

I think it was, as you said, low flying.


[A philosophical point: Once aloft an aircraft does not know where the ground is.]


What I picked up on in the video, and what is also visible in Camerafodder's video link, is both aircraft 'ploughing' a downwards line rather than holding the intended curve. A movement that is belly first towards the ground.


My understanding of aerodynamics is limited, but every a/c has a loop that it cannot fly tighter. A Hawker Hunter will have a loop of several thousand feet in diameter, whilst a Pitts Special might manage one in a few hundred feet. But the point is once you are looping at maximum ‘tightness’, you can’t tighten the curve anymore. Aerodynamics won’t let you.

The thing I first noticed with yesterdays crash was that seconds before impact the a/c was doing this 'ploughing' thing. So perhaps Andy Hill knew he was low to start with and so pulled the tightest (smallest) loop he could to compensate for it? Problem was it was not enough, and he ultimately became a passenger.


The issue here is if you fly a loop, say one that's of average size, you can always tighten it if you need to by pulling harder on the stick. However, in both videos it looks like the aircraft were already flying very tight curves, because when the pilots called for more, (ie. tighter) both just ploughed through the air belly first. (See this 1-2 seconds before impact/near miss).

The Typhoon pilot was lucky, the Hunter pilot was not.


I may be totally wrong, but that's what it looks like to me, and that raises the issue of ‘Margin for error’. (We all deal with this same issue when we, say, overtake a lorry on a country road. It's no different).


I never flew displays, and am a mere novice compared to Andy Hill. But people sometimes asked me “What altitude do you practice your aerobatics at?”. My answer had been schooled in to me: “At least two mistakes high”.

I openly admit air shows are very different, but I think my aeros instructor was making a point?


Cheers,
Robert

 

[markjay]

I also think that before blaming the crash on the unsafe 'historical' aircraft, it's worth noting that the Hawker Hunter was still in service by air forces around the world for many years after the RAF retired it, I believe the last remaining Hunters were only retired from active service last year (in Lebanon).

And on a totally unrelated note.... one of my clients used to be a subsidiary of Hawker Aviation, now sold and re-branded. But Hawker (and later Hawker Siddeley) made some very good aircrafts during its lifetime.