Jon H Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Oh, and my final part of my rage fueled rant is this. When they say old aircraft are unsafe and more prone to accidents, i would ask the question 'if it is that unsafe then how did it get to be this old??' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Posted by Andrew Ray on 25/08/2015 09:49:50: I'm not sure the Hunter had stalled. In a go around an airliner will pitch up, there will be a positive angle of attack but the aircraft will still descend for 30 feet or so due to inertia. Watching the video here it appears that this might be what is happening to the Hunter but because of the change required in the flight path he did not have enough height to transition from the bottom of the loop. There is no sudden breakaway or loss of control associated with my understanding of a high speed stall. Have you watched the video taken from the ground extremely close to the accident site? In that one there appeared to me to be a marked downward acceleration immediately after the wing rock - shouldn't the inertia scenario you describe result in a steady decrease in descent rate until the descent is arrested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Bastow Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I too was annoyed by the rant in the Sun this morning. Fist off let me say its a tragic accident and my heart goes out to the victims and families. However I must say some of the reporting has been simply awful and inaccurate as always. And now the ban it brigade will have a field day. Note the knee jerk reaction of the CAA. However they are in a no win situation and I guess have to be seen to do something. What has the fact that its a vintage aircraft got to do with it? I can understand grounding hunters till more is know, this is a standard procedure but all vintage jets? Why do the media think that because they are older they are less reliable or well maintained? Some of the military aircraft displaying are not exactly new! Having many years experience of the Hunter I know its a very reliable aircraft and they still have to be maintained to the same standards to get an airworthiness cert. Lets not forget that no one has been killed at a British airshow for over 50 years so its a one off very tragic accident for which we don't know the facts yet so lets not overreact or sensatialise it. Edited By Cliff Bastow on 25/08/2015 10:58:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 The sun is the sun and only has 2 uses, neither of which involve reading.It sounds harsh, but there is no other news around at the moment and that's why more is being made of this than needs to be and as said previously a complete and utter lack of understanding by the public. Amazing when you consider the aviation history of this country, the hundreds of aircraft manufacturers and airfields Frank whittle and Percy Piltcher.....Percy who?Edited By ChrisB on 25/08/2015 11:25:02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Andrew, both watching from the flight line at Shoreham and viewing the subsequent video after, it did look like a stall to me. The hunter wing has a dog tooth leading edge (or step) that is designed to generate a vortex flow at high angles of attack to prevent separated flow from progressing along the leading edge of the wing. This accounted for the aircrafts benign handling characteristics apparently and why it might rock its wings in a stable stalled state rather than depart and flick, as has been suggested. What we need here is someone who has flown the Hunter and knows what he is talking about (unlike me!) Where is Chris Golds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 From the video record that I have seen, the Hunter wasn't stalled. It was in the final stages of recovery from a loop when the pilot is bringing the nose up as the aircraft continues to descend, but at a reducing rate. If he had been 100 or 200 ft. higher when he transitioned from climb to dive at the top of the loop it is hard to believe that this accident would have happened. In the final stages he must have been struggling to balance the equation between residual downward velocity, lift and drag without pulling too hard on the stick and causing a stall. He nearly managed it, but tragically not quite and the plane was still descending slowly when it hit the ground in a level, slightly nose-up attitude. As we've said before, there could be a number of causes, but for some reason there seems to have been a lack of energy at the top of the loop that affected the height achieved at transition and the residual velocity before commencing the dive. We have to wait for the experts to determine how this came about. It would be hard to imagine a pilot more eminently qualified to fly this aircraft safely through an aerobatic schedule, he understood every limiting parameter including the consideration for local atmospheric conditions. Out of respect for him and the other victims of this disaster, while comparing opinions on observed events, we have to wait the findings of the AAIB. They are in a position to achieve a balanced conclusion, we are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I have to disagree Colin with your analysis. I do agree that we will have to await for the AAIB report even if that take a couple of years to be published. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 25/08/2015 11:56:30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Posted by ChrisB on 25/08/2015 11:08:43: The sun is the sun and only has 2 uses, neither of which involve reading. It sounds harsh, but there is no other news around at the moment and that's why more is being made of this than needs to be and as said previously a complete and utter lack of understanding by the public. Amazing when you consider the aviation history of this country, the hundreds of aircraft manufacturers and airfields Frank whittle and Percy Piltcher.....Percy who? Edited By ChrisB on 25/08/2015 11:25:02 As we have a perfectly good supply of lavatory paper at home, we have no need of the Sun Newspaper (?) I have however, looked at their website and find that they describe the pilot as "a complete lunatic to fly so low". What the hell can you do to counter such execrable and ignorant journalism? It would be a nice gesture at this coming weekend's Nats to have a moment's silence to reflect on the recent tragedy. Edited By Cuban8 on 25/08/2015 12:18:18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Quite right Cuban8. Piers, I won't give my comments the credit of being an analysis, they are just thoughts. If you define the fact that because the Hunter was descending in a nose-up situation as a stalled condition, you are right. I think though it reflects desperate attempts on the part of the pilot to arrest the descent, knowing that if he didn't try he was going to hit the ground nose-first anyway, so in that context the stalled condition is a result of the situation rather than the cause. I'll leave it there though, I know that we are all profoundly upset that this happened and we share our sorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area 51 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Posted by Colin Leighfield on 25/08/2015 11:27:41: From the video record that I have seen, the Hunter wasn't stalled. It was in the final stages of recovery from a loop when the pilot is bringing the nose up as the aircraft continues to descend, but at a reducing rate. If he had been 100 or 200 ft. higher when he transitioned from climb to dive at the top of the loop it is hard to believe that this accident would have happened. In the final stages he must have been struggling to balance the equation between residual downward velocity, lift and drag without pulling too hard on the stick and causing a stall. He nearly managed it, but tragically not quite and the plane was still descending slowly when it hit the ground in a level, slightly nose-up attitude. Exactly and well put Colin!. The recovery was underway, with a few feet more, he would have made it!. The very fact he has slide along the ground during the impact is a clear indication the trajectory was not purely downward. With such a lot of video evidence; the AAIB will of course be assisted in posting their conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Colin I was not suggesting the aircraft's nose up attitude (stalled or not) was a cause of this accident. Certainly he was attempting to complete the manoeuvre when the aircraft stopped flying and started falling. Clearly he did not have enough height, speed or thrust, perhaps, to complete the manoeuvre. There could be many reasons for this, ranging from the weight or the aircraft on the day, the OAT/humidity, barometric pressure, a loss of thrust or a control problem at some critical stage or some other technical failure causing distraction. The list is endless. No one here is casting doubt on this gifted pilots immense skill or qualifications to display such an aircraft. There is no blame, and only thoughts and questions remain. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 25/08/2015 13:13:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Everything I have seen says to me it was a stall, but I do not have all the facts. Given that everyone has now had their say I think its time to stop speculating and let the aaib do what they must. Mods perhaps you can put up a notice about stopping further speculation? On the subject of facts the CAA restrictions have also been misreported. See here for the full story http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 You have a point Jon.After all that has been said, we agree it could be any combination of... weather (atmospherics), aircraft or pilot's actions, which puts us at the beginning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I don't see why we cannot continue to discuss this here. Lots of interesting points have been raised and this has countered the BBC & Sky inaccurate comments ( particularly inaccurate on what is now banned ) The other point is that all this is relevant to model flying - flying over the public and vehicles is something we all need to consider. And stalling is another thing we need to worry about. So the discussion should continue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jefferies Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Yes, a very sad accident and as somebody said above....... "sometimes it all goes wrong". Looking through the video and still pictures, the Flaps were definitely down and quite visible as the aircraft came over the top of the loop and as it came through the vertical on the way down. The pictures of the last 90 degrees and just prior to impact are none too clear but I couldn't see any evidence of the flaps being down in the last part of the loop and I just wonder if the flaps retracted, or maybe he "cleaned up" a bit too early perhaps in preparation for the next manoeuvre? I know we shouldn't speculate but inevitably we all do and that would certainly explain the way it seemed to "mush" at the bottom of the loop when you would expect it to have had plenty of speed...... Paul Edited By Paul Jefferies on 25/08/2015 14:38:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Posted by ChrisB on 25/08/2015 11:08:43: ... and Percy Piltcher.....Percy who? Edited By ChrisB on 25/08/2015 11:25:02 One of the first hang glider pilots who was killed demonstrating his glider in the grounds of Stanford Hall near Loughborough where a reproduction of both him and his craft used to be displayed next to the vintage motor cycle museum. Not sure if either are still there - it's a long time since I visited. I agree about the Sun. I used to read it for amusement in the barber's in the days before my wife took over my hair cuts. I can't believe anyone reads it - perhaps they don't and just look at the pictures. On the main topic, there's substantial coverage in today's Guardian which seems reasonably restrained. From the aerial shots it seems that the display flight line was largely over open fields once the main road was crossed which makes it doubly tragic. Most airfields/airports in the UK are near to residential areas - Heathrow is perhaps the worst in that respect. East Midlands (my local) is very near to Castle Donnington race circuit and I think there were some objections to the circuit being reopened in 1977 because of the potential loss to life if there was a crash when there was a big race meeting. Having very limited full-size flying experience (gliders) I wouldn't dream of commenting on the possible cause of this tragedy. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Re. Donnington race circuit, agreed there could potentially be a huge loss of life if a plane crashed onto the circuit during a race day, but imagine what just a single A380 crashing into the suburbs of London would produce, any day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Paul from the photos I've seen his flaps were still deployed on impact. As for closing this thread ? I disagree , I'm a paramedic in London and one of the first things you learn is to talk about things/feelings. I know your talking about speculation but that is also healthy and human nature. I think this thread has been handled and written respectively by all.Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area 51 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Most airfields are adjacent to suburbs, its why we fly to captial cities when travelling! Lets not go down this road (sic) as some greek islands have roads through the active runway, GIB too... ! Even when the approach is over the sea, away from the population.. sometimes it just isnt enough.. **LINK** Back in 97 the company I was with operated the B727 from EMA, Castle Don.... on departure from RWY 27 one evening (toward the race track) a thump was heard in the flight deck of the Boeing at around V2; gear up was selected and trip continued as all was in order.... One of the main wheels, complete with brake unit, had been lost from the axle! This was only discovered by the maintenance team on arrival at destination.. a tyre mark was found on the rear skin of the fuselage (the bump heard).... The wheel was never found, but would have travelled a journey into the race track! Things happen.... Metal fatigue in this instance, AD issued for greater inspection of main gear during checks.. Be nice if we just let those in the know; inform us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 The Sun and their ilk will rant and rail, but today's news is tomorrow's chip wrappers - their "The Sun says..." opinion piece (interesting they never wrote about this before hey...) will be long forgotten by the time the investigation completes and it's recommendations are implemented. Thankfully the investigation process should be well insulated from this noise, as long as the politicians don't start to interfere. Personally I think the CAA has done the pragmatic thing in grounding the Hunter and imposing additional restrictions on vintage jet displays until the cause is known and understood. I'm sure some in the airshow industry will feel this is an over-reaction, but when an unprecedented tragedy like this occurs (I understand these are the first public deaths at an airshow for over 50 years) and the cause is unknown the public will always (and rightly IMO) demand a rapid response. Let's accept these restrictions and let the AAIB complete their investigation - our guesses and speculations will not help establish the root cause(s) any faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I received an email from the Vulcan to the sky trust confirming that their display is not classed as aerobatic and so they are more or less unaffected. As for the ban on flying the hunter I think that's OTT. ban it from public performance? yes perhaps but I think the ban on aero's is a little excessive. If it was a spitfire that had gone down the result would have been similar but I doubt the reaction would have been the same, especially from the public at large Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I think we should all avoid ( media in particular ) trying to fix blame anywhere if indeed there is any. Many of you have stated correctly to let the investigation run it"s course, a lengthy process I know but it is the only possible course to fully understand what actually went wrong. Living the other side of the world this event got a very short blurb here on the evening news, as sad as it is it is not a world changing event ( remains to seen ) here, and I do think the media really need to tone down their comments on a subject they have absolutely no/ or very little knowledge of! For those that wish all airshows to be banned entirely or only over the ocean I would ask how many people were killed or injured on the roads since this horrific event, I think if the media reported all the traffic accidents in the same manner many people would never enter their cars again, we live in a world that has inherent dangers not a controlled, safe, bubble some would have us believe, we need to accept this, this was not the first accident at an airshow nor do I fear it will be the last, but in reality there are very few with far fewer casualties than our highways and byways. Our own Red Arrows performed here in Victoria for us a couple of weeks ago, their "box" was over the ocean, one commentator was heard to say performing over water can be difficult as the sky and sea in certain conditions can be difficult to discern from one another. I hope this one event does not result in the banning of all airshows in the UK as you have some of the best pilots and historical aircraft in the world and it would be a crime to not see them fly. Edited By Tony Richardson on 25/08/2015 18:58:55 Edited By Tony Richardson on 25/08/2015 19:00:32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 some area's of the media are getting it right **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.