[Closed] Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham airshow

Let's ban lorries from going down steep hills.

Let's chop all roadside trees so they don't fall down on unsuspecting drivers in the winter.

Let's fence every roadside so animals can't run out and kill innocent people.

If we sanitised everything as a knee jerk reaction then life would be dull.

This was a tragic accident. They happen each and every day. Let's learn and move forward not backward!!

[url= http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/spectator-killed-llangollen-mountain-bike-7738685 ]Lets ban bike riding.[/url]

Miketroid - you seem rather fixated by other people wishing to see them banned. Not sure I read the thread that way. Mitigate the risks to non participants yes, but not banned per se. This has been done countless times for airshows already, so I'm not sure why you think it would be 'elf and safety gone mad' to do it again. Let's learn means change - can't mean anything else. Let's learn does not mean 'accidents happen' and a gaelic shrug. Change might mean limiting further where they can happen and 'banning' the ones in more iffy locations - but that is not banning air shows. It's not a biggy - it's been done before.

Also - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.

The last time anyone on the ground was killed in Britain at an airshow was in 1958.

Clearly investigations should be carried out and any lessons learnt, but to ban an activity which causes innocent deaths every 60 years seems a bit extreme.

+1

I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.

I'm not sure that air shows would or should ever be banned and I'm not sure that now is the time for having that discussion as to me anyway it all still feels so raw. I cannot get that image out of my head of the plane as it was clearly in trouble with the tail down and so low and then the massive fireball streaking along the road.
it seems almost certain that the death toll will rise as the police are hinting that they expect to find more bodies so right now who gives a toss if you think they should be banned or not.

Also - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.

Wasn't a spectator killed in a DH race recently? If you want to talk about risk, think of the numbers going to downhill races vs airshows, the frequency of downhill races vs airshows, the years airshows have been running for without loss of life to spectators vs downhill races etc etc.....all versus the number of deaths.

You will probably find that going to a DH race is riskier than you thought. Most people are utterly ignorant of risk, how it is calculated and the relative risk of certain activities vs others.

Let's ban all DH races.

Let's ban all DH races.

Could you quickly point me to where I suggested we should ban all air shows. I must have missed the bit where I typed that.

If you don't think DH races have not rethought where it's ok for spectators to be able to stand you are deluded.

Bickering.

Stay classy, STW.

I don't see why threads like these should remain bicker free RIP fests. To be honest I find those quite tasteless. A forum like this should react to events like this with robust debate. That's the point of a forum and I don't think it disrespectful in any way. If I die in a very public and contentious way I hope the public feel free to debate it. Percieved risk in society is a fascinating and very real issue.

There's a time and a place for everything and fighter jets need a lot of space. I've sat in with a couple of stunt champs during their display over Brands Hatch (the stunt pilots took the stunt drivers up for their routine). We had exclusive use of a bit of air space defined by main roads on the ground and altitude.

So, took off and followed air traffic control requirements to the designated area where the pilots were let off the leash for the routine. They then got back in touch with air traffic control for the flight back to the airport.

Compared with the flurry of activity in a rally car in full flight everything was very calm. The planes never got that close to each other or the ground. Two things made it impressive: the g-forces and the disorientation during the vertical stall and then falling backwards with the smoke billowing forwards.

A fighter needs so much space for a loop the chances of staying within a designated area seem low.

Tom_W1987

I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.

Duxford is hardly in an isolated position either. And this is the problem, in the UK we are a small island with a high population density, especially in the south. Look at all the roads and houses around virtually any airfield in the UK and it's the same.

Whilst this incident is shocking, frankly, with any chaotic situation like an airplane maneuvering in 3 dimensional space at high speed, estimating the "end position" at any moment in the future is impossibly difficult. Had this pilot been 30foot to the left, or pulled up 0.5 sec later or earlier, he would have impacted a field rather than the A27 and the result would have been very different. And of course, by the same token, he could also have impacted a large busy pub full of people, or the School just down the road.
And that's the point: You cannot talk specifics, but must work by the law of averages.

The currently rules have prevented any 3rd party injuries or deaths for 60 years, so they are NOT grossly wrong. However, we need to look at this incident in proper detail, understand what happened and why, and the critical [b]chain[/b] of events that lead to the crash (no accident ever has a single cause). If those investigations point to a change that could make a statistically significant reduction in average risk, then that change needs to be made. Luckily, the AAIB are extremely good and doing just that.

I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.

Perhaps you're being ironic, but Duxford isn't a great example as the M11 goes past the end of the runway and, for exmple, wreckage from the P38 that crashed a few years ago there went onto the motorway.

convert

Also - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.

This is an interesting point for discussion^^^

What is the benefit for things we do "for fun"? I would argue that in many ways, these are the things that make life worth living in the first place! If you asked me if i wanted too:

1) live for 80 years, just living on bread and water (carried by those lorries) but not able to partake in any other activity that wasn't directly necessary for life.

OR

2) accept the 1 in a billion (or more) chance that i'd die tomorrow from some freak incident but be able to fill my life with enrichening experiences like airshows.

then it's 2) for me please!

But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.

Perhaps you're being ironic, but Duxford isn't a great example as the M11 goes past the end of the runway and, for exmple, wreckage from the P38 that crashed a few years ago there went onto the motorway.

It's still better than Shoreham though....at the end of the day it is less built up and toward the south of the airfield there is plenty of room to carry out manoeuvres in a way that won't risk crashing into a main road or a heavily built up area. Perhaps limit the types of manoeuvres done, so that the only high G manoeuvres allowed would be those that result in a crash directly on the airfield - whilst limiting the rest to low G stuff with a low risk of stall or pilot disorientation.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Brighton+City+Airport/ @50.8361369,-0.296974,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x487599ef6cb32407:0x3dd527ac04e875c

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Imperial+War+Museum/ @52.0772275,0.1397246,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d870963894862d:0x7c69bf53a1c0382d

You could mitigate the risk at Duxford so that the only risk to the main roads was from a mechanical failure. Hundreds of airfields and airports around the UK put main roads at the risk of being hit by an aircraft suffering from a mechanical issue.

convert
But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.

Actually they did. Ok, maybe they didn't go to [b]that particular[/b] airshow, but i bet they, their children or family have been to [b]an[/b] airshow, or even watched one on telly etc.
As a Child, what you see, experience, imagine, and even dream about really does influence what you do and make of your life.
For me, i grew up in the early 1980's under Concordes Flight path out of Heathrow in South Oxfordshire. Hearing and seeing that futuristic White dart spear upwards between the clouds every morning at 11am helped to get me interested in science and engineering. It was a real, tangible link to a subject that could have been very dull and boring, and as Children we NEED that excitement to dream about! Fast forwards 30 years to today and i am now a very successful and high regarded engineer, and have been privileged to work on some incredible engineering projects.
Would i be where i am today if we had banned Concorde for being "Too noisy" back in 1978?
Well who knows, but i'm going to suggest that banning something because it isn't directly necessary to support our lives is a short sighted action.

?

A fighter needs so much space for a loop the chances of staying within a designated area seem low.

What a load of drivel. Yes they need a big area for vertical manoeuvres but display flying is strictly controlled and they have designated areas and gates they normally stay within.

For whatever reason; mechanical, failing to reach gate height, pilot incapacitation etc etc, the jet failed to recover from its manoeuvre.

It was an accident. Accidents happen. Sometimes we can ensure they don't re-occur. Generally, however, accidents by their nature are repeatable events. Sadly bystanders were involved. That's extremely rare. But this happens in all manner of activities everyday. Let's not get all wrapped around the axle here.

Ironically the bystanders on the road chose to expose themselves to far more risk through driving than death by airshow mishap.

Did you read all my post, Miketroid? I'm fully aware that pilots have to fly their display within a limited area and therefore question whether it would be possible for a fighter to complete a loop within a designated "safe" area at that airport.

I'm not proposing a ban, just questioning whether that was a sensible place to allow an old fighter to do a low-level loop.

The idea of what is sensible is changing with time. I have a vivid memory of watching a Harrier jump jet landing and taking off at close quarters around 1970. I'm not so sure of exactly where it was but my memory says it was in Birmingham city center! I was standing on the top of a building and the Harrier landed on another building. Perhaps an aviation buff can confirm because Google can't (edit: I'll ask may mother the next time I give her a ring).

I'm fully aware that pilots have to fly their display within a limited area and therefore question whether it would be possible for a fighter to complete a loop within a designated "safe" area at that airport.

Clearly it was perfectly possible because the aircraft / pilot were given permission to do it.

Same with all the bollocks earlier in the thread about restricting aerobatics to aircraft that were "designed for it".
It's a ****ing jet fighter - it saw front-line service in the RAF for 20 years, of course it's designed for it!

And the pilot, was he designed for it? Still fit for it? Loops are a pretty good way of draining the blood from your brain.

Edukator
just questioning whether that was a sensible place to allow an old fighter to do a low-level loop.

I'm not sure the age of the aircraft has anything to do with it. Currently, we have no evidence to suggest mechanical failure rather than pilot error. In fact, the aircraft looks to have responded extremely well in the last 2 secs before impact, the point where the pilot fully realises their error and initiates a "max pull" in an attempt to tighten the loop exit.

At this point, subject to a full and proper investigation by the AAIB, i'm going to suggest that pilot incapacitation or improper spacial awareness is the most likely cause.

i'm going to suggest that pilot incapacitation or improper spacial awareness is the most likely cause

I agree, it looked to me like too much G, pilot starts to lose control, G reduced, regains control and adds more G but too late. I wasn't sitting next to him though so I can't be sure and nor can anyone else on here.

I think quite simply he was too low. It was a very hot day, maybe humid, which will have affected air density, he will have done that maneuver before at the same airspeed/altitude, but he may well have not taken into account the affect on aircraft performance the conditions may have had on this occasion.
I don't see any loss of control, just a lack of recovery altitude, the swerve may well have been pilot reaction to try and recover or avoid highway.
He's former red arrows I think.
Let's hope he recovers and answers can be provided.

Devastating for all concerned.

I'm not sure the age of the aircraft has anything to do with it. Currently, we have no evidence to suggest mechanical failure rather than pilot error.

Currently we have no evidence to suggest ANYTHING - I think the mindless speculation has just got out of hand and moved into the slightly distasteful to be honest.

If you find it distasteful, leave it to those who don't find such a discussion distasteful to discuss, Crazy-legs.

I don't find the discussion mindless or out of hand.

Were are discussing something in the news, like most other things discussed on STW. Charlie Hebdo, tube disasters, wars ... they all get discussed with people chipping in opinions and ideas.

The Gs involved in doing Cubans and loops etc are brutal, turning you into a gargoyle and pulling the helmet off your head. Even an experienced pilot's body/brain is going to be taking that strain and wallops. I did it twice (as a passenger) but never again and my mate sold his share in the Yak due to a couple of close calls. Dangerous stuff all round.

But the folk that died did not choose 2 or get the high of doing 2 or watching 2, just got to do the downside of 2. They had that chosen for them by someone else. I'm all up for personal reckless endeavour but it would be ideal if I alone get to do the suffering when it goes tits up.

No but ironically they were doing something far more dangerous at the time, driving or cycling on the UK's road network, where as we know around 6-7 people are wiped out on a daily basis, often through no fault of their own, yet normally this isn't even considered newsworthy! Let's get things in perspective shall we?

I'm sure the AAIB will conduct a very thorough investigation as usual and find the absolute or most likely cause of this dreadful accident.

The BBC have posted some new footage and it appears that there may have been a loss of power as the aircraft appears to suddenly stall just as it should be pulling out of the bottom of the loop. Obviously too early to speculate as to why that may be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34034784

Very tragic event

I don't find the discussion mindless or out of hand.

The *discussion* isn't, it's the speculation and blame game that's already being played out.
There's a subtle difference between stating an opinion and putting that opinion forward as fact with no evidence to support it.

Let's get things in perspective shall we?

We've all watched the video. And people are being careful not to present their ideas as fact.

No but ironically they were doing something far more dangerous at the time, driving or cycling on the UK's road network, where as we know around 6-7 people are wiped out on a daily basis, often through no fault of their own, yet normally this isn't even considered newsworthy!

Anyway thinking about this again - I'm not sure this is actually true. How many man minutes have been spent by people stood (or sat in cars) at the end of a jet aircraft aerobatic display line per death in the UK vs. how many man minutes of cycling or driving (or being a passenger in a car) are there in the UK per death? Given the 100s of millions of minutes of time on the road every single day of the year by the UK population and the remarkably few times anyone is ever likely to be placed under a jet aircraft display path, I'd be willing to bet with this 11 deaths yesterday, even if these were the only deaths ever, you are statically more likely to suffer death by Hunter crash than using the national road network.

piedi di formaggio

The BBC have posted some new footage and it appears that there may have been a loss of power as the aircraft appears to suddenly stall

I'm not sure i see a "classical stall" there tbh.

The airplane is coming from a positive energy condition, it doesn't need excess power to overcome the drag from the high AOA required to pull put hard from that maneuver, in fact, to avoid overspeed, i'd expect the throttles to have been pulled back during the descent (depending on what setting they were at in order to make the apogee of the loop, which depends on the entry speed etc)

What i think it does show is the pilot pulling relatively (<< relative is, er relative here) gently out of the loop post apogee, and then, during the finaly seconds of the exit phase when he realises he has insufficient altitude, he pulls very hard and the aircraft mushes slightly tail first, right at the onset of stall, as the loss of directional control shows in the "wobbles" you see from the airframe. In reality, whilst the wings might be transiently "stalled" in a pure aerodynamic sense, due to the excessive AOA, we are not talking what a lay person might associate with a "stall" (ie, going too slow, a wing drops and the plane suddenly loses altitude)

In reality, we don't know if the aircraft was within it's normal, or even emergency flight envelope pulling out of the loop or if the loop apogee was simply too low to have made recovery impossible no matter what the pilots control inputs. The fact that the plane impacts tail down, at a relatively low vertical rate of descent shows that he very very nearly made it. Ie had he pulled harder, earlier, there is a good chance he would not have stuck the ground.

It is for the AAIB to establish the critical facts for this maneuver, like insufficient entry speed or if the roll out on apogee was initiated too early for the conditions that day.

This post very quickly went from talking about a dreadful tradgedy and offering condolences to a load of people forming opinions and theories about something most of you appear to know less than zero about. Are any of you actually pilots or air accident investigators?

The real story is that this is a really dreadful thing to happen for all concerned especially the people that were there and the families of the deceased.

The actual cause and outcome is best left to the experts.

sorry thats balls maxtourque...he was pulling high aoa whilst still losing height....ergo he had to little energy going into the loop or juat executed it to low. You can pull as much aoa as you like but if your airspeed was too low going into the loop youre going to have a shock.

And the pilot, was he designed for it? Still fit for it? Loops are a pretty good way of draining the blood from your brain.

No pilot is 'designed' to tolerate Gz of the order you need to fly a loop (4g). However training, experience and G-Pants all mitigate G-Loc.

Loops don't tend to go wrong like that due to G-Loc anyhow for a variety of reasons. Looping manoeuvres tend to go wrong due to insufficient energy prior to manoeuvre or a simple case of pulling too hard over the top and not reaching your Gate.

It does look like he was pulling like a b*****d on his way out but the wing rock looks like classic accelerated stall. it's just that the Hunter was so well designed it's stall characteristics wouldn't necessarily result in massive wing drop in this situation.

Anyhow we don't know what happened here or why. Let's leave that to the experts.

Duir agree with you completely

I wouldn't suggest for a second I am a pilot but I've done quite a bit of flying (not solo) and flew RC planes and gliders so have some appreciation.

The BBC have a new angle from the ground and it reinforces my view the loop was "twisted" the plane rolls as it reaches the highest point and then spends too long going straight down. A classic loop is "straight". @pied the plane effectively stalls as it approaches the ground as the pilot is pulling up "too much" trying to rectify the situation hence the "belly flop" o to the road. IMO the twist is indicative of an issue (inc pilot error) and the time spent going straight down also.

We need to wait for the full investigation but the videos taken will provide a lot of info.

Sadly the death toll has risen. This is a really terrible accident

Re-evaluating the risk benefit balance and making changes is a healthy exercise for any activity and comparisons to other unrelated activities is just a fatuous irellevance.

Yes but we still don't know exactly what happened here do we, so calls from people to "ban this" or "change that" are a little premature and completely knee-jerk and based sadly (but probably) on viewing sensationalist and speculative media coverage.

I'm all for increasing safety where practically possible, but all too often rules and measures designed to increase safety end up strangling and killing off the very activities that they were designed to make safer in the first place. That doesn't do anyone any favours and means that life becomes duller and less rewarding for everyone as a result. A life almost completely free from risk surely wouldn't be worth living in the first place?

Words like "huge flying bomb" just reek of sensationalism! You car is also a "large high speed bomb packed full of highly explosive fuel just waiting to immolate innocent bystanders" but i bet you don't think that when you get in it to 'nip down the shops'...........

No offence was intended, I was highlighting the fact that a 15 ton jet engined vehicle filled will hundreds of litres of aviation fuel is potentially a very very dangerous object. And yes, I also consider cars as extremely dangerous objects, particularly when riding or walking in close proximity to them - and also whilst driving them, I consider the implications of my actions.

From memory I don't think anyone on this thread called for a ban. In fact, quite the opposite - if you read my comments again you'll realise that I was at said air show as a spectator. The aftermath of this tragedy has me questioning the safety of innocent bystanders (naturally). No one is trying to take away the adrenaline fuelled life experiences, but I think it was convert that made the point that those killed did not intend to join in with this partucular joie de vivre at that moment in time.
I merely commented that I'm keen to hope that any changes made to further mitigation at future shows drastically decrease the chances for similar tragedy's.

Convert - your point about minutes per death in correlation to activity is also bang on point.

From memory I don't think anyone on this thread called for a ban

skydragon did

It's time to stop air show displays IMHO.

used to hold a pilots license, instrument and night rating, etc

so he's an expert and has the CAA on speed dial for when he is policing airshows. 🙄

Thanks duir for trying to steer this back.

Whatever caused the tragedy is not yet known, ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting helps no one, least of all the victims families.

Tom_W1987 - Member
sorry thats balls maxtourque...he was pulling high aoa whilst still losing height....ergo he had to little energy going into the loop or juat executed it to low. You can pull as much aoa as you like but if your airspeed was too low going into the loop youre going to have a shock.

So if you are at max pull and unable to increase you positive pitch rate (and hence unable to tighten your trajectory), going faster will help?

Too little speed [b]INTO[/b] the loop is critical, too little speed past the Apogee, generally, isn't (note the word "generally" nothing is set in stone or certain.)

You'll also note i used the words "classical stall" to differentiate what the man in the street might call a stall from the pure physical situation where the wing cannot support the load you require at the AOA you are asking it to act. Obviously the dynamics of the wing and airframe loading are complex in this situation and at this point, i don't think we can separate the likely scenarios due to a lack of evidence. Again, generally speaking the reason making the min safe height at the apogee of a loop maneuver is so critical is because this sets the eventual exit height. IE if you are too low at apogee, you have to add power to increase the peak dynamic wing load, but this extra speed then requires a higher wing loading as the G force to maintain the same turn radius also increases. IN fact, the only exit scenario which works is a complete abort at apogee and a full roll out to upright. If you continue the roll beyond a few deg nose down your fate is sealed. Unfortunately, this is what looks to have occurred here. ;-(

ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting

I only ever login when its "Speculation Track World"

or is it Same Ten W..... never mind.

MoreCashThanDash

Whatever caused the tragedy is not yet known, ill-informed internet speculation and opinion spouting helps no one, least of all the victims families.

This is an "Discussion Forum". Its entire purpose is to allow discussion on the topics started within its virtual walls. As long as that discussion is:

1) Honest
2) Non inflammatory
3) Respectful

Then i fail to see the problem. Yes, some commentators are not as "expert" as others, but why should that mean they can't be included in the discussion?

I due course, the truth will be revealed, until then, it is a natural human reaction to want to talk and discuss events that have occurred, be they good or bad.

Anyway thinking about this again - I'm not sure this is actually true. How many man minutes have been spent by people stood (or sat in cars) at the end of a jet aircraft aerobatic display line per death in the UK vs. how many man minutes of cycling or driving (or being a passenger in a car) are there in the UK per death? Given the 100s of millions of minutes of time on the road every single day of the year by the UK population and the remarkably few times anyone is ever likely to be placed under a jet aircraft display path, I'd be willing to bet with this 11 deaths yesterday, even if these were the only deaths ever, you are statically more likely to suffer death by Hunter crash than using the national road network.

That's perhaps the single worst/most dishonest use of statistics that I've ever seen. It should be done with flying minutes per accident for the aircraft, or flying minutes during any aerobatic routine.

Otherwise you are narrowing your sample size down and quantifying risk to that specific event as opposed to a generalized risk. There are plenty of instances where you can raise the risk of driving by doing the same.

Now lets keep in mind that aerobatics also includes the RAF doing ACM/BFM training and every hobby flier who dabbles in mild aerobatics.

For those claiming that speculation is disrespectful.. With all due respect, errrrr, **** off..
As if the families of those involved are looking to the wisdom of the regular posters on an obscure mtb forum for answers.
Get a grip

Chaps I have to say on balance the [i]discussion[/i] so far has been pretty reasonable and considered, and it has been interesting to read.

This was a truly dreadful incident and I hope all those involved can have some form of closure in the coming days and weeks.

You'll have probably seen the brutal murder of Don Lock in Worthing last month. I'd known him for a number of years through cycling and it was a sad privilege to have been part of the funeral cortege.

The abrupt and savage way he was taken from his family and friends has similar resonances to what happened yesterday. It was touching to see the number of people paying their respects along his funeral route and I'd like to hope the various communities affected by yesterday's events can come together in a similar fashion.

So if you are at max pull and unable to increase you positive pitch rate (and hence unable to tighten your trajectory), going faster will help?

Too little speed INTO the loop is critical, too little speed past the Apogee, generally, isn't (note the word "generally" nothing is set in stone or certain.)

Too little speed at the top of the loop for a given height is an issue, if you don't have an f-16 level thrust ratio to apply to get yourself out of the mess.

AoA doesn't indicated continuous turn rate, you can be pulling high aoa - creating loads of drag and be travelling on the same vector you were before....eg cobra maneuver/why thrust vectoring isn't all that amazing.

Dogfighting and aerobatics is all about energy, energy, energy.

Yup , 1 1/2 miles from my house ...
I heard the crash and saw the aftermath

That's perhaps the single worst/most dishonest use of statistics that I've ever seen. [b]It should be done with flying minutes per accident for the aircraft, or flying minutes during any aerobatic routine.[/b]

If that's genuinely the worst you have seen you don't do much statistics 😉

Not in the slightest - that would be measuring a completely different thing not related to the discussion. We are not talking about the risk factor to the pilot or the plane but very specifically the risk factor in being on the ground at the end of the low level routine path. The vast majority of military aerobatics and 'hobbiest' aerobatics does not qualify for this as most is done away from the air field above 2000ft. The number of people and their time spend in 'the zone' is key to working out the statistic if you are going to quantify it against something like the national number of road deaths.

I stand by my notion that it's probably now statistically more dangerous to stand where they were stood that drive a car but (its a big but) only if you are comparing risk per minute. In reality we spend a lot more time on roads so the cumulative risk over time is higher.

@convert, you could argue that if you commute past areas of high aerial intensity on a regular basis it's only a matter of time.
A1 has three MATZ it runs through in a relatively short stretch of road.

it's only a matter of time.

You probably could - but it would be a very long time - like millions and millions of minutes. A bit like the number of minutes you would have to pedal around the streets of London before being 'statistically' knocked off and killed.

I will add, we won't know until the investigation was done. He did appear to dip a wing which means he pulled up hard at the last minute....which I guess could mean he wasn't at the limit of his turn rate earlier on in the loop....or perhaps had too much speed.

It was a weird loop as well, like some kind of odd combat turn.

Not in the slightest - that would be measuring a completely different thing not related to the discussion. We are not talking about the risk factor to the pilot or the plane but very specifically the risk factor in being on the ground at the end of the low level routine path. The vast majority of military aerobatics and 'hobbiest' aerobatics does not qualify for this as most is done away from the air field above 2000ft. The number of people and the time in 'the zone' is key to working out the statistic if you are going to quantify it against something like the national number of road deaths.

I stand by my notion that it's probably now statistically more dangerous to stand where they were stood that drive a car but (its a big but) only if you are comparing risk per minute. In reality we spend a lot more time on roads so the cumulative risk over time is higher.

Good point. It's still pretty easy to flat spin into the ground from 2000 feet.

The carfest accident as sad as it was, only pilot that lost his life, the location is very sparsely populated but the A303 and M3 are pretty close though.

From Oulton Park, about 200 miles close ❓

Tom_W1987
I will add, we won't know until the investigation was done. He did appear to dip a wing which means he pulled up hard at the last minute....which I guess could mean he wasn't at the limit of his turn rate earlier on in the loop....or perhaps had too much speed.

Agreed! The entire short display seems somewhat disjointed to me. Even the "snap roll" at the start of the display is frankly untidy (over rotation followed by reversal back to the necessary exit bank angle), and the subsequent entry to the loop seems delayed.
The exit trajectory certainly looks to be nowhere near max rate, although of course, without knowing the aircrafts operating conditions on this particular day that is difficult to call. The one fact that looks certain is that when the pilot eventually did demand a max pull, the aircraft looks to have responded well, right up to the start of an incipent stall, with the characteristic wing wobble of a short cord swept wing aircraft.

One significant advantage the investigation will have is that there is plenty of footage from different angles, allowing a very precise trajectory analysis and simulation to be constructed via triangulation (ie time synchronization of the footage, back from the impact event, in conjunction with knowing where each bit of footage was filmed from, allows a true 3d flight path to be generated)

The wobble being talked about as a stall...if he was on the display/runway line he would have been heading for queueing traffic on the westbound carriageway just before the traffic lights, it could have been intentional turn to the right to crash onto the junction between the lights as it was probably the only bit of tarmac without a stationary queue.

Joining the speculation track world did anyone notice a small blu grey bloom of what looks like smoke or mist from the rear centre of the plane shortly before the wobble? Would a leaking hydraulic system reduce elevator throw to a degree where full deflection became impossible? Just askin'

@duir - as I said in my post 'IMHO' - if your opinion differs to mine that's fine.

(Btw I've never claimed to be an expert, only someone who has some real-world experience of aviation and who is concerned by what has happened)

@duir - as I said in my post 'IMHO' - if your opinion differs to mine that's fine.

(Btw I've never claimed to be an expert, only someone who has some real-world experience of aviation and who is concerned by what has happened)

Fair enough but to the untrained eye you appear to be calling for airshows to be banned?

I too have some real world aviation experience, I'm a 737 skipper with thousands and thousands of flying hours in the airlines. As such I am completely unqualified to pass opinions on flying a Hunter at an airshow as I have never done it! So if I am not qualified, the STW armchair pilots mafia definitely are not!!!

To be good enough to display a fast jet you need to be something pretty special, there is only one person that knows what really happened, I really hope he makes it.

Well here's what his mate thinks, according to the BBC:

Neil McCarthy, a friend of pilot Andy Hill, told the BBC News Channel that the loop manoeuvre was regarded as "one of the most dangerous" to attempt.
He said: "If you don't have the right entry speed, the right pull back on the stick, the G-force, the right gate height at the top of the loop manoeuvre, it can go wrong pretty quick".

I haven't read every post but has anyone wondered why the Hunter was exiting a loop over a main road & not along the length of the runway?

@Duir - ok, let me revise what I posted earlier. What I should have perhaps written, is that UK air shows in their current form should be banned. My personal opinion.

I haven't commented on what was the cause of the accident at Shoreham, nor am I commenting on the specifics of a fast jet display.

I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?

I believe there have been eight crashes at UK air shows in the last five years. If correct that is disappointing.

[quote=esselgruntfuttock ]I haven't read every post but has anyone wondered why the Hunter was exiting a loop over a main road & not along the length of the runway?

Trying not to speculate too much, so this is only what I've worked out from what I've seen, and trying to answer the point: it looks to me like the loop wasn't all executed in the same vertical plane as a pure pitch manoeuvre as you'd expect for a classic loop - there seems to be some roll or yaw going on there, resulting in it exiting the loop in a different direction from the one it entered. Now I've no idea whether it was planned as a pure pitch loop, or something more complex (and not going to rely on media commentary for that), so maybe that was planned, but it seems possible something went wrong regarding his exit direction - certainly he shouldn't have been exiting the loop there.

(I've never flown an airliner, but have done aerobatics (badly) with RC model aircraft, so have some idea of the dynamics involved and the speed/height requirements - I've also had the ground get in the way when I've got it wrong - which probably makes me just about as unqualified to comment on flying a Hunter at an airshow as duir is).

Reading this thread I can't help but envisage an Airplane type scenario where a panic stricken stewardess asks over the intercom "is there a pilot on board???", and 2 passengers wearing STW t-shirts jump up "yes ma'am, we both have put many flying hours into our RC model aircraft".

I have also noticed the word "ergo" being used on at least one occasion and feel pretty certain that at least one person has typed in "I concur" before thinking better off it.

More sad news in the last hour, it seems even the latest tally of 11 deaths is going to increase significantly as there are still people unaccounted for.

It looked like a barrel roll of sorts.

The BBC can't be trusted in cases like this; I've seen some appalling reporting and this appears to be no different.

The loop isn't the most dangerous manoeuvre. It's very straightforward..... A barrel roll, however, is harder to coordinate and sadly has claimed more lives.

Even a wingover which is regarded by many as a benign manoeuvre has its dangers. A friend span off one due to low energy entry and it claimed his life.

Anyway we'll see what the experts come up with. I would say that his wing rock would be heavy buffet (stall) related rather than a last minute attempt to change direction. Andy Hill is an incredibly experienced pilot and would have known not to sacrifice pitch ability (which sadly he'd lost the battle at that stage) for turn capability.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/shoreham-air-show-crash-first-three-victims-named ]Guardian video[/url]

Watching the Guardian video above, it looks like the engine surges about 4 seconds in?

Not sure about a surge looks more like it could be something else in shot briefly, perhaps a bird?

From that video, to me it looks like he was coming out of the loop OK, but then loses thrust.

Sky News reporting that Police stating death toll may rise to 20+

Terrible news

Tragic incident.

re: the debate debate, debate is healthy, if kept respectful.

The BBC have a new angle from the ground and it reinforces my view the loop was "twisted" the plane rolls as it reaches the highest point and then spends too long going straight down

For some reason, it looks like the start of the loop was without enough speed. At the top it looks to be travelling at 90 degree from entry heading, with a turn flung into the last half to try and recover heading. But not enough speed for the amount of elevator he pulls; stalled, and terrible result.

It all looks smoother in the Guardian vid. The speculation of the "aviation experts" in the various media is just as wild/wilder than anything on this thread.

Like the pilot I'm quite old now, the last time I was offered a drive in a rally car I turned it down. Aging reflexes, a lack of regular competition driving, narrow roads and unfamiliarity with a 300bhp/tonne car seemed a recipe for disaster. I've sold my BMX and jump bikes too.

Terrible news this moringing about likely death toll

As for those thst think airshows should be banned we had the private jet crash on landing at Blackbushe straight into the car auction site which is at the end of the runway. AccIdents happen

Terrible that it could now rise to over 20 people that have died. Starting to hear from friends and friends of friends as we all head back to work who were very near and lucky to just miss it but were witness to some terrible sights.

As for those thst think airshows should be banned

I've been through the thread again and can only see one person who says that in his opinion all air shows should be stopped, so can we move on from this now as 70 out of the 71 that have commented on this so far aren't of the opinion that they will or should be banned.

[quote=scott_mcavennie2 ]Reading this thread I can't help but envisage an Airplane type scenario where a panic stricken stewardess asks over the intercom "is there a pilot on board???", and 2 passengers wearing STW t-shirts jump up "yes ma'am, we both have put many flying hours into our RC model aircraft".

I hope you weren't getting that impression from my post - I'd have no idea how to fly an airliner based on that, and I tried to point out the limitations of my experience. If the worst came to the worst then I'd probably have some idea what to do as I've sat in the cockpit of a big jet whilst flying and even taken the controls of a light aircraft, but then I'd put the skills of somebody who'd played flight sim on a computer above mine and doubtless there would be at least one of those on board. I suspect most people who've flown RC aircraft or airliners recognise the vast disparity in skills (and the vast difference between either of those and flying a display in a Hunter).

[quote=muggomagic ]I've been through the thread again and can only see one person who says that in his opinion all air shows should be stopped

I can't be bothered to go through the thread again, but I got the impression that rather more than that were suggesting that airshows should be significantly curtailed (ie only straight and level flight in anything which isn't a current operational military aircraft).