Hunter crashes at Shoreham

[john224]

Whilst I understand why they have temporarily banned jet aircraft from performing aerobatics until the investigation is complete, I also disagree with it. They never banned spectators from watching football matches after Hilsborough,

No they didn't, but they did get rid of fences, which was the root cause of the deaths at Hillsborough. In a similar way they have tried to remove what they regard as the cause without taking away the event altogether,

[FalkeEins]

Dunno who commended the daily mail on their mild reaction earlier but think that was premature http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208234/Shoreham-airshow-plane-crash-disaster-Sister-s-torment-searches-news-missing-brother.html

if it turns out that there is absolutely no truth in the statement - in quotes- that " the Red Arrows had declined to fly at Shoreham.." because of public safety concerns then I'd agree

Edited August 24, 2015 by FalkeEins

[chuckb1]

Be it an SE5A, Sopwith Camel, Spitfire MK IX, or a Sea Vixen FAW the risk elements are still the same. Vintage aircraft are a rare breed and require a unique touch to maintain and fly. All thorough breeds with their own idiosyncrasies. any aircraft can claim a life look at the loss of the Hispano Buchon piloted by Mark Hanna, the man was a superlative pilot. I was fortunate enough to meet him and his father at NAS Yeovilton in the 80's. Amazingly skillful and talented pilots. One thing I took away from talking to them was their respect and love for what they flew and both men knew the risks of flying vintage aircraft.

No matter what the aeroplane, if it goes wrong it will and the outcome is normally tragic. So all the nay sayers need to consider the UK's safety record since 63 and think on that fact. It was a tragic and awful incident. Enough of the what if or what happened. If this thread goes down that path then maybe it should now be locked out of respect.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

The BBC website has shown some atrocious reporting today. The claim the aircraft was attempting to do a "loop-the-loop" and crashed on the second loop. The aircraft was reported as a Hawker Honda which is still used by the RAF.

Idiots.

[Mike]

From here on in wild speculation and premature blame apportioning will be removed from the thread and repeat offenders corralled for a week. Keep it factual and show some respect for the dead and injured, as well as their family and friends.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

From here on in wild speculation and premature blame apportioning will be removed from the thread and repeat offenders corralled for a week. Keep it factual and show some respect for the dead and injured, as well as their family and friends.

Indeed. I wish in this instance that your moderator powers could extend to the media journalists. It would be nice if they too stuck to the facts.

thanks

Mike

[Miggers]

I think gentlemen,that we need to remember that we are all part of the "wider" aviation community in so far that we love aeroplanes

and going to airshows/airfields to watch them displayed and fly.

Please continue to go to airshows and other aviation events,our support is noticed and very much appreciated.

Andy Hill is "one of our own",so as has already been said,let's not try and speculate or apportion any blame amongst ourselves

on the circumstances of the accident.

Our collective thoughts as part of the "wider" aviation community must be with those that saw it unfold,those that are

coming to terms with the loss of a family member or colleague and those members of the emergency services on scene.

Those who do attempt to speculate(apart from some of the professional pilots or maintainers that frequent and enrich BM)

can only be classed as "outsiders"and therefore,their comments and useless "knowledge"need to be seen as just that,useless.

Make your condolence posts,state what you saw or heard,but leave it at that.

neither bickering or armchair speculation does us or our image any good at all.

Time will tell us what catalogue of events actually took place to cause the accident.

In the meantime,we close ranks,keep quiet and let the real investigators do their investigating.

Thank you.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Miggers

[Hardtarget]

• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

Its a bit vague and i'm sure this is a watered down bullet and operators will get a more detailed statement, but analysing it, what does it actually mean and why only 'Vintage Jet Aircraft' when other aircraft (prop/FJ military) over land could cause the same or greater damage loss of life to the public should it have a malfunction or otherwise. I gather the RAF Typhoon displays will be requested to limit his display too or is it just civilian operated FJ's?

Seems a knee jurk reaction but I guess they had to come out with something and being near the end of the season it wont affect too many air shows over land that have 'Jet' aircraft on the participation list.

Also, 'Vintage' does that rule out the Red Arrow Hawks? Vintage could mean anything developed as of yesterday.

I just don't understand fully why the CAA have made that bullet statement. If they have a concern and are now really saying that their own rules and guidelines are in doubt, should they not, if putting a blanked statement like that, extend it to all aircraft whether Civil or military (ah, just realised they don't have authority over military AC do they).

Apologies if already or similar been asked.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Hardtarget

[dambuster]

My only observation regarding the CAA restriction on high energy manoeuvres for vintage jet aeroplanes is that it will need someone with a lot of guts to reverse the restriction, so I think it will quickly become the norm.

Incidentally, does this also prevent such aerobatics when not part of an airshow? How do you mitigate the risk of a jet operating out of somewhere like Kemble, in unregulated airspace, carrying out aerobatics at a safe height, and something similar happening? The knock-on effect could be quite significant.

Would anyone here like to risk the outcry in the extremely unlikely aftermath of a second accident?

Peter

[yankeemodeller]

The pilot did not eject..he was pulled from the wreckage.

Amazing he survived at all with so many killed around him. Terrible incident!

[Rob P]

Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means high energy aerobatics will not be permitted.

It's a little ironic that the manoeuvre in question was not really a high energy aerobatic act. Climb, (right hand) roll inverted, pull through a 45 degree dive for the next pass. The flight path shown on the Daily Mail site is inaccurate and assumes a loop.

I can understand the CAA's response, but to limit displays to flypasts is a little draconian. Surely raise the minimums?

Fingers crossed for no watered down Vulcan display at Dunsfold this weekend.

Thoughts go out to all those affected by the weekend events.

Rob. (A West Sussex resident and aviation enthusiast, pilots licence held since 1990, witness of more aviation incidents than I would like.)

[jasman71]

My only observation regarding the CAA restriction on high energy manoeuvres for vintage jet aeroplanes is that it will need someone with a lot of guts to reverse the restriction, so I think it will quickly become the norm.

Incidentally, does this also prevent such aerobatics when not part of an airshow? How do you mitigate the risk of a jet operating out of somewhere like Kemble, in unregulated airspace, carrying out aerobatics at a safe height, and something similar happening? The knock-on effect could be quite significant.

Would anyone here like to risk the outcry in the extremely unlikely aftermath of a second accident?

Peter

Sad to say but I suspect you'd see more of the "experts" indulging in "I told you so" nonsense.

I did wonder what their definition of vintage was, as has been mentioned the Bae Hawks of the Red Arrows aren't exactly spring chickens any more, and they have enough problems performing their full routines if the weather doesn't play ball. Besides which they are, I would say, national icons and certainly representatives of the RAF, and I doubt they would be restricted. And they've had their share of bad luck in the past, thankfully relatively few and sporadically though, when compared to the wider scene.

[Van]

I think the CAA response is quite reasonable in the circumstances. When people talk about no public fatalities at an airshow in the uk since 1952 it does seem that they are diminishing the magnitude of this accident. Part of the outcry is that the fatalities in this case were not attendees of the show. When one goes to motor racing there are signs to say it is a dangerous activity and that spectators are there at their own risk, so spctators buy into this. It is probably the same at airshows-I haven't noticed, but I still go and have done since I was a boy in the 60s. People travelling on a public highway should not be put at risk by an airshow, which is basically entertainment for others.

Van

[Miggers]

• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

Its a bit vague and i'm sure this is a watered down bullet and operators will get a more detailed statement, but analysing it, what does it actually mean and why only 'Vintage Jet Aircraft' when other aircraft (prop/FJ military) over land could cause the same or greater damage loss of life to the public should it have a malfunction or otherwise. I gather the RAF Typhoon displays will be requested to limit his display too or is it just civilian operated FJ's?

Seems a knee jurk reaction but I guess they had to come out with something and being near the end of the season it wont affect too many air shows over land that have 'Jet' aircraft on the participation list.

Also, 'Vintage' does that rule out the Red Arrow Hawks? Vintage could mean anything developed as of yesterday.

I just don't understand fully why the CAA have made that bullet statement. If they have a concern and are now really saying that their own rules and guidelines are in doubt, should they not, if putting a blanked statement like that, extend it to all aircraft whether Civil or military (ah, just realised they don't have authority over military AC do they).

Apologies if already or similar been asked.

Let us all be thankful that they(the CAA/AAIB)haven't said ALL vintage jet aircraft engaged in display work are grounded as of now,

that really would be a knee jerk reaction me thinks.

What they're saying is actually yes,display your vintage jet,but display it in a straight line with no "hard" aerobatics for now

until we find out what went wrong.

Hunters are grounded because that was the type involved(common practice with most air accidents where the cause of loss has

to be investigated deeply)and not a JP/Vulcan/Sea Vixen/Sea Hawk/venom/Vampire or any other type of vintage jet currently flying in UK.

Correct,the CAA has no jurisdiction over military aviation,but the AAIB is usually involved with military air accidents.

I have not heard that anything military has been asked to limit display aerobatics(the Tornado/Typhoon/Hawk are currently classed military a/c)

[Paul J]

I think the CAA new regs re vintage jets is quite fair..... they could be a lot harsher and ban them from flying altogether! The fly by 's are what I expected the restrictions to be. And for that I think we should all be grateful especially if it reduces any great risk or tragedy recently experienced.

I nearly went on Saturday but had so much on at home that at the last minute didn't go. Also the fact that the exiting from that show is always a nightmare anyway.

But I am hoping to be free and go to Dunsfold though.

But I too will not stop going to shows even though the amount I go to nowadays is down to only two or three if I am lucky. Also, I too have witnessed many a crash..Shoreham 2007 and 1968 when a Tiger Club Turbukent cartwheeled at ground level ballon bursting, Biggin... 1975 and 77 ( Jet Ranger into Tiger Moth in 75 I think and the Invader in 77 I think it was) Mildenhall T-34Turbo Mentor, Frecce Fiat G-91 Meteor Vampire,......nuff said.

Definitely a black day for Shoreham shows. Condolences to all concerned

[thepureness]

Something that came to my mind today.

At the moment, what we have here is a forum post discussing theories to why the planned crash, fear of airshows being stopped and press bashing (which I do agree with, hate the british press).

We as a community are a modelers, and a large majority of us are Aircraft modelers, and with our ties to aircraft I think we should look into doing some sort of charitable work/collection to help the families that have lost someone in some sort of way be it a collection, a kit sale, anything we can think of.

If anyone agrees or doesn't, or if anyone could think of Ideas PM me, don't clutter this page, I might start a new forum post if there is a good amount of interest

[sinnerboy]

don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Daily Fail may actually print something that is even vaguely true, but it has crossed by mind for a couple of years now, Shoreham is RAFA why don't the Reds ever appear?

anyone know?

[Miggers]

I think the CAA response is quite reasonable in the circumstances. When people talk about no public fatalities at an airshow in the uk since 1952 it does seem that they are diminishing the magnitude of this accident. Part of the outcry is that the fatalities in this case were not attendees of the show. When one goes to motor racing there are signs to say it is a dangerous activity and that spectators are there at their own risk, so spctators buy into this. It is probably the same at airshows-I haven't noticed, but I still go and have done since I was a boy in the 60s. People travelling on a public highway should not be put at risk by an airshow, which is basically entertainment for others.

Van

Most if not all airshow tickets(this is for Cosford 2015 display)contain this type of disclaimer:

This ticket is issued on behalf of The Organisers and is subject to the following Terms and Conditions of Entry:

1. Visitors entering the airfield do so entirely at their own risk. No liability will be accepted by the Organisers, their consultants, servants, agents, independent contractors or sponsors for any injury (including fatal injury), illness, damage or loss whatsoever directly or indirectly occasioned to person or property, whether due to negligence or otherwise howsoever caused subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Nor will the Organisers be obliged to refund any entrance monies should the event for which this ticket grants admission not take place or be curtailed.

2. The event Organisers reserve to themselves all rights of exploitation thereof. Accordingly, all persons admitted to the event on the condition that, save with the written consent of the Organisers, they make no attempt to sell, license or otherwise exploit or attempt to exploit any material, whether written or in the form of photographs, film, sound, video or other recording or of computer software obtained or made in consequence of their admission.

3. Visitors also agree not to assign or licence any copyright or other right in any such material, or an interest therein, to any third party. All visitors admitted to the event agree that the remedy of the Organisers for breach of these conditions shall not be limited to damages and may include all and any profits made as a result of such breach.

4. The Organisers reserve the right to carry out such security checks as they deem necessary and to refuse entry to persons or vehicles and/or divert visitors to the car parking areas. Visitors wishing to depart the airfield will be required to exit the airfield as directed. Early departures may result in a lengthy detour.

5. For the safety and security of all visitors there will be security measures in place at the entry points and throughout the showground.

6. All air and ground displays are subject to weather, technical and operational requirements.

7. Parents should be aware that the flying display can be very noisy.

8. BBQs are not permitted on the airfield. No animals are permitted on the airfield except assistance dogs.

Pretty comprehensive I'd say,but paragraph 1 sums up the stance on accidents occurring inside the airfield boundaries.

[Rickpadwick1801]

Something that came to my mind today.

At the moment, what we have here is a forum post discussing theories to why the planned crash, fear of airshows being stopped and press bashing (which I do agree with, hate the british press).

We as a community are a modelers, and a large majority of us are Aircraft modelers, and with our ties to aircraft I think we should look into doing some sort of charitable work/collection to help the families that have lost someone in some sort of way be it a collection, a kit sale, anything we can think of.

If anyone agrees or doesn't, or if anyone could think of Ideas PM me, don't clutter this page, I might start a new forum post if there is a good amount of interest

PM sent

[pigsty]

Gents, re the CAA announcement - do think for a moment. It's sensible to ground an aircraft type that's just had a catastrophic accident, it's what they do every time. And it's sensible to limit displays by vintage jets after a vintage jet has just had a catastrophic accident. The only alternatives would have been: limit everything; ground everything; or do nothing. And to anyone saying the CAA should do nothing until the investigation is complete, that too is a knee-jerk reaction and badly misunderstands the CAA's duties in law and the basic precautionary principles it runs to.

If you don't know what the CAA means by "vintage", ask them. Their operators will be, if the CAA hasn't already contacted them, and everyone who needs to know will know in no time.

[Van]

Most if not all airshow tickets(this is for Cosford 2015 display)contain this type of disclaimer:

This ticket is issued on behalf of The Organisers and is subject to the following Terms and Conditions of Entry:

1. Visitors entering the airfield do so entirely at their own risk. No liability will be accepted by the Organisers, their consultants, servants, agents, independent contractors or sponsors for any injury (including fatal injury), illness, damage or loss whatsoever directly or indirectly occasioned to person or property, whether due to negligence or otherwise howsoever caused subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Nor will the Organisers be obliged to refund any entrance monies should the event for which this ticket grants admission not take place or be curtailed.

As I said, I thought there would be something of the sort. For spectators.

[Jimbo]

It's a little ironic that the manoeuvre in question was not really a high energy aerobatic act. Climb, (right hand) roll inverted, pull through a 45 degree dive for the next pass. The flight path shown on the Daily Mail site is inaccurate and assumes a loop.

At what point did he 'roll inverted'? Surely he was inverted by virtue of pulling up into the 'loop'. From the airfield it appeared that he pulled up while pointed towards the crowd line - I saw a not quite frontal aspect of the aircraft about 30° to my right. The maneuver certainly ended on a different heading to that it started on, although not as much as the 90° I've seen mentioned on other forums, and depicted by the DM.

Jim

[Rob P]

At what point did he 'roll inverted'? Surely he was inverted by virtue of pulling up into the 'loop'.

Jim

Take a look at the second video on the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

The Hunter pulls up heading right to left . As it approaches the vertical, you can see the top aspect (camouflage showing, whereas in a loop you'd expect to see the underside). Also, in a loop, you exit the manoeuvre heading in the same direction as you entered, whereas to exit the opposite way, you have to roll and pull.

[JohnT]

The CAA position is absolutely correct in my opinion. Tragically we are dealing with a downed aircraft and multiple casualties on the ground. The correct thing to do is to curtail and restrict the activity that lead to the accident until the relevant investigatory authority determines the cause of the accident and proscribes what measures require to be taken to ensure there is no repitition. That is in the finest traditions of air safety and the industry.

Unfortunately by doing the right thing it coincides with the clamour of sections of press and public who are demanding an end to certain types of display flying. It remains the correct response however notwithstanding that unhappy coincidence until a full professional assessment of the accident has been completed.

As usual the press have run true to form. I heard the BBC Scotland morning program cut across the interview of the chap organising the Scottish Airshow and whenever he started to explain the true correct position that did not fit in with that programs agenda and a listener participation itinerary he was rudely interrupted and asked questions in the vein of "So when did you last beat your wife". Appalling journalism but very much in the manner of that particular nasty little program. Never lets a fact get in the way of a good story. It's not just airshows but anything sensational

Lastly but not least we lost many good people the other day. It will happen again. Not at an Airshow if we ban them but somewhere sometime and somehow. Families will be lost in grief just the same as now. I pray that somehow those affected by the Shoreham tragedy will find peace and comfort.

[Jimbo]

Take a look at the second video on the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

The Hunter pulls up heading right to left . As it approaches the vertical, you can see the top aspect (camouflage showing, whereas in a loop you'd expect to see the underside). Also, in a loop, you exit the manoeuvre heading in the same direction as you entered, whereas to exit the opposite way, you have to roll and pull.

I'm a bit confused here - two of my photos are of the aircraft vertical completely showing the underside. I'll nip off and have look at the video - my tablet doesn't want to do videos at the moment!

Jim