# Hunter crashes at shoreham airshow



## rochie (Aug 22, 2015)

Sad news as casualties are involved.
'Casualties' as airshow plane crashes into cars on A27 at Shoreham - BBC News


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

Oh ****. Not good.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2015)

A very sad loss and I fear the worst.

I do wish people would shut the F*ck up until they know what they are talking about. Early reports said the pilot had been pulled out of the wreckage and the plane was resting under a bush then there was no word then there are cars involved and so on and on.
Instead of "tweeting" why cant they just pray, meditate, make a wish, or just stand in silence.


----------



## rochie (Aug 22, 2015)

Just heard that there are 7 dead and 10 injured, very sad


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

My thoughts and prayers...


----------



## Crimea_River (Aug 22, 2015)

Sad news and condolences to all involved.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 22, 2015)

Very sad news indeed, my condolences to the families of those involved.


----------



## Wurger (Aug 23, 2015)

Joining all above. My condolences to the families of those involved.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 24, 2015)

There have just been massive restrictions on air displays of vintage aircraft announced in the UK, dont know how temporary they will be.

Vintage Jet aircraft to be restricted to basically a flypast.
Investigation of High energy maneuvers at displays.
Displays overland near population centres and motorways to be investigated.

Knowing the British nanny state this will not turn out well, but the more that is revealed about this crash the more horrible it is.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Knowing the British nanny state this will not turn out well,



Its a bit crass to be talking in such a way whilst the death toll rises and forensic teams are sifting through the wreckage. People driving home with the shopping or on a club cycle ride should be protected from 10 tons of metal and Kerosene landing on them. If thats a Nanny state I am happy to live here.

Shoreham was breaking the rules by allowing aerobatics at 500 ft over a built up area. If the 1,000ft rule had been applied then 12 or more people might still be going about there lives.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

There always tends to be a knee jerk reaction to events like this. I in no way mean to diminish the awful tragedy that has befallen those killed and injured but the fact is that they are the first 'civilians' or spectators killed or injured at a UK air show for 63 years (the DH 110 crash at Farnborough on 6th September 1952, my parents were there).

There have of course been other fatalities over the years but these have been pilots or performers who know, understand and accept the risk.

I have just seen that the final death toll, terrible as it is, looks almost certain to remain at 11 assuming the pilot survives his injuries.

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2015)

stona said:


> There always tends to be a knee jerk reaction to events like this. I in no way mean to diminish the awful tragedy that has befallen those killed and injured but the fact is that they are the first 'civilians' or spectators killed or injured at a UK air show for 63 years (the DH 110 crash at Farnborough on 6th September 1952, my parents were there).
> 
> There have of course been other fatalities over the years but these have been pilots or performers who know, understand and accept the risk.
> 
> ...



Why is it kneejerk. We dont know what happened till the incident is thouroughly investigated till then all precautions should be taken. If a defective electrical product kills someone by electrocution would you carry on using that particular product just because stopping using it would be knee jerk, or would you rather someone investigated it to make sure its safe first. 

I am in favour of airshows they are great fun but Shoreham is possibly the worst place I can think of for an airshow and for them to be breaking the rules which came into force after Farnbrough is proof that the rules were there for a reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

It's knee jerk in respect to measures brought in, albeit maybe temporarily, to govern all air shows.

I don't know whether Shoreham was breaking existing rules or not, I'm sure we'll find out. Grounding other Hunters seems fair enough because you are correct that if my toaster set my kitchen on fire I wouldn't want to use a similar one.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2015)

A few comments here from across the pond...

First off, its silly to even think about grounding all of the civilian Hunters operating in the UK due to this mishap (how many others are there; two, three?)

One question in my mind is why the authorities responsible for establishing the airspace for the this show allowed part of the routine to be accomplished outside the airport environment? Remember the Ramstein air show disaster? Here in the US the airspace where acrobatic performances are accomplished during an airshow is referred to as "the box." The idea is that if a mishap occurs the wreckage of the aircraft will fall away from spectators or the surrounding area. Was this maneuver accomplished within a planned airshow box? 

I've never flown a Hunter, many years ago I did help with a condition inspection on one and from what I remember it didn't have a blazing spool up time, I think the one I worked on had a Sapphire engine. The set up for the inlet guide vanes were prone to "sticking" (from what I was told). Years later the same aircraft crashed at Chino as the pilot who was ferrying it to Texas choose to fly it from Mojave to Chino with possibly sticking IGVs.

As stated, I never flown a Hunter but have done loops in a jet and there is a level of "sink" when coming out of the loop. From the clips I seen the pilot of the Hunter seemed to start off low and get into sink when coming out of the loop (I'm not speculating here, there's months of investigation that needs to be done by folks a lot brighter than I, just my opinion). Maybe some of the other jet jocks on here (and who are a hell of a lot more experienced then I) could give a perspective on this.

My bottom line - airshow performances as such should be in a contained environment away from roads and housing. Grounding all civilian Hunters is just plain silly unless an obvious and potentially dangerous condition is found, and since the Hunter has been around for a number of years, I doubt anyone is going to see something like this emerge...

Just my 2 cents - stay away from the stock market!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 24, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Its a bit crass to be talking in such a way whilst the death toll rises and forensic teams are sifting through the wreckage. People driving home with the shopping or on a club cycle ride should be protected from 10 tons of metal and Kerosene landing on them. If thats a Nanny state I am happy to live here.
> 
> Shoreham was breaking the rules by allowing aerobatics at 500 ft over a built up area. If the 1,000ft rule had been applied then 12 or more people might still be going about there lives.



One of the statements was "banning of vintage jets" well that is a category that needs clear definition because there are commercial passenger jets operating in and out of EU airports that are older than many posters here, some of them come over my house.

As for the rest I will leave it to the enquiry but there is a proposal for all future displays of all vintage aircraft to be held only over the sea.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 24, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just my 2 cents - stay away from the stock market!



I respect the comments FB, there are a huge number of displays in summer many in south east England. Airfields that were in remote county side are now in built up areas. Duxford has displays and its runway has been shortened by the building of a motorway.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 24, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Why is it kneejerk. We dont know what happened till the incident is thouroughly investigated till then all precautions should be taken. If a defective electrical product kills someone by electrocution would you carry on using that particular product just because stopping using it would be knee jerk, or would you rather someone investigated it to make sure its safe first.
> 
> I am in favour of airshows they are great fun but Shoreham is possibly the worst place I can think of for an airshow and for them to be breaking the rules which came into force after Farnbrough is proof that the rules were there for a reason.


I accept your point but have just one point to give pause for thought, why are bars in UK able to advertise "car cark at the rear"?


----------



## Airframes (Aug 24, 2015)

I don't intend to speculate regarding the cause of this incident, but I can't help agreeing with Joe regarding the appearance of the manouver - the Hunter certainly appeared to 'mush', or sink, at the bottom of the loop. 
Now whether this was due to the pilot attempting to pull-up 'harder', or what is sometimes a natural phenomenen at certain angles/speeds in some aircraft, acceptable given enough altitude, or perhaps a sudden loss of power or control surface authority, is something we'll have to wait for the AIB to establish, and it would be wrong for anyone to speculate further.
I wasn't there, so can't comment on the altitude, angle of flight path or entry-point into the climb for the loop, but in the footage I've seen to date, I have to admit that the entry point _appeared_ to be a little low, and all sorts of reasons have come to mind, possibly even an incorrect, or faulty, altimeter setting.
The pilot is very experienced, with many, many hours both on civilian aerobatic aircraft, and on fast jets, being a former RAF Harrier pilot, but errors can happen.
As regards the grounding of other UK-based Hunters (presumably civilian, and not the few still used for specialist duties in the RAF), although perhaps harsh, I can understand the logic, even if I don't particularly agree, and I hope (and believe), that this will be a temporary ban, and that it will be lifted as soon as possible if it transpires that there is no structural or mechanical issue which could be present in other airframes/engines.
The part which is possibly not so good is the total revision of airshows, and the ban on 'high energy' manouvers, which I sincerely hope does _not _extend beyond the 'vintage jet' category.
I used to work as volunteer fire crew at my local airfield and airshow, and the airfield was on the edge of a built-up area, not dissimilar to the layout at Shoreham, with open land only to the north of the display axis, which was the direction the crowd-line faced.
Until the Ramstein incident, the display axis location followed the center-line of the active dispaly runway, which was also the most northerly. Following the rulings established after the Ramstein crash, the axis was moved further out, to the north, which allowed entry into the 'Box' mentioned by Joe, and exit from it, clear of obstructions and built-up areas at both ends of the axis.
We had a few accidents over the years, just as other airshows had, but only two of these resulted in total loss and fatalities, with the aircraft involved coming down in the open area, well away from the airshow crowd, and clear of the built-up areas and the Motorway, the latter being north of the field.
Ironically, in normal daily use, that particular runway is in direct line with a small block of apartments, and on at least one or two occasions, light aircraft either overshooting or experiencing problems on take off, ended up very close, or virtually up against, the building !
These incidents didn't even cause an outcry from local residents, let alone reach the 'sensation desk' of the Press.
As has been mentioned, many airfields in the UK which are the venue for airshows, were built, and have operated, long before the expansion of built-up areas, and continue to fulfill the CAA requirements, Duxford being a prime example, and these currently operate daily , without problems, and without anyone even giving a though to any possibility of an aircraft crashing onto a road or buildings.
But when an accident _does_ occur, particularly during a 'high-visibility' event such as an airshow, is when the outcry starts, and though I hold the deepest sympathy for the victims and fanilies of this latest tragedy, and pray that the pilot pulls through, I sincerely hope that this latest tragic accident, coupled with the one in Switzerland and the crash of the Gnat near Oulton Park a few weeks ago, does not have serious, restrictive repercussions on the UK airshow 'scene' and aviation in general.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 25, 2015)




----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 26, 2015)

shoreham crash 










I was never going to post on the forum again, the last time I posted a comment, I was banned by someone of authority, even though my comments proved to proved correct. As a retired aeronautical engineer and accident investigator, I submit some actual facts that clear up some important facts.
I read the posts and re the crash at Shoreham and a couple of things come up that need to be cleared up I feel without speculating the cause or end result of this terrible accident.

1. The power plant of the aircraft, the T7 which this aircraft was converted to in 1959(or thereabouts) from a F4 hunter, is powered by an upgraded model Avon engine, not the Sapphire. In fact quite a few Hunters had the Sapphire and most of those in civilian hands have under the wisdom of there owners converted to the Avon power plants.

2. The aircraft was flying "towards the airport" when the accident happened, not away from air show.A question does arise however, why did the loop begin and end completely outside the airport boundaries?; and not even near air show centre. It does appear from the tracking provides that the aircraft turned for line up on the air show display centreline which is the runway prior to going into the loop, into the "Box", not away from it. Also the aircraft at no time flew over a built up area.





3. A series of high speed photo's captured prior to crash and during the loop show some interest.(The British Aviation inspection Board have these photo's) The first series show the aircraft during its loop, which appears uneventful except for the flaps being deployed. The Hunter flight manual does stipulate that flaps be deployed with full fuel in the pontoons to 23 degrees at speed below 200knots, to lower the nose because the full pontoons move the C of G aft. However personally I doubt for aerobatics, the pontoons had any fuel on board.










3A. The second series of high speed photos show the final seconds of flight past a specific point, a tree arrowed. You can see in an alarming short distance the aircraft travelled in a forward distance, the rate of sink is large.










Looking at this information, I wonder two points which I am not speculating but address with professional enquiry. For some reason, did the flaps deploy causing a rapid nose down affect which the pilot countered with pulling back the stick, initiating the loop. The loop being out of character and being initiated very low(even Captain Eric Brown who was at the air show has made a similar comment), Did this rapid pull up causing a blackout which unfortunately there was no recovery?. My sincere condolences to all those affected by this terrible tragedy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

Interesting stuff WW2 restorer


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2015)

ww2restorer said:


> The first series show the aircraft during its loop, which appears uneventful except for the flaps being deployed.



I have read elsewhere, from someone who knows, that this is normal procedure.

If it isn't I'm sure we'll find out when the inquiries are completed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 27, 2015)

Quite correct, it is normal procedure for flight below 200kts, However the entry speed for the loop is higher.
BTW, I am someone who knows also, having flown the aircraft. As you also state, the AIB will inform us to their findings.
Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Aug 27, 2015)

For what it's worth, there was an interview on BBC News, with an experienced pilot who was there. He watched the aircraft closely, and got the impression that, not only was it low, and _possibly_ outside the 'Box' at the start, but seemed to lack power, particularly during the recovery at the base of the loop, and that the pilot perhaps realised there was a problem, and attempted to recover and/ or put it down away from the airshow crowds. 
As mentioned, hopefully the AIB investigation will revel the cause in the fullness of time.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 31, 2015)

Photoshopped the three images together to better illustrate -


----------



## CommanderBounds (Aug 31, 2015)

Here's another pic I found of it's final moments. I give my condolences to all of those affected by this crash.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 31, 2015)

ww2restorer said:


> Quite correct, it is normal procedure for flight below 200kts, However the entry speed for the loop is higher.
> BTW, I am someone who knows also, having flown the aircraft. As you also state, the AIB will inform us to their findings.
> Cheers.



Whats the entry speed? Flaps will retract under air loads above 350kts according to the manual.


----------



## ww2restorer (Sep 1, 2015)

Entry speed is 425knots


----------



## Airframes (Sep 4, 2015)

Latest news from the AIB, shown on BBC internet News at approximately 17.00 hrs (UK time), states that preliminary examination has not revealed any fault with the aircraft, and cockpit camera footage shows the aircraft responding correctly to pilot input.
The AIB are to use telemetry methods to study high resolution video footage.
The pilot was apparently thrown clear of the aircraft, and the canopy was detached, but it is not known at this time if the pilot initiated ejection, or if the seat and canopy became detached as a result of the impact.


----------



## ww2restorer (Sep 4, 2015)

Here is the report as released by AAIB
View attachment S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf


----------



## Airframes (Sep 4, 2015)

Thanks for that.


----------



## stona (Jan 15, 2016)

Update. Latest bulletin which contains some bad news re: ejection seats, which must be working on this type of aircraft and are no longer supported by the manufacturer.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5677d6bfed915d144f000000/S4-2015_G-BXFI.pdf

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jan 15, 2016)

BBC News a couple of weeks ago, stated the ejector seat explosive charges were out of date, and that the service manual was also out of date (no longer supported), although servicing itself was current.
Although neither of these two 'errors' would directly effect the crash, it is indeed bad news, in so much as the 'media' could (will?) make a meal out of it.
EDIT:- Just re-read the whole AAIB report, and it could very well be bad news, if the situation regarding live/deactivated ejection seats/canopy mdc's etc is not resolved. It could possibly lead to the grounding of all civilian-owned/operated swept-wing jets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2016)

Good info guys. A major issue with jet warbirds is the function of the ejection seats. Many operators want to keep them functional but in doing so all the carts must be maintained and current. Depending on the seat, you may not be able to have carts made. I think Martin Baker recently announced they will not support civilian operated seats due to liability. Many L29 and L39 operators choose to deactivate the seats, sometimes you're better off just doing a forced landing rather than trying to depart a jet with an ejection seat. I know some operators who will deactivate their seats for FAA inspections and later reactivate them covertly.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good info guys. A major issue with jet warbirds is the function of the ejection seats. Many operators want to keep them functional but in doing so all the carts must be maintained and current. Depending on the seat, you may not be able to have carts made. I think Martin Baker recently announced they will not support civilian operated seats due to liability. Many L29 and L39 operators choose to deactivate the seats, sometimes you're better off just doing a forced landing rather than trying to depart a jet with an ejection seat. I know some operators who will deactivate their seats for FAA inspections and later reactivate them covertly.



The problem for civilian operators of swept wing jets in the UK is the requirement for an ejection seat to be operational. If it is deactivated the aircraft would not meet the conditions of its permit to fly.






With the seats no longer supported by the manufacturer it is difficult to see hoe operators can meet this condition. Either the CAA will have to alter the conditions for the permit or the aircraft won't fly.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jan 17, 2016)

Yep.
'Straight' wing jets in the UK, such as the Jet Provost, fly with de-activated seats. A few years ago, a civilian owned and operated JP 'lost' a seat and passenger whilst inverted !
The seat didn't 'fire', but the drogue activated, opening the main canopy and separating the passenger from the seat. He subsequently landed on the roof of a filling station canopy, and the aircraft landed safely at its home base.
Whilst the CAA/AAIB put forward reasons why 'straight' wing jets can fly without live seats, I agree with Steve - either amend the rules, or all 'civilian' swept wing jets in the UK will be grounded - and this could include non-military, but government establishment or manufacturer's aircraft, if taken to the letter of the rules !!


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2016)

It's an odd division between straight and fixed wing. Jet Provost T MK5A, G-BYED had an engine failure in 2001 and made a forced landing on mud flats in the Loch Foyle estuary. The AAIB's own report says:

_"The pilot transmitted a mayday call to the tower, retracted the flaps and without an active ejector seat had no 
option but to select a suitable area on which to carry out a forced landing."_

That's fine if there is a suitable site to land, lucky he wasn't flying over mountainous terrain for example.

That other incident, when the passenger, who was the pilot's brother, inadvertently left the aircraft was in 1994. The aircraft was a Jet Provost T3A, G-BVEG.
Here's the relevant part of the AIIB report on this incident.






The seat fell out of the aircraft because the leg restraint straps, no longer necessary on a de-activated seat, had fallen into a position where they obstructed the proper latching of the seat to its supports. There was also some damage to the 'top latch plunger' probably caused by the use of inappropriate tools.
The reason the poor chap couldn't breath on the way down was because he had not correctly fitted his parachute harness. Under the canopy he was restrained by the waist and lap straps which rode up his body under his arm pits! The pressure on his throat was from the harness quick release box! It could have been a lot worse.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jan 17, 2016)

Thanks for that Steve. I hadn't realised that it was so long ago. 
Strange that the report states he landed in long grass, as I distinctly remember seeing a photo of the parachute harness and canopy on the roof of the petrol station forecourt canopy, and the news article at the time described the landing on the canopy roof.
I'm wondering if this was a separate incident (bit of a coincidence if it is !), as I'm fairly sure I saw the incident I refer to on the Internet News, and I've only had Internet connection since August 2008.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2016)

Steve, the way I read that Special AAIB, it is "recommended" the seats be functional. This is plain silly. IMO if the operator wishes not to have an ejection seat operational, then the CAB should limit areas of operation. It's obvious the ones who wrote this know little about turbine powered civilian warbirds~!


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Steve, the way I read that Special AAIB, it is "recommended" the seats be functional. This is plain silly. IMO if the operator wishes not to have an ejection seat operational, then the CAB should limit areas of operation. It's obvious the ones who wrote this know little about turbine powered civilian warbirds~!



I think the phrase,

_"It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational."_

Is the one that will lead to this type of aircraft being grounded, unless a change is made. If the seats are not supported by the manufacturer then the operators will not be able to comply with the requirement. 'Unlikely' doesn't mean 'Not', but in the context of official CAA speak it's pretty close.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jan 17, 2016)

The workings of the UK's CAA are comparable only to the workings of a woman's brain.......... and none of us here can work _that _one out !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 2, 2016)

More information.

ITV News exclusive: Shoreham air crash pilot 'involved in second incident'


----------



## Airframes (Feb 9, 2016)

Looks like the 'knock on effect' has started.
Got an e-mail from Little Gransden Air Show, asking me to sign a petition against CAA changes to airshows in the UK.
Apart from some restrictions on displays (which I haven't fully read yet), charges for displays are set to increase, and this has already lead to show cancellations, one of which is the Sywell air show.
Could be bad news, particularly for organisers of smaller air displays.


----------



## Wayne Little (Feb 10, 2016)

Bummer....


----------



## stona (Feb 10, 2016)

The financial implications for smaller air shows in particular may be the most damaging, many simply won't happen.

CAA Airshow Charges Consultation 2016: Cause & effect in overview

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 10, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> More information.
> 
> ITV News exclusive: Shoreham air crash pilot 'involved in second incident'


Looks more like the CAA need to review how they authorise pilots for display flying.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 14, 2016)

I'm puzzled; how does increasing airshow operator's fees increase safety at the venue on the day? Increased CAA presence at flying displays is understandable; I worked at an airshow in the UK the week after the Biggin Hill crashes a number of years ago and we had a CAA guy in the tower keeping an eye on things; he grounded the Utterly Butterly Barnstormers for flying over the crowd line, but increasing fees by 100 percent? It would be better for event organisers if they could use that money to implement better safety at ground level on the day, not sending it to the CAA. Perhaps the CAA could send a rep to investigate each venue and make recommendations, which would be infinitely more useful to organisers and pilots, rather than making it more difficult for airshows to be held. Or is that the point?


----------



## Airframes (Feb 14, 2016)

Grant, I have a feeling your last sentence might be _very_ close to the truth !
It's some years now since I was involved directly with General Aviation, and air show participation, but even back then, it seemed that CAA stood for 'Civil Aviation Abolishment', as they appeared to make things more and more difficult for private operators, airshow organisers and participants, and made even the simplest pamphlet (CAP) as complicated as possible.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 14, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> Perhaps the CAA could send a rep to investigate each venue and make recommendations, which would be infinitely more useful to organisers and pilots, rather than making it more difficult for airshows to be held. Or is that the point?


That is likely to be even more expensive, unfortunately - CAAUK have people working for them that have no idea about aviation.

Much better to get the regulator completely out of the airshow picture, like we can do here. The more I read/hear stories like this, the more I appreciate our regulator (not that they don't have their own issues).


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 14, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Much better to get the regulator completely out of the airshow picture, like we can do here. The more I read/hear stories like this, the more I appreciate our regulator (not that they don't have their own issues).



Yes indeed. I feel that (like a lot of things in this country) we don't really appreciate how fortunate we are by comparison to other countries. That's not going to happen in the UK though; the sheer scale of air events precludes it; we have nothing like the number of organisations wishing to hold airshows and fly-ins.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 20, 2016)

Compared to Aus the UKCAA are positively helpful and intelligent and the UK closely follow ICAO recommendations. Then again UKCAA do not believe in fairy tales like "Qantas has never had an accident"

OF MORE IMPORTANCE the first regulatory outcome caused the Shoreham accident is now available at 
Proposed MPD 16-01 R1: Turbine Engines -Rolls-Royce Avon, Viper, Orpheus, Derwent and Nene series, de Havilland Goblin and Ghost series, Motorlet M701 series and Ivchenko AI-25 series: Engine Fuel System – Ageing Effects. 
Due to its short life (ends on 29 Feb) I have attached it

For this particular item they do say _"While not being considered a factor in the accident, the deterioration observed has been attributed by the manufacturer to ageing, chemical attack and air exposure."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> Compared to Aus the UKCAA are positively helpful and intelligent and the UK closely follow ICAO recommendations. Then again UKCAA do not believe in fairy tales like "Qantas has never had an accident"
> 
> OF MORE IMPORTANCE the first regulatory outcome caused the Shoreham accident is now available at
> Proposed MPD 16-01 R1: Turbine Engines -Rolls-Royce Avon, Viper, Orpheus, Derwent and Nene series, de Havilland Goblin and Ghost series, Motorlet M701 series and Ivchenko AI-25 series: Engine Fuel System – Ageing Effects.
> ...


I opened up the document and read this proposal, it makes no sense as all of these engines are different and their fuel control units function differently. I've never seen an M701 fail because of rubber failing in the FCU and I've been working on L29s for about 15 years. Why didn't they list other older turbine engines for that matter?


----------



## stona (Feb 21, 2016)

This is a proposed MPD. The engine types listed are those that the CAA deems potentially liable to degradation of 'rubber' parts in the fuel system/fuel pump. There is no suggestion that any of these engines have failed, yet, due to this issue.
I would imagine that all the types listed are operated in the UK under CAA regulations. 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2016)

stona said:


> This is a proposed MPD. The engine types listed are those that the CAA deems potentially liable to degradation of 'rubber' parts in the fuel system/fuel pump. There is no suggestion that any of these engines have failed, yet, due to this issue.
> I would imagine that all the types listed are operated in the UK under CAA regulations.
> Cheers
> Steve


I understand that but without examining the FCU and the type of rubber used (if any), this is pretty baseless. Some Eastern European manufacturers do not provide a life limit on rubber based components and many times you would change a rubber seal "on condition."


----------



## ww2restorer (Feb 21, 2016)

It appears that the UKCAA is clutching at straws to reach a solution in this accident. The first report centered on Ejection seats and requiring more rigid inspection/documentation on cartridge life. This latest report proposes inspection/ life limiting FCUs and increased inspections for turbojet engines that have been preserved or in storage. 
None of these requirements have any connection to, nor determined to be a cause of the accident. Is the UKCAA going back to the anti aviation mindset that killed the British aviation industry. Next thing we will see is the UKCAA requiring such requirements for piston powered aircraft that have FCUs and ejection seats. What will their requirement be for a person wanting to operate a T37 (pop up extraction seat) in the UK or an aircraft that has a pneumatic ejection system. Personally i feel they need to take a step back and return to the accident and look more in depth for the reason and make recommendations based on those facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 25, 2016)

I'm not privy to the internal workings of this investigation, but as far as I know no causal problem with the Hunter involved has been found. Obviously some concerns have been raised about fuel pump components and out of date cartridges in the ejection system, none of which seems unreasonable to me, though neither caused this accident. It is not the CAA's fault that the ejector seat manufacturer has decided not to support some older systems anymore. The requirement for such systems to be operational on certain types of aircraft is not new, nor is it related to this accident.
The CAA's responsibility is the regulation of flying in the UK to prevent further accidents and, as in this case, tragic deaths, not to apportion blame.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 25, 2016)

Sometimes during the course of an investigation you uncover things unrelated to the incident under investigation that, none-the-less require attention. Doesn't mean that they caused the crash (in fact they specifically point out that it didn't contribute), just that there is an issue that the CAA believes needs resolving.

The ejection seat issue is, IMO really a non-event - just disable the system, as we have done to aircraft here in NZ. The only increased risk in this is to the pilot, and they have enough knowledge to accept the risk. As for the rubber seals - I don't really know enough to comment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 26, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> The ejection seat issue is, IMO really a non-event - just disable the system, as we have done to aircraft here in NZ. The only increased risk in this is to the pilot, and they have enough knowledge to accept the risk. As for the rubber seals - I don't really know enough to comment.



Agree. The thing about seals and O rings is that there are modern synthetic alternatives available within the aviation industry that could negate any potential issues. We carry out inspections on components based on schedules of maintenance that cover such things. The biggest limitation for the operators in that case would be cost and whether manufacturer or representative support for the installation of alternative o rings in fuel and hydraulic lines, but it's doable. Every manufacturer defers to operator experience when continuing to support aircraft and operators can make recommendations to manufacturers to implement alternative practices to what's stated in the manuals if the correct amount of evidence and support can be provided for it. Happens all the time in the airline industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 26, 2016)

All cases are different, but the CAA seems to consider that the ejection system, as fitted in the original design of a swept wing aircraft, is the only safe way of abandoning such an aircraft in flight. If it can be shown that the aircraft can safely be abandoned by other means then the CAA would be obliged to examine such evidence.

The fact that other authorities are prepared to allow such aircraft types to fly with non operational safety systems would be (and should be) irrelevant to the UK CAA.

Here the CAA refused to issue an ex RAF E.E. Lightning with a permit to fly to fly. The UK CAA considered that _"in service accident data of the English Electric Lightning type of aircraft demonstrated a safety record which is considerably worse than other similar ex-military aircraft issued with a permit to fly in the UK'._
The UK CAA was also aware that the same owner had previously registered two Hawker Hunters, a Blackburn Buccaneer and an English Electric Canberra, all imported to South Africa and that all three types had subsequently been involved in accidents.

The Lightning was eventually shipped to South Africa and allowed to fly there, operated by Thunder City (SA registration ZU-BEX) with fatal consequences for the pilot. The SA CAA report into the accident makes for very uncomfortable reading.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2016)

stona said:


> All cases are different, but the CAA seems to consider that the ejection system, as fitted in the original design of a swept wing aircraft, is the only safe way of abandoning such an aircraft in flight. If it can be shown that the aircraft can safely be abandoned by other means then the CAA would be obliged to examine such evidence.


The fact that an aircraft has swept wings is irrelevant and I think that people think that the swept wings carry some ejection seat mandate. It's all about speed and altitude. I flown in L29s, 39s Fougas, T-33s and F-4s and the only one of the bunch I would ever think of punching out of was the F-4 as all the carts were current and the seat was maintained by trained personnel, beside the thing landed at 175 knots!


stona said:


> The fact that other authorities are prepared to allow such aircraft types to fly with non operational safety systems would be (and should be) irrelevant to the UK CAA.


Agree, but one should look where and how the aircraft is being operated. I worked for a company that had operational F-4s. We has operational pylons that could drop expendable fuel tanks as well as bombs. We had to disable the system when operating within 30 miles of Los Angeles airspace. Up in the desert and around Mojave we just about did as we wanted within the parameters of our "operation limitations," a document issued by the FAA.


stona said:


> Here the CAA refused to issue an ex RAF E.E. Lightning with a permit to fly to fly. The UK CAA considered that _"in service accident data of the English Electric Lightning type of aircraft demonstrated a safety record which is considerably worse than other similar ex-military aircraft issued with a permit to fly in the UK'._
> The UK CAA was also aware that the same owner had previously registered two Hawker Hunters, a Blackburn Buccaneer and an English Electric Canberra, all imported to South Africa and that all three types had subsequently been involved in accidents.
> 
> The Lightning was eventually shipped to South Africa and allowed to fly there, operated by Thunder City (SA registration ZU-BEX) with fatal consequences for the pilot. The SA CAA report into the accident makes for very uncomfortable reading.
> ...




Here's the accident report from that crash - there were a number of flags that should have alerted the pilot not to fly the aircraft. Air regulatory agencies can do their part to protect the aviation and general public, but they can't regulate common sense and poor decision making.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi-5qKp4pXLAhUS4mMKHXo6BxQQFggcMAA&url=http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20Incidents%20Reports/8706.pdf&usg=AFQjCNElGgf6snorjTOBt2ZBVD0_qp7dbg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc


----------



## stona (Feb 26, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The fact that an aircraft has swept wings is irrelevant and I think that people think that the swept wings carry some ejection seat mandate.



Well, they do under CAA regulations which refer specifically to swept wing ex-military aircraft. A permit to fly will not normally be issued for an aircraft with swept wings, fitted with and ejection system which is inoperative.







Once again, if the operators or other experts think that they can argue a case for a change in this requirement they need to do so with the CAA. If not then these types of aircraft may well find themselves grounded.
None of this is new and none of it is a result of the accident involving the Hunter at Shoreham. Until now, and the announcement that Martin Baker are no longer going to support these older seats, there has never been a problem with these regulations.

It's worth noting that had the South African Lightning's ejection system worked when required (the pilot did attempt to eject) he may very well have survived.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2016)

stona said:


> Well, they do under CAA regulations which refer specifically to swept wing ex-military aircraft. A permit to fly will not normally be issued for an aircraft with swept wings, fitted with and ejection system which is inoperative.



And again to my original point - the folks in the CAA who wrote that really don't know what they are talking about, but the same ignorance could be found in many civil aviation authorities.









stona said:


> Once again, if the operators or other experts think that they can argue a case for a change in this requirement they need to do so with the CAA. If not then these types of aircraft may well find themselves grounded.
> None of this is new and none of it is a result of the accident involving the Hunter at Shoreham. Until now, and the announcement that Martin Baker are no longer going to support these older seats, there has never been a problem with these regulations.


Here in the US we have an organization called the Classic Jet Aircraft Association (CJAA) that does just that. Many operators don't mind compliance, but what's frustrating is dealing with an errored regulation or a civil servant that does not understand the system they are supposed to be regulating


stona said:


> It's worth noting that had the South African Lightning's ejection system worked when required (the pilot did attempt to eject) he may very well have survived.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Ejection seats don't always mean you're going to live, especially when operated by civilians. The last time I looked at civilian jet warbird ejection seat survival, the numbers weren't that favorable for a number of reasons. I could tell you in aircraft like a Fouga, T-33 or an L29, unless you shed a wing, you're probably better off staying with the aircraft and completing a forced landing. At the same time many of these types of trainers are easy to egress from with out making one's self a human rocket.


----------



## stona (Feb 26, 2016)

Ejection was pretty much SOP for the Lightening in RAF service for a variety of reasons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2016)

stona said:


> Ejection was pretty much SOP for the Lightening in RAF service for a variety of reasons.


And it would be for military operators with fit, trained pilots in highly maintained aircraft and egress systems.


----------



## stona (Feb 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And it would be for military operators with fit, trained pilots in highly maintained aircraft and egress systems.



The belly of the Lightning was basically a 2,000lb fuel tank. The handbook doesn't mention a wheels up landing as an option.

A forced or crash landing is only an option when control of the aircraft is maintained, otherwise it is going to be abandoned in the air or the pilot dies (as in the case of ZU-BEX). He might die or be injured in an ejection but he will almost certainly die in an uncontrolled collision with terrain. It's a matter of odds.

Why the CAA considers ejection the safest way of abandoning a swept wing ex-military aircraft I don't know. I don't make the rules.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2016)

stona said:


> Why the CAA considers ejection the safest way of abandoning a swept wing ex-military aircraft I don't know. I don't make the rules.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



If you did you'd probably have a better insight than some of those making the rules!


----------



## Airframes (Feb 27, 2016)

Maybe the UK CAA should have an introductory note in their books of rules, which reads "Rules are for the _obedience_ of fools, and the _guidance _of wise men" !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 28, 2016)

stona said:


> All cases are different, but the CAA seems to consider that the ejection system, as fitted in the original design of a swept wing aircraft, is the only safe way of abandoning such an aircraft in flight. If it can be shown that the aircraft can safely be abandoned by other means then the CAA would be obliged to examine such evidence.
> 
> The fact that other authorities are prepared to allow such aircraft types to fly with non operational safety systems would be (and should be) irrelevant to the UK CAA.



And this is the problem I've had with dealing with the CAAUK. They have a set of rules, and won't vary from it. With the ejection seat issue, the only risk is to the pilot, someone who can make an informed decision as to whether they are willing to fly the aircraft or not. The ejection seat, or lack thereof does not alter the risk to the general public.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you did you'd probably have a better insight than some of those making the rules!


The problem is, they have university graduates working for them who have no aviation experience - mostly they are life-long public 'servants'.

Wo once had a warbird aircraft denied a UK Permit to Fly because they deemed it to be a new aircraft because they estimated more than 51% of it had been replaced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 28, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> The problem is, they have university graduates working for them who have no aviation experience - mostly they are life-long public 'servants'.



On the board alone.

Mark Swan.
Appointed to the Board as Group Director Airspace Policy in March 2008, Mark previously held numerous appointments in the Royal Air Force since joining as a pilot in 1979, and he was formerly Director of Operational Capability for the Ministry of Defence from 2006 to 2008. In July 2013 he was charged with merging the Airspace and Safety groups and re-structuring the combined group to focus on performance-based regulation. He is currently Director Safety and Airspace Regulation.

David King.
Appointed to the Board as a Non-Executive Member of the Board on 1 September 2013. David serves as a member of the Audit Committee and Nomination Committee. David also serves as Chairman of the Board Safety Review Committee for Cathay Pacific Airways and is a visiting Professor at Cranfield University. He was formerly the Chief Inspector of the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) where he was responsible for hundreds of investigations, many involving large public transport aircraft.

Richard Knighton.
AVM Knighton was appointed as a Non-Executive Member of the Board in January 2015. As Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, AVM Knighton is a member of the Air Force Board and is the policy and strategy lead for the Royal Air Force within the MOD. His breadth of responsibility includes the development of policy for the UK Military Low Flying System, the development of MOD policy for the continued use of Joint and Integrated UK Airspace and also the Release to Service Authority for dealing with specific aspects of airworthiness for UK Military aircraft.

Peter Drissell.
Peter was appointed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as its first Director of Aviation Security in 2013 and led the transition of operational aviation security functions from the Department for Transport (DfT) to the CAA on 1st April 2014. In February 2015, he took on the additional role of Director CAA Transformation Programme. Prior to his appointment, Peter was Director of Security & Business Continuity for the Home Office. He was also the Home Office HR Diversity Champion. Prior to this, Peter had served for 32 years in the Royal Air Force from which he retired as an Air Commodore in April 2007. In his military career, Peter served in a number of operational and staff appointments within the UK and overseas. After a year serving as Provost Marshal for the RAF, his last appointment combined the roles of Commandant General of the Royal Air Force Regiment and Air Officer RAF Police. Until 2014, Peter was a Director of Plan UK, an international children’s charity, a position he had held for some 10 years, and until 2014 had been a trustee of the City and Guilds; he remains on the governing council of that organisation.

All information in the public domain.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 28, 2016)

That's the Board - when I dealt with a fresh uni graduate whose only recourse was to quote the rules, and whose manager could only quote the same, there was an obvious lack of fresh insight and willingness to solve problems.
Contrast that with CAANZ's reaction, which was to immediately put the aircraft back on the NZ register, and they had a CAA rep in the UK at the time on another job who had a look at the aircraft to ensure that nothing had changed, and it was flying within a week on the NZ register. So how did the CAAUK's position change safety for anyone?

Three out of four of those on the board are ex-RAF, and don't look to have any commercial experience at all - doesn't bode well for 'out-of-the-box' thinking, which is what it takes to surmount issues like this.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 5, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Three out of four of those on the board are ex-RAF, and don't look to have any commercial experience at all - doesn't bode well for 'out-of-the-box' thinking, which is what it takes to surmount issues like this.



Ex RAF is better than ex-RAAF (Real Amateur Air Force)

About 30 years ago I had an ex-RAAF CASA (Australia has to be different and have CASA not CAA) operations idjit tell me that only RAAF aircrew should be allowed to fly the Wirraway and Hudson.

My answer, "_that lot are trained to abandon the aircraft the instant it has a problem, but the airline pilots that fly those aircraft are trained to get both the aircraft and its passengers on to the ground safely_" was not appreciated.

Later when going through the very painful process to get the first MiG on the Aus register the ex-RAAF noddy in charge of ops said he would never allow any MiG on the register because of its high approach speed. I pointed out that the American flight manual for the type gave an approach speed lower than a Piper Comanche 400 so he would have to deregister them and an number of other aircraft. He said that was bull but Australia's top warbird pilot of the day (Jack Mac) said the manual was right. He then did the usual "_only RAAF pilots"_ crap and Jack shot him down. 

He then tried the how are you going to keep the ejection seat serviceable line. Jacks answer was that the bang seat MUST be made inert otherwise it encourages cowboys to push aircraft to the limit at airshows and then, when it bites, the cowboy will punch out leaving the aircraft to crash into the crowd. End of that discussion. 

(After the meeting a retired Polish Air Force ground crew member who was translating and advising said at least 50% of all MiG 15/17 ejections resulted in the pilots loosing both arms as they ejected because they forgot the correct ejection sequence. He had previously pointed to repairs on one of the aircraft in the hangar that showed it had been successfully belly landed.)

The RAAF/CASA idjit then claimed that the engine was dangerous and prone to blowing up in flight. My answer was that engine had a 2000 TBO in the USA with at least two operators (in Chino and Reno). His answer was the Yanks have much lower standards than Australia. I pointed to the row of Cessna 412 ambulance aircraft sitting outside and said the Americans require those engines to be overhauled at 1400 hours and Australia lets them run to 2800. He had no answer to that but continued to obstruct at every turn for months.

Eventually we beat him when the owner got a far more senior CASA ops person from another state as test pilot. On the test flight that pilot insisted on a discrete radio channel and open mike, just in case. His first words after calling rotation was "1.6 miles DME hands off". His grin on the ground after the flight made a Cheshire cat look positively gloomy

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 5, 2016)

http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/join...lots-and-the-british-air-display-association/



> By way of example, last month’s regular pre-season BADA symposium, an event attended by over 350 military and civilian air show organisers and pilots, was addressed by a CAA representative with little or no understanding of aviation matters who had most recently served as a Civil Servant with the NHS.



I stand by my statement...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 6, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> Ex RAF is better than ex-RAAF (Real Amateur Air Force)
> 
> About 30 years ago I had an ex-RAAF CASA (Australia has to be different and have CASA not CAA) operations idjit tell me that only RAAF aircrew should be allowed to fly the Wirraway and Hudson.
> 
> ...




In my experience, CASA is a close second to CAAUK!

Tok Pidgin?


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 18, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Tok Pidgin?



Em nau, liklik tasol


----------



## stona (Mar 3, 2017)

The AAIB report on this accident has been released.

Aircraft Accident Report AAR 1/2017 - G-BXFI, 22 August 2015 Air Accidents Investigation Branch report - GOV.UK

I haven't read all 450+ pages yet, but the conclusions are not particularly good for anyone involved in the air show, from organisers to the pilot.

Read the report and draw your own conclusions.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2017)

I have read the entire report and in some detail.
I am not qualified to comment on the multitude of data and conclusions drawn, affecting just about everyone involved in the Shoreham display. But the reason that the Hunter crashed onto the road is best described in point #23 of the conclusions.

_"23. The pilot stated that he would abandon a ‘bent loop’ manoeuvre if the minimum entry speed, or the minimum gate height at the apex, were not achieved. He did not abandon the accident manoeuvre when these minimums were not achieved."
_
Illustration of the 'bent loop' accident manoeuvre on page 10.

Why bad decisions were made at those 'safety gates' and why the parameters for a safe manoeuvre were not met is the subject of hundreds of pages and much debate. For those who can't be arsed to plough through the entire report, pages 196 through 204 summarise the conclusions.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 9, 2017)

I'll have to have a read through if I can make some time. Thanks for the link


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 11, 2019)

The legal prosecution has come to an end. Pilot was found not guilty.


----------



## stona (Mar 12, 2019)

That's the end of any criminal proceedings. Manslaughter in English law quite rightly sets a very high bar for the prosecution and the jury obviously did not feel it was met. I still think Hill has been a bit fortunate, but what I think doesn't matter.

There are still some options open to the families of those killed, we'll see what happens.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 12, 2019)

stona said:


> That's the end of any criminal proceedings. Manslaughter in English law quite rightly sets a very high bar for the prosecution and the jury obviously did not feel it was met. I still think Hill has been a bit fortunate, but what I think doesn't matter.


Yeah, me too. To be honest, with what I know about the case I thought he wasn't going to be so lucky.


----------



## gumbyk (Dec 4, 2019)

I just got this message through - the pilot has been acquitted of manslaughter:

*



Hawker Hunter Pilot Acquitted Of Manslaughter In Shoreham Airshow Accident
Andrew Hill Found Not Guilty On All Counts

Click to expand...

*


> A former RAF pilot who was flying a Hawker Hunter aircraft during the 2015 Shoreham Airshow which went down during a maneuver and went up in a fireball on a highway has been acquitted by a jury on charges of manslaughter by gross negligence.
> ​The newspaper Stock Daily Dish reports that Andrew Hill had been charged in the deaths of 11 people when his plane went down on a highway near the airport. Several others on the ground were injured. Hill was also seriously injured, but miraculously survived when he was ejected from the airplane during the accident sequence.
> Hill's attorney, Karim Khailil QC, said the pilot suffered from "cognitive impairment" possibly caused by hypoxia due to high G-forces experienced during the maneuver ... a "bent loop" ... which led to the accident. Hill was placed in an induced coma after the accident, and he told the court that he had no memory of the three days that preceded the accident. He said he has spent the last three years "trying to resolve what happened."
> Britain's AAIB determined that the cause of the accident was "pilot error". They said the plane was too low when he began the loop maneuver.
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2020)

BAHIRA said:


> they know what they are talking about. Early reports said the pilot had been pulled out of the wreckage and the plane was resting under a bush then there was no word then there are cars involved and so on and on.


Well he hit a motorway, reports of deaths on the road came later, I was incredulous that the pilot had survived, its the first time I remember a pilot surviving a fireball crash in a jet aircraft.


----------

