Hunter crashes at shoreham airshow
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
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.
BTW, I am someone who knows also, having flown the aircraft. As you also state, the AIB will inform us to their findings.
Cheers.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
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.
As mentioned, hopefully the AIB investigation will revel the cause in the fullness of time.
CommanderBounds
Airman 1st Class
Here's another pic I found of it's final moments. I give my condolences to all of those affected by this crash.
Whats the entry speed? Flaps will retract under air loads above 350kts according to the manual.
ww2restorer
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
Entry speed is 425knots
Last edited:
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
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.
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
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
Here is the report as released by AAIB
View attachment S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
View attachment S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Thanks for that.
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
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5677d6bfed915d144f000000/S4-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
Cheers
Steve
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
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.
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Benevolens Magister
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 !!
'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 !!
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
"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
Benevolens Magister
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.
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
