Sussex Airshow Crash

[photofly]

Did somebody really call the Sussex Police "Bobbies"? Lawks'a'mercy.

[oldyellr]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

What kind of air shows do they run over there anyway? And have the police even spoken to the pilot after 6 months?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... plans.html

[GyvAir]

And have the police even spoken to the pilot after 6 months?

Your own post from 3 months ago has this link in it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... -Hill.html


Inquest scheduled for June?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 50151.html

[cgzro]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

Here the organizers don't have to be aware of the exact details of any given routine because they don't actually regulate the flying, they simply need proof that you are qualified. The AirBoss and organizers may want to know duration and some details but its TC not the organizers that are aware and approve the heights/distances etc. I don't know what happens in the UK but I imagine there is something similar in place so I would not read too much into that statement.

From the graphics I have seen it would appear likely that a jet aerobatic act would not have been permitted if this venue was in North America because of the size of the aerobatic box.

Likely true of a civilian jet aerobatic act... The military however and to the best of my knowledge in both the US and Canada can do what they want and are not regulated by the airshow organizers FAA or TC and therefore set their own safety standards.

Nobody wants to die and nobody wants to kill people but unfortunately aerobatics is insanely expensive (100's of thousands to get good) and warbird/jet aerobatics astronomically so, as a result usually only the military can generate sufficient practice to produce a highly competent young pilot/athlete. The alternative is you need very deep pockets and those usually only come when you are north of 40 or 50 and we are nowhere near as good as a kid is. This was recently brought home to me rather dramatically when the son-of-he-who-shall-remain-nameless brought us to within a meters of the nameless-one and stayed there like glue for about 45 minutes through a wide variety of acro. Unreal what a well trained 19 year old can do.

On the world aerobatic stage this is often demonstrated where the French and Russians often dominate. Both have military off shoots that allow pilots to spend a year doing competitive aerobatics at the expense of the military.

[Big Pistons Forever]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

Here the organizers don't have to be aware of the exact details of any given routine because they don't actually regulate the flying, they simply need proof that you are qualified. The AirBoss and organizers may want to know duration and some details but its TC not the organizers that are aware and approve the heights/distances etc. I don't know what happens in the UK but I imagine there is something similar in place so I would not read too much into that statement.

Canadian Airshows that have aerobatic performers must obtain a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) from Transport Canada before they are allowed to proceed.

Part of the application will be a "maneuvers package" submitted by each performer to the airshow organizer and then passed to TC for assessment and approval by TC.

The CAR 623 requires this package contain the following information:

(a) a completed Special Aviation Event Flight Program (form 26-0374 set out in Appendix B) identifying all anticipated participants;

(b) for each foreign pilot, a legible copy of the pilot's licence and medical certificate;

(c) for each aerobatic performer, a sequential listing of all manoeuvres to be flown by the performer, including:

(i) the distance of each manoeuvre from spectator areas, including, where applicable, the point of entry into and recovery from each manoeuvre,

(ii) the point of entry to, and departure from, the flying display area, where applicable,

(iii) the directions of flight relative to the spectator areas,

(iv) the location of water drops, pyrotechnics, helicopter rappelling and similar operations relative to the spectator areas,

(v) the maximum and minimum speeds for the entire performance, and

(vi) the minimum altitudes for each manoeuvre to be performed;

(d) where applicable, a legible copy of each performer's:

(i) Transport Canada "Statement of Aerobatic Competency" (form 26-0307),

(ii) FAA (United States) "Statement of Acrobatic Competency" (form 8710-7), or

(iii) aerobatic competency certificate equivalent to (i) and (ii) above and recognized by Transport Canada; and

(iv) favourable assessment referred to in paragraph 623.06(1)(e) of the manoeuvres referred to in paragraph 623.07(14)(c) from either Transport Canada or the FAA (United States).

(e) for foreign aircraft with non-standard flight authorities, a Canadian validation of the aircraft's foreign flight authority pursuant to section 507.05 of the CARs;

(f) for information purposes, a copy of the emergency plan referred to in section 623.05;

(g) for information purposes, a copy of the air show's proposed air display traffic control procedures referred to in paragraph 623.05(4)(a);


Only the maneuvers that have been approved by TC in advance as part of the SFOC can be flown. Additional requirements are placed on formation aerobatic acts. Specifically (again from CAR 623)

Pursuant to section 603.06 of the CARs, to be eligible to operate an aircraft in an air show, each flight crew member has to meet the following requirements:

(c) to conduct formation air show aerobatic manoeuvres as part of an aerobatic team:

(i) be in possession of one of the following documents on which is annotated "Formation":

(A) a Transport Canada "Statement of Aerobatic Competency" (form 26-0307),

(B) an FAA "Statement of Acrobatic Competency" (form 8710-7), or

(C) an aerobatic competency certificate equivalent to (i) and (ii) above and recognized by Transport Canada, and

(ii) have within the preceding 12 months;

(A) performed with the other members of the formation in 8 aerobatic performances, or

(B) carried out a minimum of 25 aerobatic practice sessions with the other members of the formation;

(d) to conduct formation non-aerobatic manoeuvres:

(i) as pilot-in-command of the aircraft, be experienced in flying in formation in the aircraft intended for the flight,

(ii) in a formation flight of four aircraft or less, have practiced the non-aerobatic manoeuvres with the other members of the formation within the previous 30 days prior to the air show,

(iii) in any formation larger than four aircraft:

(A) have flown the formation's proposed sequences at an authorized air show in Canada or the U.S., within the 15 days prior to the air show, or

(B) have practiced the proposed sequences within 15 days prior to the air show, and

(iv) have attended, in addition to the briefing referred to in section 623.09, a briefing or review conducted by the formation leader or other designated formation member and attended by a representative of the certificate holder, preferably the person in charge of flight operations, covering at least the following subjects:

(A) designation of formation leader and alternate leaders, and selection of manoeuvres to be performed and their sequence,

(B) formation positions,

(C) alternate positions in case of aborts,

(D) radio procedures and call signs,

(E) visual signals,

(F) expected speeds and power settings,

(G) take-off and turn out,

(H) join up and break, and

(I) emergency procedures; and

623.06(1) (e) to conduct the types of manoeuvres referred to in paragraph 623.07(14)(c) below, each individual performer has received a favourable assessment of the manoeuvres from either Transport Canada or the FAA (United States).

[oldyellr]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1409392/c ... r-charges/

[pdw]

It's a tragedy on a clear day, however a wx thing there too. I'm not sure if police investigation is useful to find cause if this is plain "misjudgement" to do with 'holes in the swiss cheese'.

As for the article stating low entry, well there is the shooting in from lower out-of tree cover from far afield out of the northwest, which is an old trick to surprise the airshow crowd. The initial climbing is not part of the loop either; actually only enters the loop phase when initiating it with the left vertical turning after already climbed higher still well NW of the airport and is well above 500' still well away from the show crowd.

That day is stronger ESE up at 3K than 22km at the surface.

Arriving highspeed to enter the act out of treetrop level from the wide area of uninhabited farmland to the northwest of the show area it enters the very steep climbrate (left turning/roll to inverted) with "full fuel" and slows considerably even prior to the top; so maybe intended further east and higher (i.e. got too slow there ?). Sure looks poor in groundspeed prior to downturn, so isn't there also an illusion that can precipitate a judgement error while focusing for the ideal showmanship position ?

[cgzro]

This is not overly complicated.

Pilots must understand simple physics to not die. Fuel burn, moments, true airspeed, wind correction headings, magnetic deviation, altimeter correction etc... the list of things you need to mathematically get right to safely fly on the edge are well known. Now we all know you can get away with rough estimates much of the time but we should also know when that wont work. Example you dont guess the altimeter settimg before an ILS to minimums, you dont guess fuel on a trans oceanic trip etc.

This case is no different. A plane's trajectory in a turn is well understood and inverted before you pull the nose down and commit to the trip you must check airspeed and altitude against a window of allowable values. If you dont you cant easily guess how much altitude you need exactly. Also if the ASI is wrong or the ALt is incorrectly set or wrong you may die. The faster the plane the harder it is to judge.

Like fuel and w&b pilots get complacent and just wing it and it usually works but these are simple linear effects so its much easier, the moment the error is a square of what you misjudge humans are not well equipped for it and the math for that loop down has a v-squared in it and that v is true airspeed which is a function of yada yada..

[pdw]

double post

[pdw]

The wx info might have been vague, judging by the difficulty getting it from history. Oh it's CAVOK alright; that part is too easy. Yet, the takeoff rwy 20/North Weald used up the whole runway/6K ... i.e. 70-90V130-190 / 10-20kt in the area. Don't think the Learmount article's 'suspected engine weakness' necessarily holds, if just using a more nominal take-off power or even then just dallying away TODA early in that roll. The .. run coming in at tree-top level for the show line upwind 80nm/S on the same isobar isn't exactly a snailpace, .. just happens to be perfectly incident to the prevailing component at the surface in PK WND of that day (huge LO off coast NNW).

[cgzro]

If the engine is not putting out the proper power it is pretty obvious and you certainly would not continue a takeoff or perform aerobatics, so those two problems are pilot error too.

Wind of various strengths and directions are expected to be dealt with by the pilot the same way he would deal with them for cross country takeoff or landings.

People F** up badly sometimes, most airshow crashes are that simple. Wind, obvious engine issues are not excuses to crash any more than they are in normal operations.

[cncpc]

Accident investigators are now speculating that the pilot, Andy Hill, may have believed he was in a different aircraft, for which the numbers would have been right. He only had 46 hours in the Hunter, and was much more familiar with a Provost that he also flew.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... al-report/

[Eric Janson]

Page with a link to download the report as a .pdf file and a video explaining the final maneuver,

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraf ... ugust-2015

[pdw]

What were the 'two different directions' (entry and exit heading) ?

[lownslow]

Accident investigators are now speculating that the pilot, Andy Hill, may have believed he was in a different aircraft, for which the numbers would have been right.

I hope this statement comes from someone misinterpreting the investigators saying something about primacy, and not that the pilot didn't know what type of airplane he was actively flying at the time.

Of course, option 2 could form a better basis of some kind of plea if this thing goes to court.

[GyvAir]

What were the 'two different directions' (entry and exit heading) ?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... G-BXFI.pdf

It's all in there, as could best be determined by the investigation.

[pdw]

The entry up into the "bent loop" is at SE heading, approx 45deg right 10kt crosswind (a "south"wind) at the surface. At 3000' nearing the apex it is pretty much headwind from SE at ~ 15kts, as the wind backs/increases on that upline (groundspeed 90kts if airspeed "105").

The link also mentions 'engine power reduction' which already makes it two slowing factors before the start of the downline ..

[GyvAir]

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/A ... 488-1.html

Airshow Pilot Charged In Fatal Crash

Quote: "Airshow pilot Andrew Hill, 53, whose 1955 Hawker Hunter crashed in August 2015, killing 11 men, has been charged with “manslaughter by gross negligence” in a British court. He will appear before a judge on April 19. The 11 who died were either in vehicles on the road or standing on the roadside, outside the airfield. Twelve others, plus Hill, were injured. Hill had attempted to perform a loop during his airshow display, but failed to complete it, and crashed. He also will be charged with endangering an aircraft.

Since the accident, warbird performances in the U.K. have been shifted to sites over water. Hill, an experienced airshow pilot, hit the top of a loop 800 feet lower and 50 knots slower than required for the Hunter and was not able to recover. Investigators said he had recently renewed his airshow performance permit on a Jet Provost, which has different performance characteristics than the Hunter, and “a possible error path was that the pilot recalled the wrong numbers, essentially mixing up the two aircraft.”"

[North Shore]

Poor, sorry, bastard...

[oldyellr]

Finally the trial starts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 1-men.html