Sussex Airshow Crash

[cgzro]

The manoeuvre in question (1/4 clover) required I guess +4G, -2G and the full cloverleaf was often done in military training. The aircraft was a "fighter" which includes everything, low high fast etc so this aircraft could easily do this manoeuvre at close to this altitude. Most probably this is pilot error, too little altitude or too much airspeed over top etc. Could possibly be mechanical of some kind, ASI, ALT error, power problem. Anyway if its pilot error this is the main cause of airshow accidents by far. (loop down at wrong gate due to insufficient practice/experience recovering from vertical at surface in that aircraft).

[fleet16b]

Mr Fleet,

I believe the previous poster was referring to the continuous loss of warbird aircraft and pilots while doing low level aerobatics as apposed to performing simple less risky flybys. This is a terrible tragedy which undoubtedly will change airshows in the U.K.

My question for you: How would you know if this A/C is designed to do this attempted maneuver or that the aircraft and pilot were in fact allowed to perform it when it appears no one can be certain what the intended maneuver was?

Meeka answered the majority of your question before I could respond but to add regarding the comment about the pilots .
None of the pilots that fly these aircraft are allowed to just purchase , then fly demos.
There is a fair amount of training involved to become "high performance qualified" , cleared for lo level aerobatics and formation flying .

Of course the unexpected can occur and an unqualified maneuver could inadvertently happen usually due poor energy management than anything else.
I will not elaborate as there are other people on this Forum much more qualified to explain what I mean by energy management

[fleet16b]

You misunderstood me. I'm not referring to the structural integrity of the Hunter. We were discussing low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft and I am asking if that aircraft was designed for the attempted maneuver (which was at very low level)?

The aircraft , like any has its low level recovery limits however , the pilot may or may not have had or adopted "top gate" practices

Top Gate as explained by a highly qualified friend

Quote:
If you want to stay alive doing downward-looping aerobatic maneuvers down low, you need to understand and apply the TOP GATE. The top gate is a simple set of parameters, and if you don’t meet them, you discontinue the maneuver and don’t die. Simple.

For example, consider the fearsome ½ reverse Cuban-eight. Or even a vanilla inside loop. Both are going to take you to an inverted position, before you pull through, and if you don’t make your top gate, simply drop the nose a bit and ½ roll upright out of it, which you will note involves a much smaller angle below the horizon.

There are two parameters for a top gate: altitude and airspeed. Altitude is the most important, and if you don’t understand why, read my physics memo on vertical downline recovery.

In the Pitts S-2B, my top gate for a downward-looping maneuver is 1000 AGL at sea level density altitude. If I don’t see 1000 on the altitmeter – I zero it before takeoff – I don’t pull through. The altitude parameter of your top gate determines whether you live or die. The airspeed parameter determines how much G you’re going to pull. If your airspeed is too high – I like to get the airspeed down to 80 mph before I pull through – just keep on trucking upwards, converting airspeed to altitude. Having 1300 on the altimeter makes me very happy at the top gate, because energy is always a good thing to have.

So to summarize, my top gate for the Pitts S-2B is 1000 AGL (min) and 80 mph (max). Note that these numbers are a function of the density altitude – which affects your TRUE AIRSPEED – and the stall speed of the aircraft. The higher the stall speed, the higher the top gate.

[linecrew]

You misunderstood me. I'm not referring to the structural integrity of the Hunter. We were discussing low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft and I am asking if that aircraft was designed for the attempted maneuver (which was at very low level)?

What Oldshoes said.

I understand that combat aircraft are built really tough, etc. What I'm saying is that types like Pitts S-2s and Extra 300s are designed for airshows. Classic warbirds are awesome to see flying but, and remember this is only my opinion, should not be trying to give the others a 'run for their money'. Especially when it comes to low level aeros no matter what the skill level of the pilot is.

[fleet16b]

You misunderstood me. I'm not referring to the structural integrity of the Hunter. We were discussing low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft and I am asking if that aircraft was designed for the attempted maneuver (which was at very low level)?

What Oldshoes said.

I understand that combat aircraft are built really tough, etc. What I'm saying is that types like Pitts S-2s and Extra 300s are designed for airshows. Classic warbirds are awesome to see flying but, and remember this is only my opinion, should not be trying to give the others a 'run for their money'. Especially when it comes to low level aeros no matter what the skill level of the pilot is.

I seriously doubt there is any warbird / vintage aircraft demo pilot that thinks he is going to compete with a
Pitts or an Extra 300
The demos done by warbird pilots are well within the capabilities of the aircraft if flown correctly
Most often the issue is pilot error
In the case of the Hunter pilot , maybe there was a health issue but most likely pilot error re: Top Gate

[Rockie]

The Hawker Hunter was never designed as a low level aerobatic aircraft - it was designed to engage in combat. However the Patroulle Suisse did very nice displays with them low level in large formations. Also not designed as low level aerobatic aircraft are the F-18, F-16, F-15, F-5, F-4, A-10, P-51, A-4 etc. etc. etc...

Yet all of these do very fine aerobatic displays low level, and many of them in large formations where they cannot approach the high end turning performance of a single airplane. The key here is to fly a display commensurate with the performance and maneuverability of the aircraft.

[cgzro]

A very large percentage of airshow accidents involve Pitts/Extras and warbird pilots making the same vertical pull too low/fast into the ground mistake so this error is not at all new , not limited to old warbirds etc and will continue to be repeated in all manner or airshow planes until something changes.
Odds are we'll see at least one more before the season is over

[Oldshoes]

I agree completely that the display must be flown within the safe envelope of the said aircraft and that these accidents are not limited to warbirds. But, this was a historic (warbird type) of aircraft.

Mr. Fleet, you stated:

"There is a fair amount of training involved to become "high performance qualified" , cleared for lo level aerobatics and formation flying ."

Would you please elaborate on this? Can you provide us with some insight as to what training is required to meet this standard and also who is responsible for pilots maintaining this level of competency. Do you have insight on the UK regs and how they compare to Canada?

"Of course the unexpected can occur and an unqualified maneuver could inadvertently happen....."

Really? Considering the training you claim which is required and that, "None of the pilots that fly these aircraft are allowed to just purchase , then fly demos," these fatal accidents continue. Why?

Somehow the regular loss of pilots and vintage aircraft during low level airshow aerobatics has been acceptable (or it would have been addressed). It's a terrible tragedy that it might take what happened last Saturday to initiate the required change...whatever that is.

[fleet16b]

I agree completely that the display must be flown within the safe envelope of the said aircraft and that these accidents are not limited to warbirds. But, this was a historic (warbird type) of aircraft.

Mr. Fleet, you stated:

"There is a fair amount of training involved to become "high performance qualified" , cleared for lo level aerobatics and formation flying ."

Would you please elaborate on this? Can you provide us with some insight as to what training is required to meet this standard and also who is responsible for pilots maintaining this level of competency. Do you have insight on the UK regs and how they compare to Canada?

Oldshoes
I will leave that explanation to those on the Forum that are currently flying High Performance Warbirds
Forum member cgzro could better explain the procedures involved to qualify for low level aerobatics.
Sorry I do not have the UK regs at my disposal . Level of competency is the responsibility of the pilot to maintain and is verified by TC and verified again by the AIR BOSS in charge of the show.

"Of course the unexpected can occur and an unqualified maneuver could inadvertently happen....."

Really? Considering the training you claim which is required and that, "None of the pilots that fly these aircraft are allowed to just purchase , then fly demos," these fatal accidents continue. Why?

Surely you know these answers already ..... Pilot error , mis communication , mechanical issues , murphys law

Somehow the regular loss of pilots and vintage aircraft during low level airshow aerobatics has been acceptable (or it would have been addressed). It's a terrible tragedy that it might take what happened last Saturday to initiate the required change...whatever that is.

Nobody thinks its acceptable to lose pilots and aircraft anymore than its acceptable to have drivers being killed at race tracks
In each case investigations and finding are c/out and in some cases where possible restrictions or changes occur in an attempt to up the safety margin . If you were to compare the number of accidents at airshows that took place 60 years ago I would bet you would see a large decline.
Vintage or Modern , low level aerobatics is dangerous to both types and we see it every year at Airshows.
For that matter flying low level passes are also a risk.
So what should we do ban low level work all together ???? I don't have the answer
Guess we should ban snowmobiles because there are close to 100 fatalities a year in Ontario > not to mention the fatalities we see occur during skydiving , boating > etc

[Oldshoes]

Well Mr. Fleet, I appear to have hit a nerve. Not my intention. I asked the questions of you based on your previous blanket statements which come across with some authority. Just figured you had the knowledge base to provide some follow up detail. We were discussing risk management and low level airshow aerobatics and now you are talking snowmobiles. Hardly a reasonable comparison.

[fleet16b]

Well Mr. Fleet, I appear to have hit a nerve. Not my intention. I asked the questions of you based on your previous blanket statements which come across with some authority. Just figured you had the knowledge base to provide some follow up detail. We were discussing risk management and low level airshow aerobatics and now you are talking snowmobiles. Hardly a reasonable comparison.

Nope , you are reading me wrong ...no raw nerves hit at all as I heard all this many many times before over the years
Sorry you don't see the comparison ......
Don't think of myself as an authority however I have been involved in Airshows , warbirds etc for a long time ,,, still as I said there are members here more qualified than me but they seem just as reluctant as me to get this too deeply ....
The risks involved with low level aeros has been hashed over for as long as man has flown and as I said things have improved
however its impossible to completely eliminate ...unless you just stop low level aeros all together

[cgzro]

I cant speak to the uk however in canada:

First you need a personal SFOC which is obtained from Transport and allows you to perform aerobatics below 2000' but not in front of invited assemblies and you have to obide by all other CARS and require permission of the property owner or airport manager. This in essence is your licence to practice low with little risk to anybody but yourself. You are totally responsible for your own safety while practicing. This applies to all manner of aircraft.

Now if you want to do airshows you need to be tested by an ICAS ACE, this is somebody currently doing what you want to do with a good record and delegated to evaluate you. There are very few such people in Canada. It would be hard to use a TC person for this due to the specialized skills required hence Canada and the US share this system. There is actually a written and several flight tests involved every year at considerable expense.

After that you get a card which TC will recognize and allow you into an airshow where additional restrictions are placed to protect the viewing public (not you). Examples include energy directed towards crowd, speeds , manoeuvres etc. you must fly exactly what is approved with little improvisation allowed.

The US is somewhat is similar but the practice must be done in waivered airspace which is much harder to find due to environmental impacts assessments etc.

In general the more you practice low in different weather and at different airports the safer you will be the few times a year you have spectators. Therefore the system that allows the most practice is likely best.

Military display pilots have lots of places to practice, free gas , maintenance, planes etc so get very good in military planes. Civilians with ex military planes have a harder time getting as much practice and unlike a bike you do forget and need constant flying. 1000s of hours of high altitude flight is of limited value.. What matters is hours in type at airshow altitudes.

I do not know the UK rules but my guess is practicing low is very very hard to do given the population density and greener nature of the UK.

Bottom line - practice makes perfect and only hours in the low altitude regime really count. If I were in charge Id rate pilots on practice acro hours in type with 500' floor. After all we rate by multi engine, IFR and complex type hours and recognize they are not transferable.. Why not low acro?

[fleet16b]

Thanks Peter
Great explanation

[Oldshoes]

Yes, thanks very much for the post cgzro. I believe your comments and ideas in your Bottom Line is an excellent approach to a difficult problem. It would, at very least stimulate some positive conversation. Bravo

Mr. Fleet, As someone who has "been around airshows, warbirds, etc etc for a long time" and as I understand a WW 2 era aircraft owner, you would have a vested interest regarding any potential fallout form the Shoreham accident....regardless of how remote that may be. WW 2 is quickly becoming old history and those with any interest in that era and the associated aircraft are becoming largely outnumber by those who don't care. Add to this an accident where people going about their daily business perish in an air show accident and the battle for low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft becomes more difficult.

I am well aware that it is not 60 years ago and your responses such as "low level aeros has been hashed over for as long as man has flown...flying low level passes are also a risk......Guess we should ban snowmobiles skydiving, boating.... unless you just stop low level aeros all together" have been heard before. These are cop-outs to serious concerns. They do in fact reveal something of your attitude and may be interpreted as arrogance and ignorance towards the other side of the argument.

I really believe this is beneath you given the tragedy that occurred at Shoreham.

[fleet16b]

Shoes
What ever you say .........

Hmmm 0 rank 6 posts
I smell a Troll

[Oldshoes]

Mr. Fleet,

Not a troll and unfortunately an expected response..

Enough...

[AirFrame]

WW 2 is quickly becoming old history and those with any interest in that era and the associated aircraft are becoming largely outnumber by those who don't care. Add to this an accident where people going about their daily business perish in an air show accident and the battle for low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft becomes more difficult.

Regardless of the aircraft type, a mistake made during a routine has potential to cause significant loss of life both at and away from an airshow's grounds. Accidents happen with vintage aircraft, modern aircraft, and everything in between. Most of the airshow accidents that i'm aware of this year seem to have been pilot error, suggesting that the aircraft type or vintage is even less important.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... I say keep the WWII aircraft flying as long as we can, long after anyone who flew one in combat is alive to tell us what it was like.

[cncpc]

Some new video out and a story in which an "expert" says the aircraft seemed to be experiencing power problems on takeoff.

It does seem like an awful long takeoff run.

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

He's taking off from North Weald, an old Battle of Britain strip out in the Stanstead area, runway about 5500 feet. Looks like he used it all.

[cncpc]

Yes, thanks very much for the post cgzro. I believe your comments and ideas in your Bottom Line is an excellent approach to a difficult problem. It would, at very least stimulate some positive conversation. Bravo

Mr. Fleet, As someone who has "been around airshows, warbirds, etc etc for a long time" and as I understand a WW 2 era aircraft owner, you would have a vested interest regarding any potential fallout form the Shoreham accident....regardless of how remote that may be. WW 2 is quickly becoming old history and those with any interest in that era and the associated aircraft are becoming largely outnumber by those who don't care. Add to this an accident where people going about their daily business perish in an air show accident and the battle for low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft becomes more difficult.

I am well aware that it is not 60 years ago and your responses such as "low level aeros has been hashed over for as long as man has flown...flying low level passes are also a risk......Guess we should ban snowmobiles skydiving, boating.... unless you just stop low level aeros all together" have been heard before. These are cop-outs to serious concerns. They do in fact reveal something of your attitude and may be interpreted as arrogance and ignorance towards the other side of the argument.

I really believe this is beneath you given the tragedy that occurred at Shoreham.

Is that you, Wing Commander Bigglesworth?

I recognize that elegant phrasing.

[fleet16b]

WW 2 is quickly becoming old history and those with any interest in that era and the associated aircraft are becoming largely outnumber by those who don't care. Add to this an accident where people going about their daily business perish in an air show accident and the battle for low level aerobatics in vintage aircraft becomes more difficult.

Regardless of the aircraft type, a mistake made during a routine has potential to cause significant loss of life both at and away from an airshow's grounds. Accidents happen with vintage aircraft, modern aircraft, and everything in between. Most of the airshow accidents that i'm aware of this year seem to have been pilot error, suggesting that the aircraft type or vintage is even less important.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... I say keep the WWII aircraft flying as long as we can, long after anyone who flew one in combat is alive to tell us what it was like.

Absolutely agree