Sussex Airshow Crash

[ehbuddy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8

[J31]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34027260

[Rockie]

What a horrible tragedy. There was a banner at the bottom of the video saying the pilot was in critical condition but it's impossible to believe he could have survived that.

[cncpc]

What a horrible tragedy. There was a banner at the bottom of the video saying the pilot was in critical condition but it's impossible to believe he could have survived that.

I got this photo from an English paper. I expect it's a frame grab from a video and that the aircraft may still be moving. But you can see a pretty intact cockpit area, with the canopy up and not bent in any way. And the area is out of the fire, which did not last as a fireball anyway for very long. He did survive as of last night, in critical condition. I guess its possible he ejected on the ground. There is a photo of him low down in the cockpit just above the trees. Not sure if its just before the accident or on a previous pass. Former BA captain and very experienced demo guy.

hunter crash.jpg (74.11 KiB) Viewed 8024 times

[cdnpilot77]

That is an incredible pic!

[Rockie]

Former BA captain and very experienced demo guy.

And a very lucky man if he pulls through which I sincerely hope he does. In the video it appears as if he started to perform a barrel roll but pulled straight through from inverted without the required altitude instead of completing the roll. Watching it reminded me of the 1988 Frecce Tricolori crash in Ramstein which was an even more horrific accident.

[cgzro]

Damn.. thats pretty horrific. Thoughts go out to everybody touched by this.

Looks like a loop with a roll incorporated to give a 90 degree heading change, surprising at an airshow. Guess thats called a 1/4 "cloverleaf". Heading change appeared deliberate and thought through. On the exit he looks like he got a slight high G stall but recovered , that saved his life. Anyway he was at clearly max cl at the bottom pulling to the buffet which what you need to do. Presumably he was at full power.

Manoeuver started at only a few hundred feet which is very surprising because the top gate (airspeed altitude) would have to be spot on to make the recovery altitude. The recovery altitude error (in this case say 200ft on a say 3000+ ft radius loop) would be a square of any error in the gate. Even an insect or bug in the static or pitot would have dramatic consequences not to mention human error or any hicup in power.

I wish airshow pilots would stop vertical recoveries with such tiny margines for error. Do a nice 4 pt roll down the runway instead.. safe and easy.

[cncpc]

Any thoughts on whether he ejected in that crash sequence? The canopy is up, but wouldn't it completely blow off? There is something on fire flying up in the air there, but no canopy.

[ehbuddy]

amazing photos in this story


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rshow.html

[boeingboy]

Any thoughts on whether he ejected in that crash sequence?

No - I heard it had cold seats. This is actually not unusual. Most civilian jets have cold seats as you either cant get charges anymore - or its incredibly expensive and needs to be serviced by the manufacture or the military ( both of who rarely service civilian seats)

Personally - I never fly in a ship with cold seats.

[Rockie]

I was approached several years ago to fly civilian T-33's and my first question was the seat. The answer was "cold" so as much as I would have loved to get back into them I declined.

[Changes in Latitudes]

When I think about the physical anguish this individual is going through and the coming mental anguish, my heart breaks.

[GRK2]

Asked a friend and colleague who is Airshow qualified on the Hunter about the manoeuvre...and he says that unless it's rolled in at the top, or the top of the loop is at 5000 agl and a minimum of 250 knots, the whole thing should be abandoned and, as someone above noted, a speed pass with a 4 point roll used instead. In this case it's also possible he lost the airshow line at the top as well, he ended up almost 90 degrees to the flight line. The airshow guys I know all say that when you lose your line and can't re-aquire, then get out of the box and enter with a different plan. My friend says that it's a bad move in the Hunter to try to pull out of a dive with not enough room, the G max will always win...this guy may have been an experienced airline pilot, but in this case he under estimated his recovery ability and we all see what happened. Sad to be sure, I hope he can add to the solving of what happened. That high speed, high G stall at that level is a killer in the Hunter. I'm no fighter/airshow guy, most of my time is airline, but the basics still remain...always have a plan B...seems maybe this guy left that out of his routine.

[Stubby Phillips]

In some videos and photos the flaps are partially deployed. Would that be normal?

[cgzro]

flaps apparently normal in that a/c for aerobatics.

uk govt reaction appears to be a quick restriction on vintage jets to only fly bys.

i think the roll in the loop was deliberate, ie 1/4 clover. I'd not be surprised by a prop plane loosing heading due to all the adverse yaw but a jet? It looked pretty deliberate to me but .. .

[Rockie]

i think the roll in the loop was deliberate, ie 1/4 clover. I'd not be surprised by a prop plane loosing heading due to all the adverse yaw but a jet? It looked pretty deliberate to me but .. .

Older jets with a centrifugal flow engine were prone to gyroscopic effects when pitching the airplane especially at slow speed over the top of a loop. The face of the engine is after all a big gyro, and it did need to be compensated for doing aerobatics and even normal turns, but the effect is nothing like what this fellow did and the Hunter is axial flow anyway. The roll was definitely deliberate since it started at a constant rate at around 45 degrees pitch and a high airspeed, ending 90 degrees off heading. Whether it was an aborted barrel roll or 1/4 clover remains to be seen. If he did go over the top too low for a planned clover there was still time to roll off it up until he was going straight back down but he didn't do that obviously.

[karmutzen]

Interesting reaction from some of the UK military aviation community: it is ok for a pilot to die in an airshow routine (heard that here too), it is ok for paying spectators to die in an airshow accident because they should have known the risks (never heard that here), and finally, some collateral damage of fatalities to non-spectators, but the show must go on (with limited skill pilots and old hardware). Three fatal accidents in airshows over there just this year, and total fatalities, now including this one, of 14 and likely to increase. And many more crashes that did not result in fatalities. Forget ICAS, the UK CAA must be braindead in their standards and supervision of airshows. All these accidents are going to kill the airshow industry, and aviation right behind it.

[cgzro]

looking more closely at the airport diagram and likely showline ( 02-20? ) it looks like he planned a 1/4 clover flown 90 degrees towards the extended centerline (so at his 2:00 as he approached) with a very slow and methodical left roll to cause a right 90 degree heading change at loop exit. I cant see what else he could have been planning to get on the showline while staying in the likely waivered airapace given his approach direction. That would have set him up for either a bananna pass or level fly by.

[Rockie]

Looking at your geometry it seems to me (if the geometry is correct) that he may have intended a pitch up and rolling maneuver to align himself with the show line. Pretty to be sure, but not something that could be done by the numbers with something between 0 and 90 degrees entry. It would require constant visual with the show line and exit vector, or landmarks that led you there. Difficult to do on an oblique, looping and rolling entry at the best of times and easy to screw up.

It doesn't take a lot to imagine over concentrating on lineup to the detriment of vertical awareness. Once past the point of no return all that's left is full thrust, pointing the lift vector straight up and pulling to the max that the wing can sustain without stalling.

I hate thinking what was going through his mind when he realized he was in deep s**t.

[cgzro]

Yes, unlike a loop which can be flown basically "by the numbers" ie entry speed , G at entry, pull gate etc as function of density altitude plus a margin this is more difficult because the roll rate factors into it and the moving lift vector. It would take a lot of practice at $5000/hr.

A similar problem occurs if you do a loop with a strong crosswind. It causes you to corkscrew over the ground (but loop in the air) which is fine energy wise but if you get fancy and correct for it (say to avoid blowing over the show line) by rolling slightly into it then you loop cleanly over the ground but corkscrew in the air and that means your lift vector was not working 100% to get you around the loop, some was moving you. At the surface that loss of energy could be fatal.

Anyway all just speculation.

[linecrew]

I wish airshow pilots would stop vertical recoveries with such tiny margins for error. Do a nice 4 pt roll down the runway instead.. safe and easy.

A huge +1 on this. Nothing bothers me more than seeing a rare or classic aircraft doing aeros. Yeah, sure the pilot may be fully qualified but I for one am happy just to hear and see the aircraft flying through the air instead of gathering dust in a museum. In my opinion, the more aggressive maneuvering should be left to the planes designed for that sort of thing.

[fleet16b]

I wish airshow pilots would stop vertical recoveries with such tiny margins for error. Do a nice 4 pt roll down the runway instead.. safe and easy.

A huge +1 on this. Nothing bothers me more than seeing a rare or classic aircraft doing aeros. Yeah, sure the pilot may be fully qualified but I for one am happy just to hear and see the aircraft flying through the air instead of gathering dust in a museum. In my opinion, the more aggressive maneuvering should be left to the planes designed for that sort of thing.

It almost every case , the aircraft IS designed to do such maneuvers
If it wasn't , it and the pilot would not be allowed to perform.
In most cases this is simply pilot error not the fault of the aircraft itself.
Whether it be a Warbird or a Pitts etc we see the same types of mistakes being made by pilots
Very rarely do we see the aircraft itself being the issue

[Oldshoes]

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?

[Meecka]

I can't speak to the Pilot's abilities or as to what he was permitted to do, but....

"The Hunter entered service as a maneuverable fighter aircraft, and later operated in fighter-bomber and reconnaissance roles in numerous conflicts."

I can be very confident in saying that as a Fighter aircraft, that thing was built to withstand far more than what he was putting it through. Same is true for the vintage fighters. They are over engineered, over built, marvels of design of their time. If a fighter can't withstand some aero's, how in the hell were they supposed to withstand the stresses of a dogfight. And if you want to make the vintage fighters are 60 plus years old argument... well, actually, a fair amount of them aren't. The data plates are, but the majority of the rest of it isn't. Many of them have been re-built using modern materials and processes, with overhauled engines that also are using modern processes. Don't jump to blame the aircraft, if she's maintained properly, and flown by someone with experience, you'll get to watch poetry in motion when she's put thru her paces.

[Oldshoes]

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)?