Shoreham Investigation Update

Should we not also spare a thought for the eleven persons who died?

These were personal tragedies for the families involved and, of course, we should spare a thought for them, especially if we attended the Shoreham Airshow that day, or any airshow on any other day, because technically we must bear some measure of responsibility; after all, if nobody wanted to pay to see aircraft displayed at airshows there would be no airshows, and consequently, no airshow crashes.

However, 1,732 people were killed in accidents on the roads in the United Kingdom in 2015 so if we consider, for a moment, those that were unlucky enough to be travelling down the A27 that day, rather than those who had specifically come to watch the airshow from the road, the number killed, although a personal tragedy for them and their families, is just about the average number killed every day on the roads in 2015.

That statement isn’t meant to sound callous but rather it is an attempt at some perspective; and I appreciate that no ‘perspective’ is going to make the slightest difference to the grief experienced by the families involved.

Thankfully, apart from those unlucky enough to have become personally involved, the Shoreham crash is most remarkable for how rare such a crash, with such consequences, has been at airshows in the United Kingdom in the last sixty years.

If I go to an air display I am perfectly happy to watch any ‘historic’ aircraft perform mainly in level flight. It is sufficient for me to see and hear it in its natural environment. If I get to watch it start up, taxi out, take off and land then so much the better. I do not need to see it thrown around the sky just to prove it is still capable of high energy manoeuvers which IMHO are just as much a reflection of the pilot’s abilities as the aircraft’s, possibly more so. Throughout the entire history of manned flight there have been untold numbers of fatal crashes, not just at public events, where the aircraft’s flight profile in otherwise perfect conditions has failed to take sufficient account of the proximity to the ground. I know this has been said before, but I thought it worthy of repetition following on from #240.

Absolutely agree ! Better not mention it to our resident scrutineer. His #158 is very categoric.

If I go to an air display I am perfectly happy to watch any ‘historic’ aircraft perform mainly in level flight. It is sufficient for me to see and hear it in its natural environment. If I get to watch it start up, taxi out, take off and land then so much the better. I do not need to see it thrown around the sky just to prove it is still capable of high energy manoeuvers which IMHO are just as much a reflection of the pilot’s abilities as the aircraft’s, possibly more so. Throughout the entire history of manned flight there have been untold numbers of fatal crashes, not just at public events, where the aircraft’s flight profile in otherwise perfect conditions has failed to take sufficient account of the proximity to the ground. I know this has been said before, but I thought it worthy of repetition following on from #240.

Tough subject.
If we limit air shows to straight and level flight are we really reducing the risk? Aircraft are fatally lost in take-off, landing and straight and level manoeuvres as well as aerobatics. I can think of several aircraft that have been lost in hanger fires.
Where do we draw the line ?
If we make air shows boring gate attendance will reduce and they will cease to operate.
We have to put faith in the operators and pilots that sufficient has been done to minimise any risk,
and accept that some risk will always exist.
Since 1989 I have personally witnessed 3 accidents only one of which was fatal.
We hear about the accidents, no one mentions the thousands of hours of safe flying.

If I go to an air display I am perfectly happy to watch any ‘historic’ aircraft perform mainly in level flight. It is sufficient for me to see and hear it in its natural environment. If I get to watch it start up, taxi out, take off and land then so much the better. I do not need to see it thrown around the sky just to prove it is still capable of high energy manoeuvers which IMHO are just as much a reflection of the pilot’s abilities as the aircraft’s, possibly more so. Throughout the entire history of manned flight there have been untold numbers of fatal crashes, not just at public events, where the aircraft’s flight profile in otherwise perfect conditions has failed to take sufficient account of the proximity to the ground. I know this has been said before, but I thought it worthy of repetition following on from #240.

I had hoped that someone else would add to the comment above, and frankly I am disappointed that no one has. I do not think that the thread should just end with that statement.

Should we not also spare a thought for the eleven persons who died? Some were aviation enthusiasts and the rest just going about their business in a place that should have been perfectly safe. Spare a thought also for the dozens of families of those tragically affected by this accident. I imagine they were hoping for a definitive answer in this report as to what went wrong. Instead it provokes many more questions, and suggests a wider spectrum of errors than anyone first thought.

I am not saying it is wrong to consider AH, but that there are bigger issues to be concerned about here. It is therefore proper that there should be a wide discussion as to what went wrong. This includes a thoughtful examination of what spectators expect to see and how to balance that with reasonable safety precautions.
The airshow season is approaching and there needs to be a thorough re-think of what risks are acceptable.

Spare a thought for AH. He must feel that the Sword of Damocles is suspended over his head. As the late Bill Bedford said summing up his near fatal spin demonstrating the Hunter T.7 to the Swiss Air Force in Switzerland: “Even a monkey can fall out of a tree.”

Regarding the point from Bruggen 130

Not wishing to go over the same ground, but I am 100% sure that the Reds do ensure all maneuvers are aimed at crowd central, like all other display pilots. Which is why there are markers at air displays to show where crowd centre is.
This is not suggesting that all maneuvers are kept within the boundary which is a different matter entirely.
When the reds do their “carousal”, then I would expect the opposition passes would be aimed at being crowd centre, even if the entire circle goes way beyond the airfield perimeter.

The entire circle comes nowhere near the airfield, they always break left- right or vertical a long way from the far boundary fence, even when the Reds do a fly past with other aircraft it’s always outside the airfield boundary.

Regarding the point from Bruggen 130

Do some of you on here think that most of the loops, Barrel rolls, Bomb Bursts, Fast Passes and breaks toward the crowd (Reds) take place over the air field?

The point is Moggy that the fast jets don’t do any of their display over the air field, the Reds total display takes place well past the far boundary fence, so why are some on here say they should keep it over the air field.

Not wishing to go over the same ground, but I am 100% sure that the Reds do ensure all maneuvers are aimed at crowd central, like all other display pilots. Which is why there are markers at air displays to show where crowd centre is.
This is not suggesting that all maneuvers are kept within the boundary which is a different matter entirely.
When the reds do their “carousal”, then I would expect the opposition passes would be aimed at being crowd centre, even if the entire circle goes way beyond the airfield perimeter.

To be honest, the AAIB have done their report apart from pointing out the Hunter had some issues that do not seem to contributed to the crash it is a case of ‘To Low to slow’ and any conjecture here is just that.
Andy Hill is not able to remember the incident so as far as I can see if he cannot state what happened from his prospective then the AAIB report is conclusive unless anyone can produce other ‘FACTS’ of which I doubt.

Apologise, it’s me that’s got the wrong end of the stick…

I’ve been talking to a tame ex-Hunter/JP pilot, and misunderstood his thoughts…
He’s insistent that at the point the aircraft started the pull up, he was set up perfectly for a curved pass down the display line.
The map with the Aresti diagrams was in a pocket so couldn’t be seen.

His thoughts are that there was perhaps a memory failure, running in for a low pass then remembered the bent loop and pulled…

Sorry. The bent loop was pre-planned. Mentioned on page 7 and 8 in the report.

As Otis says:

The pilot planned a sequence of aerobatic manoeuvres which could be
modified for local considerations such as weather. An annotated map showing
his intended sequence of manoeuvres was found in his pocket after the
accident (see Figure 17). He described one of the manoeuvres he planned
for the Shoreham Airshow as a ‘bent loop’ (see Section 1.18.1). This would be
preceded by a flypast and Derry Turn, with the aircraft positioning in a left turn
back towards the crowd line.

Please can we avoid making stuff up Nige to support our pet theories?

Moggy

It would appear so.

The radar track shows that the vertical element of the loop was nothing like a mile east of display centre. Can we post stuff that is factual please? Others are watching.

Is it possible that people are meaning different things by the term “display centre”?

Sorry. The bent loop was pre-planned. Mentioned on page 7 and 8 in the report. Again much later on when it is explained where AH has to run the plan past FDD(?).

Why pull into a loop nearly a mile east of the display centre?

The radar track shows that the vertical element of the loop was nothing like a mile east of display centre. Can we post stuff that is factual please? Others are watching.

3) For whatever reason, decides, on the spur of the moment to pull into the bent loop to realign with the display line.

On what evidence are you suggesting this was a spur of the moment decision?

Moggy

I don’t think a significant number of people here have ever raised the positioning of the manoeuvre relative to the crowdline and the airfield as a factor have they?

Moggy

I have, several times, here and the other place…
Why pull into a loop nearly a mile east of the display centre?
It surely wasn’t intended to impress the audience, it would have been too far away.

The one thing I can’t see in the report is any mention of what the intended routine was supposed to be.
A map with scribbled Aresti symbols on was found in his flying suit, but no futher discussion is made of the intended sequence.

Maybe this is the scenario…
1) He runs in towards the airfield, intending to roll right and change heading 25º to the right to align with the display line.
2) The speed and height are fine for a low run over the airfield.
3) For whatever reason, decides, on the spur of the moment to pull into the bent loop to realign with the display line.

The rest we know…

Perhaps it’s similar to people who have performed an ‘off the cuff’ reversal using a Derry Turn, and come unstuck…

Ain’t that the truth!

I fear this sort of thread on the dark side attracts more than its fair share of Walters

Mogg

Thanks Moggy and that pretty much agrees with what other aerobatic pilots have told me at Duxford. The reason I ask is that over on the “dark side” there is a lot of discussion about a sticky altimeter and power lever settings and not much about Mark One eyeball. In other word “eyes-in” rather than “eyes-out” which rather surprises me.

As a non-aerobatic PPL, could one of the members on the forum tell me what you look at in the first part of a loop? Altimeter,ASI, throttle,all three or look out of the window and say “that looks about right”

The first part of a loop you look for an entry speed. 130 kt in my case. Then I will select the throttle setting (Wide open. I only have 180 bhp)

But spool back a little, before then non-display pilots will have done what’s called a HASSELL check, the first item of which (H) is “Height above ground”

As you pull back your vision switches to the wingtip against the horizon – I have no way of knowing how that translates on a swept wing aircraft

You may glance at the G meter to reassure yourself that you are at the desired level (but your body is a pretty good judge of that)

You then look back by tilting your head back, looking for the horizon coming up. Checking for wings level.

Over the top just for interest I check the altimeter for height (actually altitude because I am a very amateur aerobatic pilot and I do nothing below 5,000ft). Then pull back the throttle to avoid overrevving on the downline.

On the downline I check rpm (probably irrelevant on a jet) and will start to look for the opposite horizon to appear, glancing at the G meter to make sure the loop is vaguely circular.

If I had to estimate? 90-95% of time eyes are outside of the cockpit. At worst 10% 0f the time looking inside at the instruments.

I hope this helps?

Moggy