Hunter Crash - A27

There are tight rules and regulations governing the fly by's and manoeuvres which must remain inside a designated corridor and not cross crowd lines of spectators.

This limits the entry and exit flight paths and it was in this area that the terrible accident occurred.
Over flying a road or motorway must up the risk factors and it may well be that there will be a limited number of approved venues in the future.

Regards
Tom

 

Nearly the same happened at an airshow in Germany in 1983: "As a result the German defense ministry prohibited at first in general air shows in metropolitan areas which was later changed to prohibit air shows with jet airplanes in metropolitan areas."

 

The air displays I have seen in recent years (i.e. where the aircraft are doing 'stunts' as opposed to a 'flypast') have been where the aircraft were mostly performing over the sea (e.g. the BBMF and the Red Arrows at Whitehaven Air Show). However, I have been at several inland locations where there has been a 'flypast' of WW2 aircraft, or the last airborne Vulcan bomber, for example. At least the 'flypast' tributes seem to be unaffected.

Living close to the Lake District I often see Typhoon Eurofighters and other RAF aircraft on manoeuvres, some of which can seem almost close enough to touch (e.g. see the attached photograph I took the other day at Grasmere). Could this kind of flying be dangerous to people of the ground? Of course it would be if one of them crashed. But they have to exercise somewhere and they are state-of-the art modern aircraft with, no doubt, a rigorous maintenance schedule and flown by some of the best pilots.
................

This accident is a dreadful tragedy and especially for those who were killed or injured and their close family and friends.

 

I'm no aircraft/pilot expert but does anyone think he may have tried to land on the road after suffering a malfunction of some sort? Or is the Daily Mail constructed a diagram that looks like the pilot came out of the loop and headed for the road rather than the runway/display line.

 

It certainly looks like the pilot was following the road in the video shots when he was lower than the treelines on each side, but my impression was that the engine was spooling up so I assumed that he was intending to pick up speed along the road before flying up and way. In other words with an intact and working aircraft, engine running, and assuming under control, there should have been no reason to land on the road. Having said that it would a have been a great save if he had landed safely.

But looking at the graphic it would have been a better (less risky) display if the loop had been carried out at the seaward end of the flypast.

 

Terrible situation
Looks like the aircraft was flared on impact( or attempting a climb out of the loop) hence the pilot surviving the crash.
We await the official view


http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/hunter/survivor.php?id=266

 

From Global Aviation Resource "Jonathan Whaley's informative post on the Shoreham accident and the CAA response"

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=869126783174965&id=114419151979069&refid=17

 

An interesting perspective from a very good Blog that I dip into, I thought I would share it here..
https://scarfandgoggles.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/life-after-shoreham/

 

Is that blog a mickey-take ? I assume that the first comment certainly is ? An out of control aeroplane de-roofs a row of cars on a public highway before exploding in flames and his view is that none of them should have been there.

I have to say that reading a number of pilot forums, I find the attitude of many pretty sickening. Only ex-mil pilots are allowed to speculate and no-one must dare to imply any form of pilot error. Just not done, old chap.

 

From another forum called airfields an aviation engineer was at the show and has noted that he thought that the engine was very quiet during the loop. This supports a theory that an engine problem affected the flight of aircraft, and that it was unpowered going down the loop. However, there is the definite sound of the engine spooling up from the roadside video (of the cyclist) so the pilot was regaining control just before contact with ground, and may have being looking for a landing site on the A27 as suggested by Drew2353. The flight path at the ground zero point is a deviation from the display flight path.

As pilots are always looking for the next landing site when flying it would have a natural reaction to any problem in the flight.

It is reassuring that the authorities have made changes which are appropriate and proportional to the accident.

 

At the Telford model railway show I was chatting with some friends about the incident and another chap introduced himself as having been at the airshow and he witnessed the loop and crash. He was very upset by the experience but willing to chat about it. We noted a few features and events and he said that the show spectators are fully informed of the outcome. He said it was very good for him to chat about it and he felt much better.

To summarise my understanding of the evidence:

1. Aircraft was fully fuelled before the the display and therefore was very heavy,
2. Pilot initially approached the site from the sea but turned to start the loop heading towards the seaside, and was subject to false horizon where the delination between sea and sky can be non extistant.
3. Aircraft was at 200 ft at the start of the loop, and the minimum is 500 ft,
4. Aircraft was topped out at 2,600 ft.
5. During the descent aircraft flight path had vertical dive component.
6. Aircraft controls and engine were serviceable during the flight.
7. During the recovery phase engine was spooling up to max power, but pilot deviated to right to avoid people on the roadside.

I think that this crash is an unplanned accident.

 

To late to speculate now. To many know it alls. Just say a prayer for all people who lost someone

 

??

 

CFIT I think. Scariest abbreviation known to frequent travellers.

All the best

Andreas

 

CFIT. Controlled Flight Into Terrain

Read more......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain

 

Frightening statistics.

Regards
Tom

 

... and to cap it all, we now have 2 dumb witted police officers thinking that taking selfies is suitable behaviour.
Sorry, it isn't and that they did so should have them thrown out of their probationary period.

We expect higher standards (of intelligence and all other qualities) in our police, only then can they command respect.
These two fools damage ALL police with their demonstrated lack of sensitivity.

Boot 'em out before they do any more harm.

 

Quite right

 

Speaking as a Long Serving Police Officer that retired in 2002 I have to agree that the actions were not professional or in keeping with Decency at that terrible time.
If they are in their probation they could be dismissed, however when not a probationer they may well be just repremanded as no criminal offence has been carried out.

Always the few bad apples that give all the other hard working and professional officers a bad reputation.

Makes me glad that I am retired.

Regards
Tom