Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

Message
Author
Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2774
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: EGXC Lincolnshire
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#281 Post by Pontius Navigator » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:05 am

I am sure my next question will have been considered in court.

How much lateral control would have been available?

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#282 Post by Boac » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:45 am

Re 'banging out' - as I said earlier, there comes a point where the dynamics are beyond the seat capability, remembering that 'up' is where you want the seat to go and to do that the a/c needs to be nearly level. The other factor is the downwards velocity at the time of ejection which must be overcome by the seat's upward vector. If you eject in the vertical the seat has the same downwards velocity as the a/c so you only go sideways and down! All low-level manoeuvring has its 'coffin corner' where survival chances are poor to nil. With a rocket seat, providing the seat vector has enough 'up' angle, you do, of course, stand a better chance.

An ejection decision is almost always a 'late' one as instinct wants to recover the situation. Ideally the decision would need to be made before the a/c had gone too far past, say something like 45 degrees at the bottom and that is very early in terms of 'can I make it'. I cannot see a pilot ejecting in that situation unless control was completely lost. Hill seemed to have pitch control and marginal aileron control (due to the stall).

Regarding 'lateral', PN, I assume you mean could he have 'crashed' somewhere else? Two factors there
1) He was at the limits of control as evidenced by the wing rock which comes with a stalled a/c - probably very little 'lateral' control at the end.
2) I have assumed the A27 was his logical 'pull out' line to position for the next manoeuvre. It is also the lowest elevation in that area giving maximum 'space' to pull out. Left are factories and spotters. To the right rising ground towards Lancing College. Any turn would reduce the vertical performance and would only be practical if it gave more vertical space.

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2774
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: EGXC Lincolnshire
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#283 Post by Pontius Navigator » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:21 am

Your last comment concurs with my thoughts, lowest clear line though not necessarily the best given the outcome

cockney steve
CPL
CPL
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:31 pm
Location: saddleworth lancs

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#284 Post by cockney steve » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:18 pm

outcome would have been better, had the traffic -lights been green(ISTR that either the police had temporarily re-phased the lights, or there were road- works at that junction. Also the people on pedal-cycles were, I think, not supposed to be stopped there(well, actually they were off the carriageway, as was the motorcyclist victim.....but all were watching the air-display . Had the tail-end Charlie in the traffic-queue had the presence of mind to rapidly reverse, again, the outcome may have been different.....hindsight and armchair-hypothesising are wonderful.

DASTOCKS
First Solo
First Solo
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:13 am
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#285 Post by DASTOCKS » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:22 am

re: traffic lights - normal procedure was (is?) to switch the traffic lights off and put barriers in place to prevent all right turns at the junction(s) - it's actually two closely spaced T-junctions. Traffic on the westbound carriageway was queuing to the next junction at Lancing so would have been either stationary or very slow moving. No one on the A27 would have had a chance to take evasive action even if they had known what was about to hit them.

User avatar
om15
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5296
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Dorset
Age: 66

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#286 Post by om15 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:33 am

Having read the AAIB report and watched the various videos of the accident I really think this just comes down to human factors together with a pretty lax oversight of operating these old military aircraft.
The AAIB report mentions, amongst other factors, that the pilot did not have training currency, nor had demonstrated competency, of carrying out the escape manoeuvre at the top of the loop, together with the facts that the manoeuvre was commenced at too low an altitude, the aircraft speed was too low and there was no safety margin to complete the manoeuvre and the aircraft was not under full power.

I am not a pilot, but have studied human factors, the pilot was current on modern passenger aircraft and at the time of the accident was aged 51, from what we know there were no other circumstances contributing to the accident such as aircraft defects, bird strikes or lack of fuel.

If the contributing causes were that the pilot was not effectively current on type, in that I mean regularly flying the aircraft type, undergoing training and line checks, and that due to his age had lost the cognitive skills to carry out this type of flying, (in contrast to his "day job"), would this mean that he was negligent or that the CAA were negligent in permitting this situation.

At 50 I did not retain the acute senses of balance, anticipation and awareness required to ride a motorbike as safely at speed that I had in my twenties, on the other hand road experience had made me a much safer car driver. Therefore a competent safe Airbus pilot might not be a safe display pilot despite his earlier military training, but who should have recognised this, the pilot himself or the CAA.

The pilot is in the dock, but if the outcome touches on the above, will the CAA who cleared this pilot be prosecuted?

Very sad event all round, but I see parallels with the Duke of Edinburgh driving at 97 and inexplicably pulling out without seeing the oncoming car.
Alcohol doesn't solve any problems, but then again neither does milk.

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2774
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: EGXC Lincolnshire
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#287 Post by Pontius Navigator » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:03 pm

Om, all good points. If, for instance, he was legally current taking all factors in to account that suggests either the currency and competency regulations were wrong - CAA, or the pilot displayed an error of judgement or skill.

I can't remember the nuances error of judgement versus error of skill. One used to be bad and the other an accident. For instance a low hours pilot crashing in poor visibility would be error of skill whereas an experienced pilot pressing on would be an error of judgement.

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 6549
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#288 Post by Ex-Ascot » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:52 am

Pontius Navigator wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:03 pm
Om, all good points. If, for instance, he was legally current taking all factors in to account that suggests either the currency and competency regulations were wrong - CAA, or the pilot displayed an error of judgement or skill.

I can't remember the nuances error of judgement versus error of skill. One used to be bad and the other an accident. For instance a low hours pilot crashing in poor visibility would be error of skill whereas an experienced pilot pressing on would be an error of judgement.
As you say OM15 and PN but not 'an error of judgement'. It seems that no 'judgment' was necessary. He was outside the set parameters at the top of the loop and should have performed the escape maneuver. It was the same as going below decision height on an IMC approach. Not an error of judgment but breaking limits. No difference. There is a very good reason why limits are set. Basically, so you do not prang. Pretty well proven in this case.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 6549
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#289 Post by Ex-Ascot » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:04 pm

'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#290 Post by Boac » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:41 pm

Sounds incompetent to me, as reported! "1000ft too low"? Lucky he didn't crash too?

I'm not sure 'every pilot makes mistakes' is a defence for killing 11 people?

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 6549
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#291 Post by Ex-Ascot » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:32 pm

Glad you came back on that one Boac. However I am sure he was performing theses manoeuvres at a much higher altitude.

Let us see what the prosecution come back with. Probably what you say.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#292 Post by Boac » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:19 pm

"a much higher altitude" - I hope not since performance increases so dramatically at low level that the results would not be too relevant, but I hope high enough for his ??'cock-up'?? not to be TOO frightening. Obviously if he had been TOO low he should have flown an escape manoeuvre unless he was particularly dozy :))

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 6549
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#293 Post by Ex-Ascot » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:27 pm

You know what I mean Boac. I don't mean FL 310 just perhaps a 1,000 ft higher.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#294 Post by Boac » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:52 pm

I did actually assume you didn't mean FL310. At least you wouldn't need smoke - the Chemtrails would suffice,:))

It would take a very foolish TP to attempt a pull-through from the height and speed Hill did!

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 6549
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#295 Post by Ex-Ascot » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:32 pm

Andy is on the stand and very well tutored by his brief. First time he has commented on the accident. Will not point to the DM article it is so inaccurate.

He is claiming that in fast jet training the effects of g force were never mentioned. Oh yes. Very funny. Did he skip North Luffenham?

Looking at dates and his career progression in the Royal Air Force it would appear to me that he PVR'd. Anyone know?

Also, how did he get at a command in B.A. so rapidly?
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2774
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: EGXC Lincolnshire
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#296 Post by Pontius Navigator » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:48 pm

Here are some Gee-pants, the girls love them, especially the little hose sticking out the side.

Must admit I only remember pressure breathing, the bends, sea drills, para dragging, bang seat trainer, but at some point I 'absorbed' instruction and information on G.
I don't think I was alone in reading the FS Reviews, Air Clues, Combat Crew and anything else aviation related. Only bring vulnerable to G for a short period I still read about G-loc, G-limits etc etc .

Is it possible he was not on a type that used G-trousers?
Denying all knowledge is a very dangerous tactic. It could be an open goal finding a Doc to confirm such training, or a course 'mate' at the time.

Mrs PN, sniffed in the air, she knows about G too without the benefit of Air Clues.

User avatar
Flintstone
Snr FO
Snr FO
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:18 pm
Location: Herts, sometimes

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#297 Post by Flintstone » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:08 pm

I'm surprised to hear such a claim. Show me someone with even a passing interest in aviation and I'll sjow you someone who knows about the effects of 'G'.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#298 Post by Boac » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:14 pm

Unable to comment on his 'career', either RAF or BA since we were separated in time. but the 'g' comment I saw on the BEEB was whether or not he had been trained on 'G-lock' and he said no. It is a 'new-fangled' expression which neither he nor I were introduced to - we both were taught about 'g' and how not to black out using 'turning trousers' - simples. If what I heard reported was accurate, he was accurate in his answer.

User avatar
Flintstone
Snr FO
Snr FO
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:18 pm
Location: Herts, sometimes

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#299 Post by Flintstone » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:22 pm

I've not seen the news report so don't know how the question was phrased but as a matter of interest if you were asked if you had been trained in G-LOC as in Loss Of Consciousness what would your answer have been?

I suspect Mr Hill is splitting hairs.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#300 Post by Boac » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:29 pm

I have to assume that reading the case so far the defence is going for 'manslaughter due to diminished responsibility' or whatever it is.

Flint - likewise I do not have the court narrative so I do not know the exact question, but no, 'G-Loc' was never even heard
of in my and his time. I may well have answered the same in court. "G-LOC as in Loss Of Consciousness" are two different questions - and we are talking lawyers here. Ask ex-A, who has been through RAF training including aeros/g - had he ever heard of 'G-Loc' specifically?

Post Reply