Sussex Airshow Crash

[Oldshoes]

Yup! Hey! We agree on something!

[fleet16b]

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

An accurate prediction
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-a ... -1.3207883

[Rockie]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.g ... G-BXFI.pdf

Preliminary report is out. If the maps are accurate I suspect after the first pass along the show line his intention was to re-enter from a 45 degree angle from the north with a pitch up and quasi-barrel roll back on to the show line heading south. It looks like he may have started the pitch up too late and over rolled on the up line causing him to bust the show line at a 90 degree angle or more from his intended heading. That might explain the straight pull through the vertical in a failed attempt to get back on the right side of the line (impact appears to be almost in line with the show line to the north). Something else belying an intentional straight pull through the vertical is the very slow airspeed at the top. The Hunter is not a biplane, it is a swept wing jet with a much higher wing loading that needs much more than 100 knots and a lot of thrust to pull the nose around an arc at a sufficient rate with the minimum turn radius to complete that kind of maneuver.

I don't think he ever intended a straight through pull which is why he didn't have the height or speed for it. I think he just misjudged his pull up entry and tragically chose to pull straight through from inverted when he realized he was busting the show line. The start point for that kind of rolling pitch up onto an entry line is very difficult to judge at low level / high speed without solid geographical awareness and pre-planning. The report also says he only had just under 10 hours on the jet in the last 90 days further stacking the odds against him.

[North Shore]

So the 'top gate' explanation holds, then? Would more airspeed at the top have helped, or was it strictly a function of altitude? 100kt seems pretty slow for a swept-wing jet?

What happens if you do 'bust the show line'? Lose your certification?
Was he in a terrain trap? No choice but to continue through from inverted, because if he'd pulled to, say 30 deg (due to the low airspeed,) then half-rolled to right way, and thence to level, he would have impacted terrain? (I seem to remember, from one of the videos, that there was some higher terrain, and valleys backing onto the town.)

[Rockie]

So the 'top gate' explanation holds, then

He didn't have enough altitude (or airspeed) to complete the maneuver he ended up doing, but I believe he did have enough altitude and airspeed to complete the maneuver he was planning on doing - which was a modified barrel roll with a 45 degree heading change to align himself with the show line. It didn't work out that way. Top gate is just a term describing the altitude an aerobatic pilot targets before completing the downward part of any maneuver, and it's not magic. Every display pilot knows about it and adheres to it unless they want to die, which unfortunately happens sometimes when something doesn't work out as planned - or they do something unplanned and unpracticed. This Hunter pilot tragically chose (for reasons we all hope he lives to be able to tell) to try and recover the show line vertically rather than just rolling off the maneuver when he knew he blew it. A stiff fine or even losing his display credentials is better than dying.

Was he in a terrain trap? No choice but to continue through from inverted, because if he'd pulled to, say 30 deg (due to the low airspeed,) then half-rolled to right way, and thence to level, he would have impacted terrain? (I seem to remember, from one of the videos, that there was some higher terrain, and valleys backing onto the town.)

Short answer I believe is - no. He committed to a vertical pull out due to his position relative to the show line rather than terrain, of which there is none around there that would prevent him from rolling off the maneuver anywhere up to about 60 - 70 degrees nose down. He also could have been trying to avoid overflying the adjacent city which he would have been heading directly toward when he was inverted.

But that's just my opinion based on what's known so far, I could be completely wrong. As I say I hope this fellow lives to tell his side of the story.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Busting the show line will not automatically result in loss of your display privileges. You will get an immediate "knock it off " from the Air Boss and you will not continue with your routine.

The circumstances of the event will then be looked at and a corrective action plan will be developed. This could be anywhere from verbal counselling, to more practice, to be required to revalidate your display qualification to an out right ban on air show flying.

The last option would likely only apply to individuals who are unable or unwilling to achieve an acceptable standard, or for those who have exhibited an unsafe attitude and are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.

From the graphics I have seen it would appear likely that a jet aerobatic act would not have been permitted if this venue was in North America because of the size of the aerobatic box. Again this is only an opinion based solely on what has been published in the press and various aviation news sites and so it may prove to be inaccurate.

[oldyellr]

I have a Google news alert for the pilot, Andy Hill, and there's not a peep, only alerts for other "Andy Hills". The last I heard was his health was not good enough for authorities to interview him. Anybody know anything?

[CFR]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -Hill.html

[oldyellr]

Finally, Police question Shoreham air show disaster pilot Andy Hill

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

[Rockie]

Finally, Police question Shoreham air show disaster pilot Andy Hill

How about the CAA questions him with the police present in case they're needed? Not like the Bobbie's have any expertise here...

[photofly]

Did somebody really call the Sussex Police "Bobbies"? Lawks'a'mercy.

[oldyellr]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

What kind of air shows do they run over there anyway? And have the police even spoken to the pilot after 6 months?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... plans.html

[GyvAir]

And have the police even spoken to the pilot after 6 months?

Your own post from 3 months ago has this link in it:

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


Inquest scheduled for June?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 50151.html

[cgzro]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

Here the organizers don't have to be aware of the exact details of any given routine because they don't actually regulate the flying, they simply need proof that you are qualified. The AirBoss and organizers may want to know duration and some details but its TC not the organizers that are aware and approve the heights/distances etc. I don't know what happens in the UK but I imagine there is something similar in place so I would not read too much into that statement.

From the graphics I have seen it would appear likely that a jet aerobatic act would not have been permitted if this venue was in North America because of the size of the aerobatic box.

Likely true of a civilian jet aerobatic act... The military however and to the best of my knowledge in both the US and Canada can do what they want and are not regulated by the airshow organizers FAA or TC and therefore set their own safety standards.

Nobody wants to die and nobody wants to kill people but unfortunately aerobatics is insanely expensive (100's of thousands to get good) and warbird/jet aerobatics astronomically so, as a result usually only the military can generate sufficient practice to produce a highly competent young pilot/athlete. The alternative is you need very deep pockets and those usually only come when you are north of 40 or 50 and we are nowhere near as good as a kid is. This was recently brought home to me rather dramatically when the son-of-he-who-shall-remain-nameless brought us to within a meters of the nameless-one and stayed there like glue for about 45 minutes through a wide variety of acro. Unreal what a well trained 19 year old can do.

On the world aerobatic stage this is often demonstrated where the French and Russians often dominate. Both have military off shoots that allow pilots to spend a year doing competitive aerobatics at the expense of the military.

[Big Pistons Forever]

"Organisers unaware of pilot's display plans"

Here the organizers don't have to be aware of the exact details of any given routine because they don't actually regulate the flying, they simply need proof that you are qualified. The AirBoss and organizers may want to know duration and some details but its TC not the organizers that are aware and approve the heights/distances etc. I don't know what happens in the UK but I imagine there is something similar in place so I would not read too much into that statement.

Canadian Airshows that have aerobatic performers must obtain a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) from Transport Canada before they are allowed to proceed.

Part of the application will be a "maneuvers package" submitted by each performer to the airshow organizer and then passed to TC for assessment and approval by TC.

The CAR 623 requires this package contain the following information:

(a) a completed Special Aviation Event Flight Program (form 26-0374 set out in Appendix B) identifying all anticipated participants;

(b) for each foreign pilot, a legible copy of the pilot's licence and medical certificate;

(c) for each aerobatic performer, a sequential listing of all manoeuvres to be flown by the performer, including:

(i) the distance of each manoeuvre from spectator areas, including, where applicable, the point of entry into and recovery from each manoeuvre,

(ii) the point of entry to, and departure from, the flying display area, where applicable,

(iii) the directions of flight relative to the spectator areas,

(iv) the location of water drops, pyrotechnics, helicopter rappelling and similar operations relative to the spectator areas,

(v) the maximum and minimum speeds for the entire performance, and

(vi) the minimum altitudes for each manoeuvre to be performed;

(d) where applicable, a legible copy of each performer's:

(i) Transport Canada "Statement of Aerobatic Competency" (form 26-0307),

(ii) FAA (United States) "Statement of Acrobatic Competency" (form 8710-7), or

(iii) aerobatic competency certificate equivalent to (i) and (ii) above and recognized by Transport Canada; and

(iv) favourable assessment referred to in paragraph 623.06(1)(e) of the manoeuvres referred to in paragraph 623.07(14)(c) from either Transport Canada or the FAA (United States).

(e) for foreign aircraft with non-standard flight authorities, a Canadian validation of the aircraft's foreign flight authority pursuant to section 507.05 of the CARs;

(f) for information purposes, a copy of the emergency plan referred to in section 623.05;

(g) for information purposes, a copy of the air show's proposed air display traffic control procedures referred to in paragraph 623.05(4)(a);


Only the maneuvers that have been approved by TC in advance as part of the SFOC can be flown. Additional requirements are placed on formation aerobatic acts. Specifically (again from CAR 623)

Pursuant to section 603.06 of the CARs, to be eligible to operate an aircraft in an air show, each flight crew member has to meet the following requirements:

(c) to conduct formation air show aerobatic manoeuvres as part of an aerobatic team:

(i) be in possession of one of the following documents on which is annotated "Formation":

(A) a Transport Canada "Statement of Aerobatic Competency" (form 26-0307),

(B) an FAA "Statement of Acrobatic Competency" (form 8710-7), or

(C) an aerobatic competency certificate equivalent to (i) and (ii) above and recognized by Transport Canada, and

(ii) have within the preceding 12 months;

(A) performed with the other members of the formation in 8 aerobatic performances, or

(B) carried out a minimum of 25 aerobatic practice sessions with the other members of the formation;

(d) to conduct formation non-aerobatic manoeuvres:

(i) as pilot-in-command of the aircraft, be experienced in flying in formation in the aircraft intended for the flight,

(ii) in a formation flight of four aircraft or less, have practiced the non-aerobatic manoeuvres with the other members of the formation within the previous 30 days prior to the air show,

(iii) in any formation larger than four aircraft:

(A) have flown the formation's proposed sequences at an authorized air show in Canada or the U.S., within the 15 days prior to the air show, or

(B) have practiced the proposed sequences within 15 days prior to the air show, and

(iv) have attended, in addition to the briefing referred to in section 623.09, a briefing or review conducted by the formation leader or other designated formation member and attended by a representative of the certificate holder, preferably the person in charge of flight operations, covering at least the following subjects:

(A) designation of formation leader and alternate leaders, and selection of manoeuvres to be performed and their sequence,

(B) formation positions,

(C) alternate positions in case of aborts,

(D) radio procedures and call signs,

(E) visual signals,

(F) expected speeds and power settings,

(G) take-off and turn out,

(H) join up and break, and

(I) emergency procedures; and

623.06(1) (e) to conduct the types of manoeuvres referred to in paragraph 623.07(14)(c) below, each individual performer has received a favourable assessment of the manoeuvres from either Transport Canada or the FAA (United States).

[oldyellr]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1409392/c ... r-charges/

[pdw]

It's a tragedy on a clear day, however a wx thing there too. I'm not sure if police investigation is useful to find cause if this is plain "misjudgement" to do with 'holes in the swiss cheese'.

As for the article stating low entry, well there is the shooting in from lower out-of tree cover from far afield out of the northwest, which is an old trick to surprise the airshow crowd. The initial climbing is not part of the loop either; actually only enters the loop phase when initiating it with the left vertical turning after already climbed higher still well NW of the airport and is well above 500' still well away from the show crowd.

That day is stronger ESE up at 3K than 22km at the surface.

Arriving highspeed to enter the act out of treetrop level from the wide area of uninhabited farmland to the northwest of the show area it enters the very steep climbrate (left turning/roll to inverted) with "full fuel" and slows considerably even prior to the top; so maybe intended further east and higher (i.e. got too slow there ?). Sure looks poor in groundspeed prior to downturn, so isn't there also an illusion that can precipitate a judgement error while focusing for the ideal showmanship position ?

[cgzro]

This is not overly complicated.

Pilots must understand simple physics to not die. Fuel burn, moments, true airspeed, wind correction headings, magnetic deviation, altimeter correction etc... the list of things you need to mathematically get right to safely fly on the edge are well known. Now we all know you can get away with rough estimates much of the time but we should also know when that wont work. Example you dont guess the altimeter settimg before an ILS to minimums, you dont guess fuel on a trans oceanic trip etc.

This case is no different. A plane's trajectory in a turn is well understood and inverted before you pull the nose down and commit to the trip you must check airspeed and altitude against a window of allowable values. If you dont you cant easily guess how much altitude you need exactly. Also if the ASI is wrong or the ALt is incorrectly set or wrong you may die. The faster the plane the harder it is to judge.

Like fuel and w&b pilots get complacent and just wing it and it usually works but these are simple linear effects so its much easier, the moment the error is a square of what you misjudge humans are not well equipped for it and the math for that loop down has a v-squared in it and that v is true airspeed which is a function of yada yada..

[pdw]

double post

[pdw]

The wx info might have been vague, judging by the difficulty getting it from history. Oh it's CAVOK alright; that part is too easy. Yet, the takeoff rwy 20/North Weald used up the whole runway/6K ... i.e. 70-90V130-190 / 10-20kt in the area. Don't think the Learmount article's 'suspected engine weakness' necessarily holds, if just using a more nominal take-off power or even then just dallying away TODA early in that roll. The .. run coming in at tree-top level for the show line upwind 80nm/S on the same isobar isn't exactly a snailpace, .. just happens to be perfectly incident to the prevailing component at the surface in PK WND of that day (huge LO off coast NNW).