Quoting awthompson (Reply 49): Fine in a Eurofighter Typhoon

Not really, if I may say so. If you start out low, you need to plan the loop to get level again at a higher or same altitude as you started. Especially if you're in a high speed loop like this one, you need to be sure you're at the right altitude when things are starting to go downhill again, Eurofighter or not. You (or your aircaraft) can pull just so may G's.

This pilot was headed straight into the sun, right? Could be a contributing factor.

Pilot 'fighting for his life' but more bodies may yet be found;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34029764

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 32):

Naturally. The crash happened outside the confines of the airport which he executed loop the loop at too low of an altitude according to eyewitnesses. That tells me the maneuver was not a planned maneuver and was done off the fly. He also executed it over a main road which he should have done it over the airport, not outside the boundaries. Doesn't matter if an experienced pilot has done it before, they should know the safety margins and what part of the airspace to execute it in. The Thunderbird pilot that crashed out in Idaho has S-splits before and yet he executed it at too low of an altitude which ended up crashing into the ground. Unlike this crash, the T-bird pilot did it directly over the runway. The pilot should have returned to his original altitude but that didn't happen. He seem to have been about 1000-1500 feet or so in the "crassh4" video when he was vertical so he could have started the maneuver at around 500 feet which IMO is way too low especially for a vintage aircraft.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 28):

Pardon my slow uptake - but isn't that a two-seater?

Quoting flightless (Reply 54):

The Hawker Hunter T.7 is a two-seater trainer.

Hunter T.7
Two-seat trainer built for the RAF. A side by side seating nose section replaced the single seat nose. Engine and systems as for the F.4; six were rebuilt F.4s, and 65 were new build. The dog-tooth leading edge and follow-up tailpane mods, as on the F.6, were fitted to the T.7.

This accident has nothing with plane age to do. It is all about engine power.

He managed to 99% recover to horizontal flight, but in that process he bled off speed and stalled. If the engine had done what it should have done, then he would easily have accelerated to flying speed.

I wonder if anybody knows about the Hunter tank system? On top of the loop he was so slow that seemed to just fall in zero G. With little fuel on board, and that little fuel splashing around in a big tank, would it be possible to temporarily starve the engine, and maybe even have a flameout?

In any case, it is an unnecessary risk to fly maneuvers which call for a fast and prompt engine spool up to avoid immediate ground contact.

I am afraid that airshows in Britain will never be the same again. Maybe the authorities will change the rules, but even if they don't....

With all the fatalities and injuries today the insurance company will shell out a massive fortune. What impact will that have on future airshows?

Will the insurance companies say    , or will they charge prohibitively high fees? Or will they dictate conditions which make airshows a lot less interesting for the public?

This time some insurance company will pay up. But one thing is sure: In the long run the airshow organizers will pay it all, plus the insurance company profits.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56): I wonder if anybody knows about the Hunter tank system? On top of the loop he was so slow that seemed to just fall in zero G. With little fuel on board, and that little fuel splashing around in a big tank, would it be possible to temporarily starve the engine, and maybe even have a flameout?

This is from the accident report of a Mk.6A chrashing 12 years ago:

Quote: Fuel is fed to the engine by a booster pump in each front tank. These electrically driven pumps charge fuel recuperators for negative g flight and feed the engine via a fuel proportioner through LP and HP cocks. In normal operation the booster pumps are switched on before engine start and remain on until after engine shut down. If both booster pumps fail, the negative g recuperators discharge and fuel balancing is impossible.

http://assets.digital.cabinet-office...000b95/dft_avsafety_pdf_028723.pdf

Unless the electrical system failed or both electrical booster pumps stopped working some time prior to the crash, a low fuel level would't have played a part in this crash.

Looking at these pilot notes for the Hunter, this section describes the operation of the booster pumps:

Quote: The booster-pumps, one in each front tank, are controlled by two ON/OFF switches (94) on the starboard shelf, and protected by two circuit breakers. The pumps are designed for two-speed operation. Normally they run continuously at low speed, but each at high speed is capable of supplying the maximum fuel demand to the engine.

Quote: (c) If one pump fails, an adjacent amber warning light (95) comes on and the other pump is switched to high speed. In such circumstances it is preferable to switch off both pumps and accept the feed provided by gravity and air pressure, unless sufficient fuel remains on the side con- taining the serviceable pump to complete the flight. At high engine power with both pumps off, the low pressure warning light (59) on the starboard quarter panel may come on and the fuel recuperators discharge their con- tents. In these circumstances no negative G manoeuvres should be carried out.

http://www.rafjever.org/hunter6pic017.htm#boosters
One fuel pump will deliver enough fuel for the engine at full power. In order for the pilot not to get full power from the engine while performing zero g manouvers both fuel pumps would have to be inoperable or there was no fuel in either front tank which given the explosion is improbable.

I doubt the pilot would have continued the show if he got the low fuel pressure warning light.

/Lars

Just to give some insight into where the impact happened.
The A27 is the main dual-carriageway that runs just North of the airport and is the main road between the Brighton area and heading towards the likes of Portsmouth and Southampton.
The set of traffic lights that are seen in the rather dramatic picture from reply #14 are at the Northern entrance to the airport. The airport boundary is literally about 50m to the right of this photo.
This is the normal entrance to Shoreham airport (there is a Southern entrance but its not suitable for all vehicles) and especially at the time of the airshow, obviously gets quite busy.

From the video on youtube, it appears he was coming down the valley that is NNE of the airport before pulling the loop maneuver.

Horrible accident. My thoughts are with the affected people.

I am also amazed about the number of photos from various angles about this. Sad that those are depicting such a horrible situation, though.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 41): I suspect there will be changes to UK Airshows.

I very much agree.

It is great to see vintage aircraft still flying, but pushing them to the limit like this and endangering public safety will I am sure be banned.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 46): How is the risk for mechanical failure higher in a well maintained 50 year old frame operating well within design specifications compared to a a well maintained 35 year old frontline fighter doing the same stuff?

Put simply, maintenance regime and budget availability!

Quoting Karadion (Reply 53): The crash happened outside the confines of the airport which he executed loop the loop at too low of an altitude according to eyewitnesses. That tells me the maneuver was not a planned maneuver and was done off the fly. He also executed it over a main road which he should have done it over the airport, not outside the boundaries.

Is that a rule for airshows? Looking at google maps ... the runway ends are so close to the airports perimter, it seems impossible to do any manoeuvre with such type of aircraft within the airports boundaries

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 62): Is that a rule for airshows? Looking at google maps ... the runway ends are so close to the airports perimter, it seems impossible to do any manoeuvre with such type of aircraft within the airports boundaries

It would be very difficult to keep display aircraft with in the confines of an airfield perimeter during a flying display. We all know this doesn't happen as it is simply impractical.

Just a note from some of the images that I've seen. In the first one, does it not appear that there is liquid being released from the drop tank? In the second one and this may be because he was trying to build airspeed from the suspected stall, but the ailerons ar set for level flight. I'm not pilot but I understand that when trying to recover from a stall that you're supposed to push the nose forward to build speed but it's just an observation.

Please note again, I'm not a pilot and just pointing out two things I've noticed in new photos.

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 62): Is that a rule for airshows? Looking at google maps ... the runway ends are so close to the airports perimter, it seems impossible to do any manoeuvre with such type of aircraft within the airports boundaries

No, its not a rule - the only rule that applies at airshows is minimum height and distance from the organised crowd line. This may mean displays are done over neighbouring roads or even villages.

Quoting moo (Reply 23): This is the first time since 1952 that people on the ground have died as a result of an airshow crash in the UK

Incorrect statement.. I was at this one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Syerston_Avro_Vulcan_crash

However, the current topic is sadly proving to show a sizeable loss of life.

RIP to those lost and condolences to the friends and families.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56): I am afraid that airshows in Britain will never be the same again.

...and in 1952 they had the nonchalance of continuing an air show after 31 dead...

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 63): It would be very difficult to keep display aircraft with in the confines of an airfield perimeter during a flying display. We all know this doesn't happen as it is simply impractical.

I have noticed the stricter safety limits on air shows. I notice a difference between Swiss air shows and those in Germany. And even those in Switzerlands have become stricter - farther away from the public, less good to see, less thrill for spectators... it is becoming different than in ye olde days.

At the air show in Dittingen (F-18C, in the past Patrouille Suisse with F-5E or even Su-27), some of the planes effectively do their display over the village nearby. Even stricter rules would mean an end of the little, familiar air show as we know it.

And this is just in: Two planes have crashed during the display in Dittingen. I visited the air show yesterday... I presume (with no certainty) that it was the "Grasshoppers" formation with their three light green light planes...

http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/basel/st...-stuerzen-bei-Flugshow-ab-13562709


David

Quoting jlager2 (Reply 64): Just a note from some of the images that I've seen. In the first one, does it not appear that there is liquid being released from the drop tank? In the second one and this may be because he was trying to build airspeed from the suspected stall, but the ailerons ar set for level flight. I'm not pilot but I understand that when trying to recover from a stall that you're supposed to push the nose forward to build speed but it's just an observation. Please note again, I'm not a pilot and just pointing out two things I've noticed in new photos.

Drop tanks are used to store fuel. They canot release fuel from it. Ailerons are used for role control not pitch control. At that altitude the pictures were taken he would have already realized he was going to crash and could have been trying to clear the road.

/Lars

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 67): ..and in 1952 they had the nonchalance of continuing an air show after 31 dead...

What's more Neville Duke in the prototype Hunter went and did the same sort of display, including going through the sound barrier in a dive that the ill fated DH.110 had just done.
But those were different times, in those days Farnborough was a major national event far more than it is now.
Plus no one would have thought to have sued the show, or the plane maker concerned.

An aviation journalist offers some perspective on the events at Shoreham;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p030gphs

[Edited 2015-08-23 03:40:06]

Quoting jlager2 (Reply 64):

Also in that top picture ... Is that just the pilot who can be seen or was there a second person on board?

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 32): I take it, that this is pure speculation?

There is a video of a Hunter crashing at the bottom of a loop, too low would not be unfounded speculation.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 41): here does come a point where you can not continue to fly vintage jets as the likelihood for an accident increases as the airframes and components therein age.

I'm starting to agree with this sentiment.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 46): How is the risk for mechanical failure higher in a well maintained 50 year old frame operating well within design specifications compared to a a well maintained 35 year old frontline fighter doing the same stuff?

Different generations, different technologies. You're comparing a Hunter to an F-111, F-5, etc,.. You're also comparing military maintenance vs. private, military up to date training & currency vs. a private citizen.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 70):

I believe it could carry two people but was piloted by one on the day

Quoting larshjort (Reply 68):

Thanks for the clarification   i've done some research on the hawker hunter and the elevators are located on the underside of the wings adjacent to the ailerons. They don't appear to be engaged in the image although they are clearly shown in the earlier part of the manoeuvre. (Edit: on photos from behind these can be seen to be deployed)

Just looking at other forums, this aircraft apparently has a history of fuel leaks from this tank and is shown as pluming in previous displays. Maybe nothing but definitely seems to be trailing a plume of some sort and has had post season maintenance issues

Here is the cleaned up image from earlier in the manoeuvre which shows a light plume from the area of the drop tank


[Edited 2015-08-23 07:09:14]

[Edited 2015-08-23 07:20:42]

Quoting FredrikHAD (Reply 51): Quoting awthompson (Reply 49): Fine in a Eurofighter Typhoon Not really, if I may say so. If you start out low, you need to plan the loop to get level again at a higher or same altitude as you started. Especially if you're in a high speed loop like this one, you need to be sure you're at the right altitude when things are starting to go downhill again, Eurofighter or not. You (or your aircaraft) can pull just so may G's.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56): This accident has nothing with plane age to do. It is all about engine power. He managed to 99% recover to horizontal flight, but in that process he bled off speed and stalled. If the engine had done what it should have done, then he would easily have accelerated to flying speed.

FredrikHAD I've studied your comment. However, I do think that an aircraft with a higher thrust output for its weight, giving the Typhoon as an example, would have marginally better capability of 'thrusting' out of the situation that this Hunter found itself in during the latter stages of the dive, as prebennorholm has kind of suggested? NOTE: I am not a complete expert on the subject.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56): I wonder if anybody knows about the Hunter tank system? On top of the loop he was so slow that seemed to just fall in zero G. With little fuel on board, and that little fuel splashing around in a big tank, would it be possible to temporarily starve the engine, and maybe even have a flameout?

I would imagine that this is possible. In one of the videos, the aircraft does appear to go rather 'quiet' at the top of the loop and in the first part of the dive. This could of course be due to other factors affecting sound propagation in relation to the said camera. However in the same video I am referring to, the engine appears to be producing thrust in the latter part of the dive based on the loud sound that I hear. Could it be therefore that the pilot was very occupied during the early stage of the dive with an engine relight and got thrust restored fairly quickly but by the time the engine spooled up it was too late.

The death toll has now reached 11 sadly

I was reading about the DH.110 crash in 1952 and times have clearly changed since then, the aircraft was a prototype (unproven as it turned out) yet they did a supersonic dive from 40000 feet over the show !

Quoting moo (Reply 65): No, its not a rule - the only rule that applies at airshows is minimum height and distance from the organised crowd line. This may mean displays are done over neighbouring roads or even villages.

Seafair in Seattle features these sorts of things. Entire freeways and bridges are shut down periodically starting almost a week before the actual event. As I understand it all maneuvers are carried out such that failure during critical parts of flight do not occur over populated areas. There was an crash during the Seattle World's Fair which destroyed a house in 1962.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 53): That tells me the maneuver was not a planned maneuver and was done off the fly.

Not in the UK.   

All public displays have to be approved by the show's flying committee and pilots cannot just make it up 'as they go along'. The displays are also monitored through practice as well as the show. A good example was the 'slapped wrist' that the Boeing 787 display team got at last year's Farnborough and had to change their display.

As others have pointed out, the geography of this airfield means it's impossible for the display to be within the confines of the airfield (and, I expect, very nearly every airfield in the UK). Certainly at Farnborough and RIAT many displays exceed the field's boundary.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 48): Replacement parts are difficult to source, so existing parts are maintained to the edge or beyond their expected useful life. Second, the electrical wiring and looms. As an aircraft ages, so does the wiring. It becomes more brittle and susceptible to shorting.

If you're assuming that these aircraft are flying around with all of their original electrical wiring, you're probably wrong. Wiring can be replaced, and for aircraft like these that are meticulously restored and maintained, chances are that all of the electrical wiring has been updated and replaced with modern standards.

Also, physical parts can be fabricated if not sourced. Yes, age IS a factor with these older aircraft, but if the aircraft are meticulously maintained, it's not nearly as much of a factor as you make it out to be. This incident could have just as easily happened with an F-35 fighter.

Quoting jlager2 (Reply 72): Here is the cleaned up image from earlier in the manoeuvre which shows a light plume from the area of the drop tank

Without clearer imagery, I think we're reaching a bit far here and teetering on the edge of 'conspiracy theory' type territory. Not knowing what atmospheric conditions were like, the aircraft may have been creating some vapor wake.

Not to say that it's impossible for it to be leaking fuel; I'm just saying that it's not easy to draw a concrete conclusion on a blurry photo. Especially when almost no one here is an aeronautical engineer.

Quoting Redd (Reply 71): Quoting lhrnue (Reply 32): I take it, that this is pure speculation? There is a video of a Hunter crashing at the bottom of a loop, too low would not be unfounded speculation.

You have taken that completely out of context. My comment related to "unplanned and unpracticed maneuver that the pilot decided to make at the last second. That's how I interpret it."

Quoting awthompson (Reply 73): I do think that an aircraft with a higher thrust output for its weight, giving the Typhoon as an example, would have marginally better capability of 'thrusting' out of the situation

I'm no pilot myself either (not counting soaring planes a few times in the youth...), but I do know my physics. I agree with you in the given situation where the pilot already found himself facing a major problem. The loop itself needs to be equally carefully planned in a Typhoon IMHO. If you're coming nose down in the loop and find that you need to pull max G's, gravity will reduce your turn raidus as opposed to on the top of the loop where you "earn" 2 G (you're inverted) compared to when you're exiting the loop (at least for the pilot's G forces, not the same wayplane).

If the Hunter pilot had had a much more powerful engine in that particular moment, then yes, he would possibly have been able to skim the rooftops in 30 degrees AOA and then accelerated away, but that all depends on the moment when the thrust is being applied. If the aircraft is already stalled, the extra thrust will be too little help too late.

Quoting jlager2 (Reply 64):

The last picture in reply 64 clearly shows that the Hunter is way, way over the acceptable AOA (35-40 degrees). I guess my soaring plane instructor's words "never stall to the ground, FLY into it" is pretty hard to put in practice when it all goes terribly wrong in 2-3 sec.

Quoting jbo (Reply 78): Not to say that it's impossible for it to be leaking fuel

Looking at reply 64 and the first photo, you also have a dark trail from that drop tank. In both cases, it may well be wake turbulence often seen when aircraft are looping and otherwise pulling G's. There is, however, no other signs of this on the wingtips or by the rudder surface edges, where I'd normally expect to see it first. If there was a leak, it probably wasn't a contributing factor in this event. It's still (perhaps) leaking 1 sec before the crash.

It's really sad to hear that the death toll has increased.

So... first of all RIP to all people involved in the crash. All crashes are horrible and when people from the public are involved it is always a sad thing.
As usual on this site there is lots of analysis going on, and not all of it is good so from my limited knowledge i would like to clear up a few things...without drawing conclusions.

The Aircraft:
Hunter T7 (twin seat) WV372 was an ex RAF trainer and removed from service mid-90's. Has been a syndicated aircraft for a while before being bought by its current owner and was based at North Weald (north of London).
It is kept in prestine condition and aircraft have a strict maintenance schedule, even while flying relatively few hours every year (20-30 hrs per year). This means these aircraft get a lot of maintenance man hours because some parts are calendar based (seals, hoses, ejection seat pyro's etc..). This means parts get removed even if they have very few flying hours on them.

The Pilot:
Identified as Andy Hill. One of the top display pilots in the UK, with RAF (Harrier) background and many years of Hunter Display flying. This brings us to the "unplanned" part of the comments... In display flying there is no such thing as "unplanned". Displays are rehearsed, checked by people who need to "certify" that the display is safe for the public. This process is called a "Display Authorization or DA". These days it is not possible ot fly an airshow without a DA and on top of having this, the display pilot also needs to be current with a number of displays flow per month, otherwise a workup and recertification follows.

The hard deck :
Hard deck is defined by the manouvre flown. it can be straight and level or aerobatic and is also defined by the experience of the display pilot. Several levels exist. Pilots start out with a 500 ft base level and gradually are allowed to lower the hard deck.

Altimeter Setting:
I do not have the compete information but altimeter setting is always checked. If the aircraft came direct from North Weald (don't know this) then he left at 322ft while Shoreham is 7ft. Even if he were flying QFE (doubt it) and didn't reset his altimeter for local QFE at Shoreham he would have "spare altitude"


Engine/fuel pump

Quoting larshjort (Reply 57): This is from the accident report of a Mk.6A chrashing 12 years ago

Not really good to compare systems as you are comparing a "big engine" Hunter F.6A (XF516) with a small engine Hunter (WV372). While the F.6A was powered by a 201 series Avon engine with about 10.000 lbs of thrust, the T.7 had the smaller 122 series Avon with 7500 lbs of thrust. Along with different engines came different systems and accessories.

Quoting jlager2 (Reply 72): Thanks for the clarification i've done some research on the hawker hunter and the elevators are located on the underside of the wings adjacent to the ailerons. They don't appear to be engaged in the image although they are clearly shown in the earlier part of the manoeuvre. (Edit: on photos from behind these can be seen to be deployed)Just looking at other forums, this aircraft apparently has a history of fuel leaks from this tank and is shown as pluming in previous displays. Maybe nothing but definitely seems to be trailing a plume of some sort and has had post season maintenance issues

The elevators of a Hunter are on the rear end of the horizontal tailplane. I believe you are confusing with flaps, which are at the bottom side of the wing, inboard of the ailerons. The hunter can use 10 degrees of flap throughout the flight envelope and these are routinely used for manouvering, hence called manouvering flaps. Look at any clips of hunters doing display flying and you will always see a bit of flaps. That is normal.

The mention of fuel leak will be determined by investigation. having looked over the video several times, i don't see the leak and the photo is kind of grainy but whatever it is.. if there is a fuel leak it will not affect the flying qualities of the aircraft. There was another aircraft a few years ago (won't tell which one) which developed a quite significant fuel leak and continued its display without problem.
Please remember that a Hunter is an early generation jet which has push-pull tubes for flight controls, which are assisted by a hydraulic booster unit. It means even without this hydraulic assistance it is possible to fly the aircraft (with a bit of muscle power).

Conclusion:
There are likely things and things which seem obvious but it would not be correct towards the pilot and towards those people who lost their lives to jump to conclusions. Altimeter Settings, wrong altitude, birdstrike, mechanical failure,... are all possible but lets leave those conclusions to the professionals of AAIB. We lost lives, a highly experienced display pilot is fighting for his life, and we lost a beautiful bird. Lets see what comes out.
Sadly as always people will start screaming about risks of old airplanes, dangers of airshows and reckless people... as usual these are just people who have no clue about flying, display flying or the servicing of aircraft such as the Hunter.
Let's just keep Andy in our thoughts and hope he pulls through. That in itself would be a little miracle.

Quoting jbo (Reply 78): If you're assuming that these aircraft are flying around with all of their original electrical wiring, you're probably wrong. Wiring can be replaced, and for aircraft like these that are meticulously restored and maintained, chances are that all of the electrical wiring has been updated and replaced with modern standards.

It was a generalisation but I would counter that you are speculating; 'the chances are'.

Quoting fvtu134 (Reply 81): It is kept in prestine condition and aircraft have a strict maintenance schedule, even while flying relatively few hours every year (20-30 hrs per year)

Do you know this for a fact or again, is this speculation? How do you know regular maintenance was performed? How do you know it conducted properly? How do you know that the maintenance that was performed was signed off by a suitably qualified individual as satisfactory?

Quoting fvtu134 (Reply 81): I do not have the compete information but altimeter setting is always checked

Again, was it? If so by whom?

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 82): Do you know this for a fact or again, is this speculation? How do you know regular maintenance was performed? How do you know it conducted properly? How do you know that the maintenance that was performed was signed off by a suitably qualified individual as satisfactory?

in true sense of the word it is "Assumption". however A8-20 and CAP 632 operations are not the same as flying a cessna 150 and having it maintained by the local mechanic. The number of organisations in UK that have the qualified staff that can sign off on a Hunter is rather limited.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 82): Again, was it? If so by whom?

Altimeter settings are part of departure and arrival procedures at new aerodrome. So on top of preflight checks there's check in with destination aerodrome (on top of en-route). Again...knowing that assumption is the mother of all f.... up's but plenty of opportunity to have altimeter eliminated as wrong setting and again.. if departure aerodrome QFE was kept, then there would be a "surplus altitude".. and just to accomodate your thourough questioning... that is assuming there is no large pressure differential bridging North Weald and Shoreham.

This new video shows a completely different view of the aircraft from the A27, it does appear to stall right at the end..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34034784

Quoting fvtu134 (Reply 81): This brings us to the "unplanned" part of the comments... In display flying there is no such thing as "unplanned". Displays are rehearsed, checked by people who need to "certify" that the display is safe for the public. This process is called a "Display Authorization or DA".

I don't really know what you are trying to say, but in the UK DA system, it is allowed to "improvise". A pilot is cleared down to an altitude (first one is 200' and then lower) and type of manoeuvres (level of aerobatics, or no aerobatics at all), the pilot is not cleared for a specific sequence. A pilot can decide during his display what manoeuvre he likes to do next as he sees fit. One specific sequence often does not work out at each event. Depending on wind, cloud base, display line (it is not always straight), etc
This pilot was very experienced, I doubt lack of experience or the DA system played any role in this accident.

If you want to know all about the UK CAA Display authorisation system, see CAP 403 and 1047.

When I gained my DA earlier this year, I was told by my instructor that a "loop-the-loop" is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres at an airshow and he (a very experienced ex-military display & test pilot) never does it on a display.
It is a bit strange as a loop-the-loop is a very simple manoeuvre from a pilot point of view: speed up, pull up & make small adjustments in pitch until you are wings level again. If you do this at altitude and you bust entry height by 100-200ft, no big deal. But you don't have that margin at low height and if you are slightly low on top (& continue), or something happens in the last 1/4 of the loop, you are lost. There is no way to get you out of trouble anymore.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 85): When I gained my DA earlier this year, I was told by my instructor that a "loop-the-loop" is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres at an airshow and he (a very experienced ex-military display & test pilot) never does it on a display.

Agree on the loop, and actually you might add the Barrel roll to it. Number of people who have pulled into a barrel roll only to find themselves pointing towards the ground with not sufficient altitude to pull out is probably just as large. At the top of a loop (after checking altitude) you still have a chance to roll upright and complete a half lazy-8. but that's already getting off topic.

fvtu134 - thanks for your contributions. I'm aware that I was being thorough above but there is a tendency on these forums to assume when accidents occur and before the actual facts are known, that the correct actions were taken when it transpires they weren't, that people acted rationally when they don't, etc, etc.

Quoting fvtu134 (Reply 83): that is assuming there is no large pressure differential bridging North Weald and Shoreham.

I've quoted your comment as on Saturday, it was unusually humid in Southern England. Whether there was a signficant pressure differential between North Weald and Shoreham, I doubt. Whether failure to adjust to atmospheric changes was a contributory factor to the accident, who knows. That will be my last contribution as the topic is drifting.

Quoting nema (Reply 83):

I just screamed a certain four-letter word...  


I wondered if the guy filming this flight would survive...

RIP to all dead, a good recovery as possible to the injured, condolences to the relatives...  

Writing 2.6 km / 1.6 miles from where a deadly air show crash happened on Sunday...

David

Death toll could rise to 20, police have said as they start to remove wreckage from the crash site  

CAA announced limits on "vintage jets" during airshows...

Quote: The CAA has announced the following: • As a precaution, on Saturday 22 August we took steps to ensure no further flights were made by Hawker Hunter aircraft - this temporary restriction remains in place. • Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted. • The CAA will conduct additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced. • We commenced a full review of civil air display safety yesterday and held an initial meeting this morning.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2479

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 87): I wondered if the guy filming this flight would survive...

I think he made it, otherwise he would not be in a position to make the footage available.

According to a witness reporting in the Daily Mail, it looks like those spectators seen in one of the widely circulating newspaper images were not so fortunate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3209684/

A terrible tragedy, especially as people outside of the airfield activity have been affected. I am passionate about heritage aviation and airshows, but I am sure we will have to have changes. We accept that pilots may be injured or lost on occasion - they know the risk and accept it. We know that paying spectators may become injured or lost, however unlikely it may be, - we pay for our ticket and know and accept the risks. Those outside of the airfield going about their day to day business had no option and that for me is the hardest part of this tragedy to accept. The hobby I love has been responsible for the loss of others who were not involved in anyway.

I believe this is the first time in the UK anyone outside of an event has been killed. If some changes are needed to ensure as far as possible the risk to those outside the airfield boundary are protected, then I am in favour of that. I am sure that there is a way to move forward with vintage flying still being allowed and risks to others reduced further and that will be a fitting legacy to those affected this weekend.

Best regards,

Jim

Quoting moo (Reply 89): CAA announced limits on "vintage jets" during airshows...

I'm not sure why this only applies to jets - there are plenty of Spits and Hurricanes doing a lot more than a fly-by at shows in the UK.

Quoting moo (Reply 89): As a precaution, on Saturday 22 August we took steps to ensure no further flights were made by Hawker Hunter aircraft - this temporary restriction remains in place.

On the BBC news last night, the CAA spokesman seemed to suggest that Hunters would be grounded permanently, as in never fly again. Very sad if true.

And here come the restrictions. Temporary for now.

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/u-k-r...how-displays-after-shor-1726155704

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479

Just being a aviation hobbyist just wondering if, being powered by a turbojet, the pilot got behind the power curve and the engine could not spool up in time. Since the engine was probably at flight idle coming down the backside of the loop it would take quite a few seconds to get up to full thrust once the pilot realized he was in trouble.