-
I think the part that explains he may have confused his appropriate altitude for the manoeuvre with that of the Jet Provost seems most likely. The guy was clearly a decent pilot, but we all make mistakes. He probably wouldn't have realised until too late. You tend not to be too worried about your altitude at the top of a loop.
Mistake made, tragic consequences. It is mightily unlucky it hit a busy main road. Anywhere else and we wouldn't be talking about this now.
-
By my reckoning* you've got until about 3/4 of the way round - bit less because of the time it takes to roll 180 degrees - before you're committed to completing it.
If you half roll 3/4 of the way round, you're just heading for a different bit of the scenery with the same problem you had before.
-
This.
-
Shirley it depends on air speed and diameter of the loop as well... it's all well and good making it to the top unless you stall, even slightly at that altitude.
Unless there's some terminal diameter/speed ratio.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I see all this talk your having now as conjecture because these things and the facts about how high one must be in which aircraft to safely complete a loop should of happened in the SAS planning and risk assessment.
The fact that it didn't from what I understand is down to the fact that Mr King did not inform SAS what he was or wasn't planning to do before hand and so this planning never took place. I wasn't aware of the ejector seat self tripping but I did see somewhere that it was actually out of date / service at the time of the SA show.
Maybe the plod had to wait for this but I think with facts like that they could of had the gist of it prior to release as they are the police and imo Mr King should of been arrested and remanded in custody by now. He's negligence (or perhaps arrogance) has led to 12 guys dying untimely and I imagine in some cases horrific deaths. Saying oh I don't remember what happened is like a smidsy and i hope he isn't let off because "he's suffered enough and he'll have to live with this."
SAS seem to be happy to blame it all on the pilot but maybe they too are negligent for not actually getting a detailed plan in place or they did and mr king just deviated from it he really should of been arrested and charged by now.
-
I see all this talk your having now as conjecture
Have you read the full AAIB report?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b9247740f0b67ec80000fc/AAR_1-2017_G-BXFI.pdf
-
As the report suggests the reliability of the engine was in question.
It took off from Essex and took the whole runway to get airbourne.
If the jet was under powered that would explain why it did not respond out of the loop.
I don't even think it had enough poke to complete the correct loop...
● The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8
Who is Mr King btw?
-
"Flight trials demonstrated that an escape manoeuvre can be accomplished
successfully at airspeeds as low as 80 KIAS, and up to four seconds into the
descent after passing the apex"That's why I found the quote I posted previously a bit weird. There's ample (relatively speaking) opportunity after the apex to abort a loop, you're not committed until much later. Still don't understand why an aerobatic pilot would need to be trained for something like that.
Reading the section of the report about about the fatal manoeuvre it's hard to conclude anything other than the pilot massively fucked up. Started too low and slow, reduced thrust during the climb (which he'd apparently done previously) and didn't gain enough altitude. All apparently in contravention of his own 'stated technique', plenty of opportunity to realise conditions were wrong but apparently ignored.
-
As the report suggests the reliability of the engine was in question.
It took off from Essex and took the whole runway to get airbourne.
Page 8 of the report mentions the longer than usual takeoff run but puts it down to a tailwind and high air temperature. No mention of the aircraft's engine. Also on p169: "The engine manufacturer’s analysis of JPT and engine speed, derived from
the cockpit action camera recordings, revealed no anomalies during takeoff
and transit steady state conditions."Happy to be pointed towards owt I've missed, ain't nobody got time to read the whole thing.
-
No. Other incidents of unexplained loss of power from same engine design.
● Information included in a previous AAIB report indicated that there had been several cases involving the type of engine fitted to this aircraft where an un-commanded reduction in engine speed had occurred and subsequent engineering investigation did not establish a clear cause. This investigation was unable to determine whether a reduction in engine speed recorded during the accident manoeuvre was commanded by the pilot.
-
Reading the section of the report about about the fatal manoeuvre it's hard to conclude anything other than the pilot massively fucked up
That much is clear, I just wondered how @yarklad had come to the conclusion that it was a criminal matter; if he read the report, he has a difference of opinion with the AAIB, and if he didn't then he was indulging in the same conjecture that he was calling everybody else out for.
FWIW, last time I saw Hunters at Shoreham (mid 70s), they flew their display over the sea. Putting the display line over the field obviously makes it easier to monetise.
-
This is one of the previous incidents involving Mr Hill in the Provost...
He does seem to 'chuck it around' somewhat. I have a feeling the Hunter is not so forgiving.
-
You don't need power coming out of a loop, quite the opposite, until you are straight and level with the airspeed coming back, the throttle will be at idle from just before the top of the loop. You need power from the entry until you reach the top, not for recovery.
I can't see this as anything other than pilot error, you should know what height you require at the top of the loop to complete it safely. If you don't have it when you get there, you don't pull through. From that point of view, even if the engine was deficient in power for some reason, you don't just go ahead and complete the manoeuvre regardless.
-
I'd say u need airspeed at completion to either climb or maintain altitude.
One might say power coming out of the loop. 😎
I think he planned a slow roll and adjusted to track the road for a fly by.
Woefully short of airspeed indoing so.
Also negligent to the Hunters lack of aerobatic performance.
-
No, you don't. As you leave the bottom of a loop, you are going pretty fast. You can either convert that speed to height, or leave the throttle closed until it bleeds off.
Woefully short of airspeed indoing so.
Too much, rather. It was height he was short of.
Also negligent to the Hunters lack of aerobatic performance.
The same Hawker Hunter famed for its sweet handling and manoeuvreability? Ok.
Ordinata
Scrabble
gbj_tester
Well_is_it
Brun
cyberyark
Emyr
rodan
umop3pisdn
-
Post a reply
About
Plane / Planes / Aircraft / Aeroplane / Airplane appreciation
Posted by
@GA2G
"It would have been possible to abort it safely at the apex of the loop but Mr Hill had not been trained in the escape manoeuvre which might have got him out of trouble."
Why would a pilot flying an aerobatic display not be capable of a quick - instinctive even -decision to turn a loop into an immelmann without 'training'?
By my reckoning* you've got until about 3/4 of the way round - bit less because of the time it takes to roll 180 degrees - before you're committed to completing it.
*as an experienced armchair pilot.