Serious crash at airshow in UK. Several dead

The long runway at Brighton is 1036m (3400 ft), so a vintage jet would typically take most of it - the 'expert' in the article is a putz to suggest it 'laboured', the takeoff looks like most vintage jet takeoffs I have ever seen, they just don't 'leap off the ground like a missile', especially jets like the Hunter.

Takeoff distance heavy is 3600 ft, so at airshow weights they would have had some margin but not a lot - typical when operating a vintage aircraft.

I don't think the CAA action to restrict vintage jets to basically straight-and-level flyby's is anything other than a knee-jerk reaction - this was a freak accident - you have to go back to the 1950's to find an accident in the UK where uninvolved 3rd parties were injured in an accident like this - the safety record remains pretty exceptional all things considered, especially for the spectators and uninvolved.

'Gimp
 
This is why the T-Birds and the Blues have strict rules about clearing out the end zones for their routines. Things got a lot tighter after the Frecce Tricolori crash I think.
 
flyingron said:
This is why the T-Birds and the Blues have strict rules about clearing out the end zones for their routines. Things got a lot tighter after the Frecce Tricolori crash I think.
Click to expand...

Germany banned air shows for awhile after Ramstein. When I was stationed there I was looking forward to hitting the shows around the country. They had some fly in events but very few shows. Now a days they've opened it up again for aerobatic performances. What they should have done was modify their rules instead of banning shows altogether.

On a side note, I went up in the tower at Ramstein back in 03. Controller pointed out the spot on the grass where the impact occurred. Grass still shows the scars.
 
Last edited:
AcroGimp said:
I don't think the CAA action to restrict vintage jets to basically straight-and-level flyby's is anything other than a knee-jerk reaction - this was a freak accident -
Click to expand...

I don't know so much as it was freak accident as it was a dumb accident. A freak accident is when a bird from nowhere flies in the engine at just the wrong moment, or the pilot has a sudden heart attack. This is a dumb accident because the show planers thought it reasonable to push the performance envelope of a 50 year old jet that was never designed to be an airshow performer, right near a bunch of people on the ground.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Their action is reasonable IMO. England is a nation of spectators. They love bird watching, train spotting, airliner spotting and they seriously love the War Birds. So much so that I guarantee there are people over there morning the loss of the aircraft as much as the people. The debate about the use of vintage airplanes over there is not new and has gone on for decades.

The Hunter was made to go fast in straight line for the most part. Why do we think we need it to take on the roll of an Extra 300? What is so bad about a low, high speed pass?

Think about it, aviation enthusiasts, particularly those with cameras love to be close to the action. If the event planners know in advance that the show planes are just going to do a high speed pass at say 100' or so, they could safely move the spectators closer.

I'm pretty sure that a just under the limit sub sonic pass right near by you would be far more thrilling than watching some clover leaf maneuver from afar. Not only the pictures would be fantastic, but the experience would have them coming back again and again. Don't just see the airplane, don't just hear the airplane, but feel the airplane!!

Sure, after the low pass the planes could pull up, get to a safe altitude and perform some basic aerobatics over a safe area if they want. The airshow pilots might be bored to tears with this routine, but the audience would love it, the planes would love it and horrible accidents with bystanders on the ground dying like this wouldn't happen as often. It's one thing when the performers themselves die, but it's a whole magnitude different when a bunch of people in the parking lot die.

BTW, I'm a huge War Birds fan and I'm on the side of limiting their routines to the basics and low passes. I hate seeing the old birds crashing and burning just for a cheap thrill. To me, just seeing them in the air is thrill enough.
 
Dav8or said:
I don't know so much as it was freak accident as it was a dumb accident. A freak accident is when a bird from nowhere flies in the engine at just the wrong moment, or the pilot has a sudden heart attack. This is a dumb accident because the show planers thought it reasonable to push the performance envelope of a 50 year old jet that was never designed to be an airshow performer, right near a bunch of people on the ground.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Their action is reasonable IMO. England is a nation of spectators. They love bird watching, train spotting, airliner spotting and they seriously love the War Birds. So much so that I guarantee there are people over there morning the loss of the aircraft as much as the people. The debate about the use of vintage airplanes over there is not new and has gone on for decades.

The Hunter was made to go fast in straight line for the most part. Why do we think we need it to take on the roll of an Extra 300? What is so bad about a low, high speed pass?

Think about it, aviation enthusiasts, particularly those with cameras love to be close to the action. If the event planners know in advance that the show planes are just going to do a high speed pass at say 100' or so, they could safely move the spectators closer.

I'm pretty sure that a just under the limit sub sonic pass right near by you would be far more thrilling than watching some clover leaf maneuver from afar. Not only the pictures would be fantastic, but the experience would have them coming back again and again. Don't just see the airplane, don't just hear the airplane, but feel the airplane!!

Sure, after the low pass the planes could pull up, get to a safe altitude and perform some basic aerobatics over a safe area if they want. The airshow pilots might be bored to tears with this routine, but the audience would love it, the planes would love it and horrible accidents with bystanders on the ground dying like this wouldn't happen as often. It's one thing when the performers themselves die, but it's a whole magnitude different when a bunch of people in the parking lot die.

BTW, I'm a huge War Birds fan and I'm on the side of limiting their routines to the basics and low passes. I hate seeing the old birds crashing and burning just for a cheap thrill. To me, just seeing them in the air is thrill enough.
Click to expand...
With respect Dave, the Hunter was originally designed as an air superiority fighter and is reasonably nimble but like all vintage jets has to have energy state managed carefully since old jet engines lack the oomph we take for granted today.

These kinds of flights take place far more often than we recognize, the problem is the accidents, when they do rarely happen, make a lot of news which results in the knee-jerk 'ban fill-in-the-blank' reactions.

It could have been pilotage, mechanical failure, or some other unknown root cause - we simply don't know yet - and that is my issue, proscribing a corrective action without a known root cause is just bad form IMO.

I too hate to see the loss of the birds, their pilots, or people on the ground, but the risk is really much, much lower than sensationalistic journalism makes it out to be.

'Gimp
 
AcroGimp said:
It could have been pilotage, mechanical failure, or some other unknown root cause - we simply don't know yet - and that is my issue, proscribing a corrective action without a known root cause is just bad form IMO.
Click to expand...

Safety stand downs are common throughout the industry. This isn't very different from one, IMO. It's not a corrective action - it's a temporary action until the issues are discovered and can be addressed.
 
Turningfinal said:
Safety stand downs are common throughout the industry. This isn't very different from one, IMO. It's not a corrective action - it's a temporary action until the issues are discovered and can be addressed.
Click to expand...
The CAA said 'temporary' only in respect to suspension of all Hawker Hunter flight operations, not displays in general. The stand down is just for the Hunters.

The wording about display restrictions sounds rather permanent but I hope you are right.

'Gimp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top