Seven dead after Hawker Hunter hits cars

nicktay2605 · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:24

Hmm, from those comparison videos Harlequin posted it certainly does seem like the Hunter that crashed was very laboured taking off. The one in the 2005 video takes far less time to get airborne, whereas the Hunter involved in the crash seems to need the entire runway. Maybe there's a simple explanation for this that someone with more knowledge of aircraft could explain, but it seems a bit dodgy on first viewing.

balky12 · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:32

The pilot would know during take off surely if something weren't right, what with 12,000 flying hours.

Also it is an ageing aircraft. Doesn't matter if it takes off using half the runway or all the runway as long as it takes off? I.e what's the point in gunning it if there isn't a need to?

Tummy · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:33

I do sometimes wonder why the overclockers arm chair experts do not lead these investigations, after all you are all such knowledgeable experts in such matters.

Janesy B · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:39

Tummy said:
I do sometimes wonder why the overclockers arm chair experts do not lead these investigations, after all you are all such knowledgeable experts in such matters.

People are discussing things on a discussion forum, someone call the internet police!

Glaucus · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:41

Speculation and debate, I doubt anyone considers they definitively know or consider themselves experts.

Dis86 · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:41

Just confirmed that he didn't eject. They're having to be very cautious in case the seat triggers.

Gixer · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:43

balky12 said:
The pilot would know during take off surely if something weren't right, what with 12,000 flying hours.

Also it is an ageing aircraft. Doesn't matter if it takes off using half the runway or all the runway as long as it takes off? I.e what's the point in gunning it if there isn't a need to?

This. Passenger aircraft, after extensive calculations etc, only use the required thrust to get them safely off the ground with the runway length they have available to them. No point stressing the engines when they don't need to.

That graphic Harlequin posted up looks as though something went funny at the top of the loop, if the hunter was meant to maintain runway heading all the way through the loop. As someone else mentioned though it could have been performing a different maneuver and trying to exit running to the north but parallel to the A27. I wonder if they'll release the flight plan to the public once the investigation is complete.

firstborn · 24 Aug 2015 at 18:57

Gixer said:
..... That graphic Harlequin posted up looks as though something went funny at the top of the loop, if the hunter was meant to maintain runway heading all the way through the loop. .....

Oh good lord, is there no end to the ludicrous assertions being made in this thread.

TaKeN · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:05

I'm guessing the Vulcan comes under the new imposed Rule on 'Vintage Display Aircraft' ?

Harlequin · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:11

TaKeN said:
I'm guessing the Vulcan comes under the new imposed Rule on 'Vintage Display Aircraft' ?

its displays ends forever in 1 month anyway , as it is , the display is nothing like when it was in service , lots of noise but sweeping turns

Harlequin · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:12

firstborn said:
Oh good lord, is there no end to the ludicrous assertions being made in this thread.

all I did was post the graphic taken from PPRUNE

ianh · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:13

TaKeN said:
I'm guessing the Vulcan comes under the new imposed Rule on 'Vintage Display Aircraft' ?

I don't think it'll be effected by the "No Loops" section but it's display height will have to be increased for it's fly-pasts, although it's so large it won't seem to have much visual effect.

Gixer · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:22

firstborn said:
Oh good lord, is there no end to the ludicrous assertions being made in this thread.

And you sir need to understand what the word assertion means. I was not stating factually that the aircraft was meant to maintain that heading. I stated 'IF' it was meant to....see I don't actually know and I'm well aware I don't!

I have a very open mind on this incident, it could have been such a large variety of different things that have contributed to this incident that I'd be crazy to make any factual statements.

scorza · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:25

Some dude from the CAA getting hauled over the coals by Cathy Newman on C4 news for playing the old PR card "it's too early to comment on anything"

firstborn · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:28

Harlequin said:
all I did was post the graphic taken from PPRUNE

Wasn't in reference to your graphic, but the ridiculous interpretation of it made later on.

Though that graphic is likely to be as accurate as me trying to predict the lotto numbers.

[TW]Fox · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:39

Glaucus said:
utter knee jerk stupidity.

What's the point in life without risk. Especially miniscule risk.

When you attend an air show or a motor racing event you accept that there is a tiny, tiny risk something might go wrong. You make that decision as part of the decision to attend.

When you set out on a car journey you accept that there is a risk you may be involved in a road traffic accident perhaps through no fault of your own. You make that decision as part of the decision to drive.

However one risk you do not consider and do not accept is the risk of driving along an A road, minding your own business and then being involved a horrific accident caused by a display that you had no involvement with and no interest in going horribly wrong. IMHO this is why something had to be done in the short term until more is known - it's much more than previous air show incidents or other risky things gone wrong.

It is absolutely unacceptable that there should be *any* risk to the life of totally unrelated people as a result of something being done purely for entertainment.

thenewoc · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:50

So reading between the lines a little it would seem wrong that the designated restricted air space and some area within that designated as the show area would be wrong in having been defined to take in the area over roads and other built up infrastructure such as properties.

The following article indicates that the rules prohibit the performance taking place over the crowd, but outside the area designated for spectators the pilot can take the plane lower and perform stunts. Seems ludicrous that a distinction seems to have been made between the general public and spectators at the event. I have nothing against these shows but it beggars belief that someone sanctions these to take place over built up areas if the rules for spectators aren't applied to all members of the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34038649

Glaucus · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:57

[TW]Fox;28480509 said:
It is absolutely unacceptable that there should be *any* risk to the life of totally unrelated people as a result of something being done purely for entertainment.

What an absolutely bizarre frame of mind. No risk means no flying at all, means no one could do any hobbies, or do anything. If we extend that to all aspects of live, there's always risk.
What a dreadful world that would be. Lets all live in serrated, clean rooms.

Housey · 24 Aug 2015 at 19:59

nicktay2605 said:
so it does still happen, just not over a built-up area or a big crowd like in your video.

Which was my point, it used to and it was more spectacular. How old are, have you anything to measure it against?

[TW]Fox · 24 Aug 2015 at 20:04

Glaucus said:
What an absolutely bizarre frame of mind.

No, not really. It seems the CAA hold it as well.

It is absolutely appropriate that they introduce temporary measures until what went wrong is understood and how to mitigate it in future has been understood.

It is not 'absolutely bizarre' to find it unacceptable that 11 people are killed at a recreational event they were not even attending.