Seven dead after Hawker Hunter hits cars

bainbridge · 24 Aug 2015 at 21:59

Looking at the footage the aircraft failed to come out of the loop when pointing downwards.

I'm no expert but wouldn't that be the point where maximum stresses were on the plane?

Maybe just flying the old ones around in a show rather than doing aerobatics would be the better option.

thenewoc · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:19

bainbridge said:
Looking at the footage the aircraft failed to come out of the loop when pointing downwards.

I'm no expert but wouldn't that be the point where maximum stresses were on the plane?

Maybe just flying the old ones around in a show rather than doing aerobatics would be the better option.

To me it looked like it was starting to make its way around and back up as it looks like the front is pointing up by the time its at the lowest point. I think he just run out of altitude for it to continue the curve of starting to make an ascent again. Why he ended up where he did hopefully will be established if he pulls through.

Boycey0211 · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:20

fatiain said:
My dad managed to plant one of Martin Baker's finest in a hangar roof when he was in the RN.

<armchairexpert> If the pilot didn't eject, doesn't that indicate he couldn't (medical episode) or wouldn't (trying to get a "disabled" aircraft down safely)? </armchairexpert>

Not really, when it was pointed at a row of cars I bet it was in his mind to hope for the best and try to complete the manouver.

JBuk · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:44

Don't agree with the temporary ban on vintage aircraft performing manoeuvres , ground or ban the type of plane involved until its understood what's went wrong.
I don't understand the logic that modern aircraft can still perform manoeuvres yet there's every chance they could crash

JBuk · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:49

Boycey0211 said:
Not really, when it was pointed at a row of cars I bet it was in his mind to hope for the best and try to complete the manouver.

Surely there must have been a point where he knew it just wasn't going to happen and should have ejected , so either he didn't consider it , he couldn't, or maybe tried to the last moment to miss the traffic but failed?

bainbridge · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:51

thenewoc said:
To me it looked like it was starting to make its way around and back up as it looks like the front is pointing up by the time its at the lowest point. I think he just run out of altitude for it to continue the curve of starting to make an ascent again. Why he ended up where he did hopefully will be established if he pulls through.

It appears to me that after the upper apex of the loop he was pointing downwards for way too long and not pulling out of the dive. Yes he did orientate the plan level with the ground just before impact but was still plummeting downwards and did a massive pancake.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:52

Caged said:
How is anyone arguing against a ban on pushing vintage planes to their limits after an incident in which 11 people have died, as a temporary measure until more is known about the circumstances which led to the accident happening?

Oh boo hoo you don't get to see the aeroplanes for a few months.

Indeed, some rancid self-absorbed and selfish view-points coming out tbh.
It's easy (for some :rolleyes:

) to gamble with other peoples lives, would you be so flippant if the victims of the gamble (however small) were your family or loved ones :confused:

What I see is a horrific tragedy that has devastated untold families and what makes me both angry and sad is the fact it could have so easily been avoided had stricter air-show regulations been in-place.
Stunts / acrobatics should never be performed above human life, it's that simple and I'm stunned this isn't already the case considering all the horrific airshow disasters we have seen around the world!

Nitefly · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:56

Commercial planes gotta commerce.

Cars gotta car.

Boats gotta boat.

Old planes gotta loop over roads though? Hmm.

thenewoc · 24 Aug 2015 at 22:58

bainbridge said:
It appears to me that after the upper apex of the loop he was pointing downwards for way too long and not pulling out of the dive. Yes he did orientate the plan level with the ground just before impact but was still plummeting downwards and did a massive pancake.

Yes I suspect his airspeed was such that he needed more altitude to make the climb more gradual coming out of the descent but unfortunately ran out of height and maybe pulled back too much due to this and maybe stalled in the last few seconds.

bainbridge · 24 Aug 2015 at 23:07

thenewoc said:
Yes I suspect his airspeed was such that he needed more altitude to make the climb more gradual coming out of the descent but unfortunately ran out of height and maybe pulled back too much due to this and maybe stalled in the last few seconds.

Yes I see what you're on about now, with no more room to gently pull out of the dive I guess he did the only thing he could and yank back on the stick.

Hope he pulls through and is able to give his version of events, it's incredible he survived.

Trig · 24 Aug 2015 at 23:45

JBuk said:
Don't agree with the temporary ban on vintage aircraft performing manoeuvres , ground or ban the type of plane involved until its understood what's went wrong.
I don't understand the logic that modern aircraft can still perform manoeuvres yet there's every chance they could crash

tbh on older aircraft its usually either mechanical or pilot error, on newer planes they have computers in them as well so thats another thing that could do wrong...

Wizzfizz · 24 Aug 2015 at 23:48

Nitefly said:
Commercial planes gotta commerce.

Cars gotta car.

Boats gotta boat.

Old planes gotta loop over roads though? Hmm.

Pretty much.

Imo I would like to see a ban on old vintage planes pulling off any such manoeuvres and any plane pulling anything off over such a public hot spot ie. roads

Caged · 24 Aug 2015 at 23:56

Trig said:
tbh on older aircraft its usually either mechanical or pilot error, on newer planes they have computers in them as well so thats another thing that could do wrong...

Genuine question, has a non-prototype aircraft ever crashed due to a computer problem?

Dis86 · 25 Aug 2015 at 00:27

Caged said:
Genuine question, has a non-prototype aircraft ever crashed due to a computer problem?

Yes. B2 stealth bomber.

Rroff · 25 Aug 2015 at 00:32

Caged said:
Genuine question, has a non-prototype aircraft ever crashed due to a computer problem?

A few have gone down due to computer failures combined with pilot error (usually where they assume the computer is right over their own judgement/other indicators).

JBuk · 25 Aug 2015 at 00:33

Caged said:
Genuine question, has a non-prototype aircraft ever crashed due to a computer problem?

I think an airbus has crashed once due to software errors or the pilot misunderstanding how the software worked

Rroff · 25 Aug 2015 at 00:35

JBuk said:
I think an airbus has crashed once due to software errors or the pilot misunderstanding how the software worked

The one I assume you are referring to (where it goes down into trees just off the runway) was a test flight though so kind of in the prototype theme.

JBuk · 25 Aug 2015 at 01:11

Rroff said:
The one I assume you are referring to (where it goes down into trees just off the runway) was a test flight though so kind of in the prototype theme.

No not that one, if I remember rightly it was in the US and the harder the pilot tried to recover the plane the harder the plane fought to do the opposite because of the software

Aloreth · 25 Aug 2015 at 09:13

[TW]Fox;28480509 said:
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.

No sure that I have much to add but I think this is a very reasonable view point.

Mr Joshua · 25 Aug 2015 at 12:16

[TW]Fox;28480509 said:
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.

I agree with the previous poster, completely reasonable.