***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==========================================================
Any risk assessment should have flagged up areas that were inappropriate for aerobatics. Over a busy main road is one such. Duxford always astonishes me, being right by the M11, and I always assume that they make sure the motorway is well out of the impact zone of aircraft undertaking aerobatics. It's the third party deaths - people who weren't making the informed decision to go to a potentially dangerous airshow - which will lead to changes and calls for changes to operating procedures.
It seems that a loop the loop was being attempted. (1) One must question the wisdom of aerobatics on elderly aircraft; it matters not one jot what caused this particular crash, as it does happen - the Mosquito that crashed a few years ago was a case in point. Surely it's enough just to fly them. (2) One must question the wisdom of low-altitude aerobatics. Asking for it, really, as there is so little margin for error.
The Battle of Britain Flight seems to me to operate in a suitable and prudent fashion. Low risk manoeuvres with large margins for error. Are they less exciting as a result? Even they nearly lost their Lancaster in an engine fire earlier this year. It's possible to barrel roll a Lancaster, remember...
I think this will lead to a complete change for future airshows. There are too many accidents. Too many near misses e.g. that Victor that took off last year by accident. Pilots die; they have fun, they take risks, that's their risk - it's sad they take historic aeroplanes with them, but it's only a bit of aluminium. People know that attending airshows (or driving on the road) carries with it a (low) level of risk. The problem here has arisen because third parties who have not made a decision to take that risk have been killed on account of somebody else's risky fun. It will I think be regarded (rightly) by the media as a far greater issue than the death of paying spectators.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 17:14
|
Any risk assessment should have flagged up areas that were inappropriate for aerobatics. Over a busy main road is one such. Duxford always astonishes me, being right by the M11, and I always assume that they make sure the motorway is well out of the impact zone of aircraft undertaking aerobatics. It's the third party deaths - people who weren't making the informed decision to go to a potentially dangerous airshow - which will lead to changes and calls for changes to operating procedures.
It seems that a loop the loop was being attempted. (1) One must question the wisdom of aerobatics on elderly aircraft; it matters not one jot what caused this particular crash, as it does happen - the Mosquito that crashed a few years ago was a case in point. Surely it's enough just to fly them. (2) One must question the wisdom of low-altitude aerobatics. Asking for it, really, as there is so little margin for error.
The Battle of Britain Flight seems to me to operate in a suitable and prudent fashion. Low risk manoeuvres with large margins for error. Are they less exciting as a result? Even they nearly lost their Lancaster in an engine fire earlier this year. It's possible to barrel roll a Lancaster, remember...
I think this will lead to a complete change for future airshows. There are too many accidents. Too many near misses e.g. that Victor that took off last year by accident. Pilots die; they have fun, they take risks, that's their risk - it's sad they take historic aeroplanes with them, but it's only a bit of aluminium. People know that attending airshows (or driving on the road) carries with it a (low) level of risk. The problem here has arisen because third parties who have not made a decision to take that risk have been killed on account of somebody else's risky fun. It will I think be regarded (rightly) by the media as a far greater issue than the death of paying spectators
I understand historic aircraft are rated for various manoeuvres/aerobatics and the Hunter had a very high rating. Far be it for me to try and pre-empt the report, but if the whole manoeuvre was carried out 200 feet higher, the plane could have potentially have landed, even if the engine had failed.
There is a full report on the crash of the Mosquito, and my understanding is the manoeuvre that led to the crash is not regarded in some circles as even aerobatics, it was a wing over turn. My understanding is the plane was banned from doing so called aerobatics some years earlier due to the age and construction (glued wood). The crash however was really a result of engine maintenance missing a vital check - the manual for the Merlin was revised as a result.
This crash will certainly lead to the whole issue of airshow safety being examined and probably some changes, but what we don't know is how close the planned manoeuvre came to the envelope which any aerobatics should be within. It should go without saying, but no-one has, the loop recovery would not have been planned over this road and at the low altitude that resulted.
|
I see the Mail's saying the Red Arrows refuse to display at Shoreham:
The Red Arrows allegedly refuse to fly at the Shoreham Airshow 'every year' because 'there is nowhere to put a plane down without killing someone'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208234/Shoreham-airshow-plane-crash-disaster-Sister-s-torment-searches-news-missing-brother.html
|
|
Don't see the red arrows refusing to turn up at Farnboro. If they have a prang, they often have no option or control about where the wreckage hits.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 14:55
|
"Vintage jets will not be allowed to perform "high-energy aerobatics" over land at air shows after the Shoreham crash, the aviation regulator has said.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said such planes would be "limited to flypasts", and all Hawker Hunter jets have been temporarily grounded."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383
|
Thank God for the CAA. This is the second time in 70 years that this has happened.
Stamp out the carnage on the M27, stop all aerobatic displays now!!
When will the slaughter stop?
|
I would have thought the CAA response was quite measured myself. 11 people dead 15 or so badly injured and and a major road blocked for days.
They are not going to shrug their shoulders and say "these things happen" are they?
|
I would have thought the CAA response was quite measured myself.
Really? One accident in 60 years and within 48hours it is banned?
Suspended might have been measured. Investigated might have been prudent.
Banned within 48 hours is a knee jerk response which may or may not prove be appropriate.
Perhaps we don't have the same understanding of "measured". It doesn't just mean "that I agree with" you know.
|
|
Grounding the hunter is reasonable and fairly common. A review of the airshow and what's done seems reasonable, but a ban seems over the top. The current rules may well have sufficient just not followed.
|
>> Perhaps we don't have the same understanding of "measured". It doesn't just mean "that I
>> agree with" you know.
Thank you for the clarification. Alway useful to have these things explained.
I was pursuing the line of thought that they might have banned old fast jets from air shows completely and that there would certainly be a body of opinion that thought this the right option.
Instead they took a view that they would ban only high speed acrobatics over the land for such aircraft. Fly byes are still to allowed for such aircraft as are acrobatics over the sea.
To me, in view of the scale of the disaster that seemed a measured responses as indeed it did to a spokesman from the Air Displays Association ( I think that's the right name) that I heard on the radio this evening who used exactly that phrase.
Clearly, now that you have explained the meaning of the word,we were both wrong.
|
> >> Perhaps we don't have the same understanding of "measured". It doesn't just mean "that I agree with" you know.
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification. Alway useful to have these things explained.
Well, merely valuable in your case, seemingly not useful. But you're welcome nonetheless.
At this point, as far as I know, they don't know why the plane crashed. It could have been something entirely unconnected with the plan, the pilot maybe had a heart attack.
Nonetheless, they have taken the decision, according to the reports that I have read, to ban certain activities.
They have NO idea whether that banning would have prevented this incident or not. They have not had time to investigate nor opportunity to interview. Yet they have still made a decision.
Why then bother with the investigation at all?
A *measured* response may very well be to suspend certain activities. A knee jerk reaction is banning them.
For all they know the pilot had a heart attack and if he had been flying a modern aircraft on a flat trajectory he would still have crashed into whatever was beneath him during a fly-by.
Indeed, it may have been both the age and action of the aircraft, but at this point nobody knows. And with my limited experience it looked like the problem occurred far above the ground.
Presumably aerobatics over the sea also will be banned 70 years from now when the 3rd accident happens and it hits a ferry.
>Clearly, now that you have explained the meaning of the word,we were both wrong.
I apologise for not yet having explained it sufficiently well for you to grasp its meaning.
>>there would certainly be a body of opinion that thought this the right option.
So what? There is a body of opinion that thinks pretty much everything. Seemingly you, like the Daily Mail, think the pressure of group opinion always points in the direction of an acceptable solution.
As always, the drive is to ban anything that the group doesn't want to do or watch itself.
blah blah soccer blah blah cyclists blah blah actors blah blah fireworks bleargh.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 21:34
|
|
Lordy - who tickled your fancy?
|
You offering?
p.s. that's MISTER Lordy to you. I am intelligent and successful and clever. I have been told.
|
>> You offering?
>>
>> p.s. that's MISTER Lordy to you. I am intelligent and successful and clever. I have
>> been told.
But no-one has told you you are handsome,
That must hurt.
|
|
She meant to, she just forgot in the heat of the moment.
|
In the unlikely event that you might be interested here is the actual, unmeasured knee-jerk reaction from those idiots who know nothing about aviation but simply pander to public opinion over at the CAA.
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479
|
Its a bit difficult to know which bits are temporary (prudent) and which are permanent (knee jerk)
- New restrictions now in place for future air shows
- Temporary measures introduced to give authorities time for thorough review
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 22:01
|
|
A quite measured statement really wouldn't you say?
|
|
I don't know. Its calm enough, but without knowing which bits are permanent and which are temporary I have no idea which part of their anatomy is communicating.
|
>> I don't know.
I suppose that's progress.
|
What a silly thing to say.
If I don't know, I always say I don't know. You're desperate need to cover your inadequacies with silly little teenage comments is risible.
No doubt you have "interpreted" it in a way you find pleasing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 22:24
|
>> Its a bit difficult to know which bits are temporary (prudent) and which are permanent
>> (knee jerk)
>>
>> - New restrictions now in place for future air shows
>> - Temporary measures introduced to give authorities time for thorough review
Grounding the Hunter was an obvious precaution. I also think that however thin the rationale for restrictions on vintage jets 'doing nothing' was not an option the CAA could publicly defend in the inevitable media led 'storm'.
The main airshow season finishes in late September (though Duxford and Shuttleworth sometimes do a last fling in October). I'd guess the intention is to get something in place for those events and to get more permanent guidelines in place for 2016.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 22:15
|
I suspect your take on that would be different if you were a relative of someone still missing and waiting for a body to be recovered.
Even more so if they had been travelling on the A27 at the time with no interest in the air show.
Pat
|
Mark, you really frustrate me.
You are intelligent, successful and clever but you have the inability to step out of your own shoes and into anyone else's for a few moments most of the time.
Pat
|
Give an example? You are talking nonsense.
Banned within 24 hours is a knee jerk reaction. Suspended pending further investigation is measured.
What the b***** hell does standing in somebody else's shoes have to do with that?
|
|
I am thick not succesfull but in a situation like this best keep big mouth shut.Yes clever Mark.
|
|
If that's the standard of contribution of which you are capable, then I commend you on your perceptive self-assessment.
|
>> You are intelligent, successful and clever
That's very kind of you to say, but what has it to do with this crash?
p.s. you forgot handsome.
|
Since Pat got all illogical and emotional with me, it is conceivable that I would put a frownie face on her posting if I had actually been offended and had been born without balls.
However, predictably I didn't do so. So why, Mr. Anonymous Frownie Giver, did you?
Ditto all the other red faces in this note. All rather sad.
|
>> Ditto all the other red faces in this note. All rather sad.
There's at least one poster on this site who scatters them like confetti. Perhaps he or she needs to learn to read and write...
|
>> Ditto all the other red faces in this note. All rather sad.
Indeed. I'd really really like an explanation of why my posts about (a) the effect of the CAA restriction and (b) the Red Arrows alleged reluctance to display at Shorehammight conceivably offend.
Or even be unhelpful for that matter.
|
>>I'd really really like an explanation of why my posts ........ might conceivably offend.
Goodness knows, but I wouldn't be holding your breath for an answer.
|
>> >>I'd really really like an explanation of why my posts ........ might conceivably offend.
>>
>> Goodness knows, but I wouldn't be holding your breath for an answer.
I just give your post (and brompies) a red scowly face. - They looked so lonely without among all the others.
|
>> I just give your post (and brompies) a red scowly face. - They looked so
>> lonely without among all the others.
Compliment returned ;-P
|
|
I've just been doing a little "balancing" myself.
|
|
I'm sure it would, but emotional relatives' feelings aren't used as a basis for setting or changing rules.
|
But as an instant reaction while the facts become clear, it is entirely appropriate.
Pat
|
|
Reaction by who the relatives ? Or you mean the caa?
|
|
No Pat, suspended as an instant reaction may be entirely appropriate. Banned is not.
|
|
I am 100% with Mark here. Knee jerk reactions here are the result of emotion biased thinking. Not a logical desicion process.
|
>> No Pat, suspended as an instant reaction may be entirely appropriate. Banned is not.
>>
Having read the CAA wording, that's what I think is happening, 'restrictions until further notice' and a 'review of civil air events' seem to me not the ban many in the press are saying is happening.
|
>> I suspect your take on that would be different if you were a relative of
>> someone still missing and waiting for a body to be recovered.
>>
>> Even more so if they had been travelling on the A27 at the time with
>> no interest in the air show.
>>
>> Pat
What about all the relatives of cyclists killed by lorries every year, FAR more it has to be said than those killed by air shows? You don't appear to be so quick to want those banned, so cut out the pretend emotional blackmail crap shall we.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 18:16
|
I've just watched the 6 o'clock news and actually, although the reports are using the word 'banned' in a way that implies for ever and ever, the interview with a CAA representative, while not exactly saying it, left me with impression that the bans were until a proper investigation had been carried out and any needed long term measures applied.
In other words, the CAA are being sensible about the matter and the news organisations won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
|
>> while not exactly saying it, left me with impression that the bans were until a proper investigation had been carried out and any needed long term measures applied<<
Perhaps some of you should read the reports correctly BEFORE stamping your feet and having a go at me!
I rest my case.
Cyclists on a plane Zero?, those were the ones hit BY the plane weren't they??
A low shot, even from you.
Pat
|
You, Pat. YOU were the one having a go.
YOU were the one not reading.
Remember? "whine whine other people's shoes whine whine"
I specifically said Ban knee jerk, suspension prudent.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 18:31
|
You waded in with both feet Mark, prematurely. Keep digging!
Pat
|
Pat;
The reports that you think everybody else ahould read carefully said ban.
I said that a ban was a knee jerk reaction and that suspension would be a measured resoons3.
Go back up the thread and check.
Where am I digging?
Then you went off on one about shoes. I bet even you can't explain why.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 18:50
|
>> A low shot, even from you.
>>
>> Pat
No Pat, merely pointing out You have an uncanny ability to wear other peoples shoes only when they are not trampling over your interests.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 18:37
|
|
Approx 20 people have been killed in road accidents in the last 4 days, not related to Vintage jets dropping on top of them. Another 20 will probably be killed before the A27 is open again. Quick, better ban all driving....
|
>> Don't see the red arrows refusing to turn up at Farnboro. If they have a
>> prang, they often have no option or control about where the wreckage hits.
>>
And the Red Arrows fly several (Seven, nine?) aircraft in close formation. They have to be a lot stricter about where they can perform aerobatics because if something were to go wrong each plane would have very limited room for manoeuvre.
|
Alas we have now been dumped into an unknown halfway house. One designed to keep the money in the pockets of the promoters at the expense of the punters.
For example, We have Wings and Wheels coming up at Dunsfold. The Vulcan was (is?) due to fly as are the arrows. I was planning to go, but now I am not so sure, certainly not paying a shed load for a "fly by" by the vulcan. Am I getting a "fly by" tho? what exactly is "high energy aerobatics"? when it comes to a Vulcan? And what are the arrows going to do? just fly over?
so there you have it, we have ended up with a typical who knows wtf is going to happen kludge
|
I was thinking on same lines Z. Not sure anything the Vulcan does these days is high energy. With skill and imagination it's possible to put on some very impressive displays without high G manoeuvres. I doubt the display of the Netherlands Forces F27 troopship was high energy but bloomin impressive all the same.
In the end of course it all depends on how CAA define high energy - presumably there will be detailed technical guidance in terms of speeds, turn rates and positive or negative G.
|
>> Am I getting a "fly by" tho? what exactly is "high energy aerobatics"?
>> when it comes to a Vulcan? And what are the arrows going to do? just
>> fly over?
The Vulcan's operators have made a statement on future displays:
Yesterday, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which regulates UK airspace and its users, imposed, with immediate effect, certain restrictions on displays by vintage jet aircraft at all airshows over land. High-energy aerobatics are, for the time being, no longer permitted.
Operations Director and Chief Pilot of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust, Martin Withers, has spoken to his contacts at the CAA, and has released this statement:
“I am pleased to report that I have received assurances from our contacts at the CAA that XH558's 2015 display routine is not classified as aerobatic, and so consequently, we are hoping to continue to fly on through XH558's last season with minimal changes to our display."
So pretty much business as usual. Hope to see it a Cosby next month and possibly one more.
|
>> I see the Mail's saying the Red Arrows refuse to display at Shoreham:
>>
>> The Red Arrows allegedly refuse to fly at the Shoreham Airshow 'every year' because 'there
>> is nowhere to put a plane down without killing someone'
Shoreham is, as well as being built up, also constrained by the proximity of the South Downs which rise sharply to the north reaching 700 feet at Truleigh Hill. Having watched the Arrows dozens of times, including the various formation break manoeuvres and holding off while the singletons perform, I'd guess that was a serious issue in it's own right.
But that's a nine ship formation not a single machine.
|
(1) One must question the
>> wisdom of aerobatics on elderly aircraft; it matters not one jot what caused this particular
>> crash, as it does happen
Of course it matters what caused it, what an odd thing to say.
|
>> It will I think be regarded (rightly) by the media as a far greater issue than the death of paying spectators.
That seems controversial to me.
It was an accident. Nothing more, nothing less. Those unfortunate people could have been in a pile up just as easily (more in fact) and just as blamelessly. Nobody goes out to be killed.
Restricting aerobatics to protect areas where there are going to be people seems a sensible measure, but it seems right to me that these old aircraft can be displayed and seen to perform.
I'm disappointed at the knee jerk reaction. It would have been enough to put some restrictions in place while the matter was properly considered, and if I read it correctly they have gone a bit further than that.
Note that the restrictions apply to vintage jets, not vintage aircraft, if the reports I have seen are accurate. I could speculate as to why that is but I'd rather leave it to an expert..
|
How many people are killed and maimed on the roads each day?
Does this accident increase the toll considerably?
Anyone else remember the news items from years ago when this figure was regularly presented at every bank holiday? Around 25 each day IIRC.
|
|
Big bangs maker better fodder for the media.
|
Go to bed for four hours and the furious red faced fairy strikes again!
Pat
|
|
That's no way to talk about someone o:-)
|
Oh gawd, now we have some bloke claiming the pilot chose to crash on the A27 rather than on the airfield "a Tough choice" he says.
What a load of bolo
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34046795
|
>> Oh gawd, now we have some bloke claiming the pilot chose to crash on the
>> A27 rather than on the airfield "a Tough choice" he says.
>>
>> What a load of bolo
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34046795
There's 16 pages of it on pprune. Some interesting and insightful posts as well as one or two vids I'd not seen before.
www.pprune.org/rumours-news/566536-hawker-hunter-down-shoreham.html
Very high ration of chaff to wheat though.
|
What a load of bolo
Total agreement. The airfield is considerably higher than the road, and although we don't yet know why he lost height on the conclusion of the loop, he never had enough to land on the airfield anyway.
|
I'm glad I've been able to attend so many fast jet airshows over the decades... particularly in the era when it really was dangerous... that's when the greatest thrills were to be had.
I've only ever feared a little for my safety once when I realised a display by some fast jet just within its ability to stay in the air was making my neck stiff looking up through the camera as it had drifted back over the crowd line and was directly above us.
The Hunter incident is tragic but a steady hand on the tiller is needed to initially examine the circumstances and then make very minimal changes.
|
>> I'm glad I've been able to attend so many fast jet airshows over the decades...
>> particularly in the era when it really was dangerous... that's when the greatest thrills were
>> to be had.
You want thrills? you want close? this place is not far from you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGH7TcsXzTg
and then it can suddenly get this close
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Dg0LxgJH4
You'll have had all the danger you can cope with after this.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 26 Aug 15 at 15:38
|
This has to be the best job in the world. What's not to like?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TX0fUK22Kg
|
"What's not to like?"
er ...... the bit where your plane gets shot down and some nasty chap dressed in black sets about your soft-bits with a rusty hacksaw.
|
|
In fairness he won't see much at waddo it's shut for a runway refurb.
|
I see the CAA have called in help to move the aircraft back to (I think) farnborough. Looks like they got 'crash 'n' smash' to move the wreckage.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34049029
|
A Hawker Hunter isn't a 'vintage jet' FFS. It's an obsolete fighter plane designed to outpace the MiG-15, and was for a short time the fastest aircraft made. 'Vintage jet' be damned...
A blurred photo in the comic supposedly catching the moment of an engine flameout, causing a loss of power at the worst possible moment. The piece in the comic, somewhat dodgy I would say, called the aircraft a 'Hunter Hawker' three times, once in a photo caption.
Where do they find these miserable apologies for hacks?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 29 Aug 15 at 19:57
|
A Hawker Hunter isn't a 'vintage jet' FFS. It's an obsolete fighter plane designed to outpace the MiG-15, and was for a short time the fastest aircraft made. 'Vintage jet' be damned...
Arguably there is no such thing as a vintage jet since the first turbojet to fly, first flew on 27th August 1939, the Heinkel HE178. For cars at least, to be vintage in the UK requires it to be made before 1931.
However, the term 'Vintage Car' is probably one of the most overused descriptions going with the term being applied to just about anything that is more than a few years old.
|
>> That makes me vintage!
>>
Roger.
You are both vintage AND priceless..:-)
|
>> Where do they find these miserable apologies for hacks?
>>
They got the bloke who wrote the story of the Robin Reliant to write it.
|
Why the hell were they blowing the 'last post' at Shoreham today?
I thought that was a military salute?
|
|
The Vulcan wooed the crowds today in Rhyl in near perfect weather....vintage be damned.
|
>> Why the hell were they blowing the 'last post' at Shoreham today?
>>
>> I thought that was a military salute?
>>
It was this bunch of wannabes.
surreyandsussexdrumandbuglecorps.webs.com
|
>> A blurred photo in the comic supposedly catching the moment of an engine flameout, causing a loss of power at the worst possible moment.
It looks like a hugely magnified telephoto shot captured from video, but it's a damn good snap to me. However I do like that sort of thing and always did.
In fact the comic I'm happy to skim has a track record in very good photos. And that photo could be evidence in the attempt to explain the crash.
|
|
I saw the video with the flash and wondered about a flame-out.
|
>> an engine flameout, causing a loss of power at the worst possible moment.
Although the power loss is only momentary, its effect is to enlarge the loop, disastrously as it turns out.
Low altitude loops in anything but a propeller driven stunt plane are a terrible idea. You have to be a gung-ho pilot to try one in a rough old trans-sonic jet fighter, however beautiful and 'classic'.
We had plane makers in those days, Hawker, Supermarine and so on. The Gringos ate us up because they had the bread. Doubtless they ate up some of our people too who (doubtless) now speak with American accents and complain about their salaries.
|
According to interim reports there were two cameras on the jet, one pointing forward and one in the cockpit.
It appears that all indicators were normal and the plane was responding to inputs.
It appears that the jet entered the manoeuvre at 200 feet which means it would have exited the loop at under 200 feet, which leaves very little margin for error. The report also suggests that the plane was flying too slowly.
tinyurl.com/pevrf2v (Independent)
Drove past the crash site yesterday and today. The road has been resurfaced and there is a long screen hiding the site of the crash. Astonishingly there is still the smell of burning in the air. There was also a sizeable police presence.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 18:32
|
|
Certainly that new footage on the news the aircraft looked to be going slow. BBC mentioned that the pilot was thrown clear before the impact but did not detail when in the sequence of events..I wonder if it was pilotless in the last few seconds of flight.
|
>> Certainly that new footage on the news the aircraft looked to be going slow. BBC
>> mentioned that the pilot was thrown clear before the impact but did not detail when
>> in the sequence of events..I wonder if it was pilotless in the last few seconds
>> of flight.
report seems to suggest there was no ejection, and the pilot was thrown clear when the plane broke up on impact.
|
|
If true, no great surprise about either.
|
|
There was that striking image of the fireball and the canopy open or detaching.
|
|
Interesting the report indicates the bang seat was live.
|
>> AAIB report is here:
>>
>> assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55e993f5ed915d06a100002c/S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
In Summary. A plane crashed, we have no idea why yet.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 20:27
|
|
it's just an initial report, they don't know so don't pretend to know.
|
>> it's just an initial report, they don't know so don't pretend to know.
which is kinda my point. They were under pressure to say something quickly even tho they said nothing. I do dislike that need to feed the ravenous news media with anything even if its nothing.
|
|
not an expert on aaib but I think it's standard.
|
|
Just read the report. Beautifully put together as usual. The amount of data they have to sift through must be immense.....Well that gets rid of the flame out theory, pilot error...?
|
|
I read through similar quite often, they are quite exhaustive and quite often run to 100+ pages easily.
|
>> Just read the report. Beautifully put together as usual. The amount of data they have
>> to sift through must be immense.....Well that gets rid of the flame out theory, pilot
>> error...?
Think that s kind of what they are hinting.
|
>> not an expert on aaib but I think it's standard.
Not its not. We didn't get a quick "nothing" report a week after the airbus dropped short of the runway at Heathrow.
|
|
I think there was one when the chopper fell on the bar in glasgow, media interest in all three. maybe they have guidelines. Doesn't seem to me to be the dept to play to the crowd.
|
>> I think there was one when the chopper fell on the bar in glasgow, media
>> interest in all three. maybe they have guidelines. Doesn't seem to me to be the
>> dept to play to the crowd.
I was about to make same point.
In cases like this, the Clutha bar chopper or the BA T7 that just missed the A30 they issue Special or Interim Reports to cover or update the FACTS known to date.
In this case hey don't know much at all yet - the pilot's account will be critical. In the Clutha bar chopper they know the engines stopped for lack of fuel - still loking into why/how.
Answers are not quick but when they appear they're, at least these days, pretty well conclusive.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 23:30
|
|
Can't say i follow this branch of air accident branch too closely but i don't think there's too much drama of printing a summary early doors.
|
>> Not its not. We didn't get a quick "nothing" report a week after the airbus
>> dropped short of the runway at Heathrow.
It was actually a 777 not an Airbus. The accident happened on 17/01/08 and the first 'special bulletin' came out during February. Further bulletins and interim reports were published as the inquiry progressed.
Agree it wasn't done that way in past. It's become a regular practice over last few years though for serious accidents/incidents to public transport aircraft, where there are fatalities other than crew/passengers or where progressing investigations uncover specific technical issues requiring immediate action.
|
Hawker Hunter T2 Crashes... - Slidingpillar
