Crash At Shoreham Airshow.

  • Thread starter Furinkazen
  • 90 comments
  • 5,604 views
I'm surprised that manoeuvres like that (loops etc etc), are carried out inland and not over the sea, considering how close it is to the sea.
This is what I can't understand. Also considering it's such a built-up area all around this airport, they would be better off flying to Brighton to perform over the ocean, then return to Worthing to land. It's crazy to think it actually happened here... I drive through this intersection twice a day for my daily commute. Terrible stuff.
 
I always worry when older aircraft like these are performing at events, especially when they are doing stunts. That plane from from the 1950's! Frankly nothing reasonably modern should ever be aloud be in the sky IMO.

The fact that the plane is old hasn't been proven to be contributory to the accident yet. What about shiny modern planes crashing at airshows?

The most common cause of air crashes is pilot error. There is always a risk flying at low altitudes in order to impress a crowd no matter what the age or sophistication of the aeroplane is.

Until we know any different, Occam's razor is the best bet.
 
Fair enough. It was the Incident Commander who referred to a pedestrian crossing on the news, there are also several temporary "Pedestrians Crossing!" signs visible at the junction on the post-crash photos. However, on the crash video you can see that most people were standing near the jacketed stewards on the showground side of the road.

Ah, they might put in a temporary one as it's the airshow.
 
The number of deaths is now "thought to be" 11, according to police. The "thought to be" suggests a pretty horrific impact scene.
 
The fact that the plane is old hasn't been proven to be contributory to the accident yet. What about shiny modern planes crashing at airshows?

Yes but there's just that bit more which can go wrong with an older aircraft plus modern planes might have the computing or structural ability to recover from unrecoverable events in older aircraft. Of course we don't know what has happened in this case but I do think the risk is elevated in older planes, especially when your getting back to WW2 ones.
 
What the heck were they thinking doing a loop that low? I mean, is the risk of mass death ever worth a "show"? Why increase it substantially with no margin for error with these "close" maneuvers? Terrible.

"That low????!?!?" it wasn't supposed to be that low! These maneuvers are supposed to have a minimum height at the bottom of around 200 or 300 feet. That minimum is judged by the known space needed for the maneuver, which is then executed with enough height at the top to clear at the bottom. Something in that process is what went wrong.

Keep in mind, this is not a "stunt!" This very aircraft has been doing this demonstration for quite some time. Whatever was different this time is what has to be determined and possibly corrected.

I know in my earlier reference to the 2003 Thunderbirds accident, their process for setting altimeters before the show was completely revised.

I'm surprised that manoeuvres like that (loops etc etc), are carried out inland and not over the sea, considering how close it is to the sea.

So you want the air show to be out over a space no one can see it, then.......

The show was at the airport, and the crowd was gathered at the airport. To gather on the beach and have the show over the water entails a whole other set of logistics, such as parking, crowd assembly, marine traffic, etc.

That's not to say it isn't done, as I can think of at least 5 VERY large annual air shows here in the states that are waterfront. But generally air shows are at air fields, where there is plenty of space to park, plenty of space to assemble and control the crowd, and the ground activity can be part of the demonstration.
 
Yes but there's just that bit more which can go wrong with an older aircraft plus modern planes might have the computing or structural ability to recover from unrecoverable events in older aircraft. Of course we don't know what has happened in this case but I do think the risk is elevated in older planes, especially when your getting back to WW2 ones.

Far fewer things can actually go wrong in an older plane. It's also worth considering that parts are "lifed" so really there are only old airframes, not old planes.

I don't have any figures for the age of planes against the number of airshow accidents but I'll try to get some together. I'm pretty sure that newer aircraft account for more accidents than older ones, obviously we'll need to look at the comparative quantity of each that fly... then split them by mechanical/pilot error.

I know in my earlier reference to the 2003 Thunderbirds accident, their process for setting altimeters before the show was completely revised.

I tend to agree. I still think that there was an actuator problem but that might be over-exertion rather than failure... possibly over exertion caused by trying to pull the manouevre too hard as the pilot's eyes suddenly over-rode the instruments.

@Robin, if this is the case then you have to bear in mind that barometric altimeters are pretty much exactly the same on aircraft from 1955 as they are on aircraft from 2015.
 
Investigators are looking at a particular photo which appears to show a fluid vapour beneath the starboard wing. I think this could be significant; @wfooshee disagrees but I think there's something odd about the operation of the control surfaces, particularly late in the dive.

The Hunter has a long 1-piece hydraulic system with the actuator top-up/inspection access underneath the starboard wing. There is a mechanical backup but, rather like losing power steering in a car, it isn't made for fine manouevring or for aerobatics.

As @wfooshee noted the flaps are slightly extended, I'd suggest that this means that airspeed wasn't an issue for the pilot. I wonder if there was a hydraulic failure and that the delay in beginning to straighten from the downward loop was due to the sudden change in effort that was required.

PAY-A-Hawker-Hunter-jet-has-crashed-at-the-Shoreham-air-show-in-West-Sussex.jpg


underwing.jpg


As you can see from the following 50s-stylee diagram the pressure view and reservoir fill points sit beneath the starboard wing.

hunter6pic005.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think there's something odd about the operation of the control surfaces, particularly late in the dive.

Agreed. I was looking at the pictures yesterday, including the one in your post, and look at the elevators - they're almost in the neutral position when one would expect the pilot to be pulling the nose up as hard as possible with a lot of elevator deflection.

On the other hand it's possible that he felt the aircraft being on the verge of stalling (unlikely as the flaps are deployed) and reduced the pressure on the stick, or something else, but the deflection still looks odd to me.
 
Yup, as he accelerates down from the turn there's a definite trail of vapour from the right wing. I won't post a link to the crash video but it can clearly be seen. As I said earlier, it's possible that this is from either the hydraulic pressure sight or the reservoir fill valve.

Fluid.PNG


EDIT: Just reading that the Mirror may have a video showing that the engine flamed-out... going to try to find it...

... I don't think that shows a flame-out, he's filming from a sunny beach quite a way away and the flash doesn't seem to be from a jet pipe, I think it's a lens flash. Add to that the obvious fact that, distance corrected, the engine sound doesn't stop (and in fact the RPM seems to increase) all the way to the ground and impact sounds.

Blowout.PNG
 
Last edited:
At 2 or 3 hundred miles per hour, full elevator deflection will stall the aircraft.

If you're looking at a Stearman or Piper Cub, you'd be looking for a lot of visible deflection. Not on a jet at hundreds of miles per hour.
 
It's very slight and might be an optical illusion but while in the dive, it looks like the left wing dips ever so slightly.
 
If you're looking at a Stearman or Piper Cub, you'd be looking for a lot of visible deflection. Not on a jet at hundreds of miles per hour.

But if the pilot knew the aircraft as well as we think he did then we'd have to presume that he wouldn't deploy the flaps over 140kias. The Hunter's control "moment" is in the centre of the engine, that's one of the reasons it could pitch up/down so quickly and why it remained suitable for ground attack after other aircraft had been and gone. If you watch other aerobatic displays with the aircraft you'll see that the elevators do a surprising amount even in non-roll events.

Answering that has made me think of something... Hunters can't use flaps as airbrakes (they have to be at the correct speed before deployment) as they cause excessive negative nose pitch. Here's one such accident, I'm sure from memory that there have been several more.

I'm becoming more and more sure that we'll hear from the AAIB that the under-wing vapour was hydraulic fluid and that this crash is control-surface related. Maybe the flaps stayed partly deployed and affected his ability to nose-up?

UPDATE: All Hawker Hunters in the UK have been grounded and a new rule is in force which prevents "vintage jets" from performing airshow manouevres over land, they can only perform flypasts and other manouevres must be over-sea.

Aside from that, here's a BBC infographic showing the plane's path. I'd have expected him to run along the runway from the loop.

_85157975_shoreham_loop_detail_air_crash_624.jpg
 
Last edited:
So you want the air show to be out over a space no one can see it, then.......
No. Not exactly.......

This.. is the advantage of hosting air shows over water/ empty space:



The view must have been terrible from that beach.....
 
Last edited:
They were that close to the sea? Wow. Are the organizers morons or what?
 
Far fewer things can actually go wrong in an older plane.
There might be fewer points of failure, but the parts tend to be less reliable. This is part of the reason behind the lack of 3 and 4 engined airliners compared to 2 engine types which have become extremely common. Modern aircraft are also better able to monitor their own status and find problems before they happen. I don't have figures on hand, but I would be surprised to find that older aircraft present less risk.

On the other hand it's possible that he felt the aircraft being on the verge of stalling (unlikely as the flaps are deployed) and reduced the pressure on the stick, or something else, but the deflection still looks odd to me.
Why would deployed flaps make stall unlikely?

Maybe the flaps stayed partly deployed and affected his ability to nose-up?
The plane seemed to pull harder in the final moments of flight, so there may have been some additional pitch available earlier that went unused for some reason. If it was the flaps causing the plane to go nose down, I would have expected a higher angle of impact as the flap pitch moment would increase with speed.

They were that close to the sea? Wow. Are the organizers morons or what?

It's an airshow, not a landmine cook off. I wouldn't think it's so dangerous to preclude flights over land.
 
There might be fewer points of failure, but the parts tend to be less reliable. This is part of the reason behind the lack of 3 and 4 engined airliners compared to 2 engine types which have become extremely common. Modern aircraft are also better able to monitor their own status and find problems before they happen. I don't have figures on hand, but I would be surprised to find that older aircraft present less risk.
In terms of a mechanical sense, you are right that due to possible fatigue of parts etc there is more risk in an older aircraft. However, being a fighter craft and one used for airshows the checks that would be done upon it would make sure that every part is checked and double checked to the highest standard, just like any other aircraft right before a show. In that, we can say that the older aircraft posed less risk of things going wrong simply due to less parts.

Why would deployed flaps make stall unlikely?
When the flaps are deployed they change the overall airflow over the wing, allowing for better lift at lower speeds. However, a side effect of that is that many aircraft become slightly more "sluggish". This particular type of craft though should have had more than enough control to pull that off.


What I noticed though on an amateur video clip though is a small trail of white smoke just before the crash, but it is very very hard to notice. Someone on youtube (who was there) has also posted a video showing this and I think that may have had something to do with the crash. I am pretty sure that is not normal for that aircraft to have that thin trail.

 
In terms of a mechanical sense, you are right that due to possible fatigue of parts etc there is more risk in an older aircraft. However, being a fighter craft and one used for airshows the checks that would be done upon it would make sure that every part is checked and double checked to the highest standard, just like any other aircraft right before a show. In that, we can say that the older aircraft posed less risk of things going wrong simply due to less parts.
Checking doesn't make up for less reliability. Aircraft are supposed to be maintained no matter their use. Modern airliners and military aircraft have better records today than in the past with less people operating them and in some case, less redundancy. One piece that fails 50% of the time is worse than having 10 pieces that each fail 1% of the time.


When the flaps are deployed they change the overall airflow over the wing, allowing for better lift at lower speeds. However, a side effect of that is that many aircraft become slightly more "sluggish". This particular type of craft though should have had more than enough control to pull that off
The flaps lower the required angle of attack for a given amount of lift, but the wing AoA limits still remain. You still can't exceed that limit.
 
Checking doesn't make up for less reliability. Aircraft are supposed to be maintained no matter their use. Modern airliners and military aircraft have better records today than in the past with less people operating them and in some case, less redundancy. One piece that fails 50% of the time is worse than having 10 pieces that each fail 1% of the time.



The flaps lower the required angle of attack for a given amount of lift, but the wing AoA limits still remain. You still can't exceed that limit.

I would still say that these aircraft would not be flying if they were deemed to be unrealiable. Not to say that modern planes are less realiable (because that is clearly not true and I'd be an idiot for saying that) BUT I am 100% sure that every single plane at the show was checked the night before, if not on the day of the show which is something that does not happen in usual aviation. If there was any slight problem on them they would not have been cleared to fly. Of course it could be, like you said, due to it being an older aircraft but I think it could have happened to any aircraft personally. We will just have to see what the AAIB say about it. But personally I do not think the age of the aircraft was a major factor. And yes, you are 100% correct on that but that plane didn't look anywhere near AoA Crit. Had that happened at a slower speed then I would be far more inclined to say that it would have stalled (say if he pulled up really sharply coming out the loop without letting the speed increase or applying full throttle).
 
What I noticed though on an amateur video clip though is a small trail of white smoke just before the crash, but it is very very hard to notice. Someone on youtube (who was there) has also posted a video showing this and I think that may have had something to do with the crash. I am pretty sure that is not normal for that aircraft to have that thin trail.

I referenced that a few posts ago, it seems to be coming from the underside of the starboard wing, possibly from the hydraulic top-up or sight-glass.

The plane seemed to pull harder in the final moments of flight, so there may have been some additional pitch available earlier that went unused for some reason. If it was the flaps causing the plane to go nose down, I would have expected a higher angle of impact as the flap pitch moment would increase with speed.

When the hydraulics fail it's the equivalent of losing power-steering in your car mid-corner, you can make it but the chances are you'll run wide. You'll certainly have to put a lot more effort in.

I still think that this is possibly what happened... although the display pilot eyewitness I linked in this post thinks engine power (and presumably therefore airspeed) was causative. I have to say that the engine sounds to be operating normally on the video though.
 
Four people are still missing, their families have each appealed for information as to their whereabouts. Sadly each seemingly had a reason to be in that area at that time. Police say the final number of victims is almost certainly 11.
 
When the hydraulics fail it's the equivalent of losing power-steering in your car mid-corner, you can make it but the chances are you'll run wide. You'll certainly have to put a lot more effort in.
Yes, it could have been a combinations of factors like the increase in stick forces added to flap moment that prevented the pilot from realizing what was happening. Although personally, I would have expected the pilot to react relatively quickly to the change in control forces.
 
The investigators' interim report is that they found no abnormalities with the aircraft, either from the wreckage or from the many sources of film/photography that they studied. BBC.

All that would really remain is pilot error, probably altitude related given the extremely hot weather that day.
 
Appears that the latest report is the pilot was too low entering the manoeuvre. I only hope sense prevails and the necessary precautions are introduced without raising the floor level for display shows unnecessarily.

They were that close to the sea? Wow. Are the organizers morons or what?
No. Countless airshows in the UK and abroad are held over land. Just because you're near the sea doesn't mean you have to use it.

My nearest airshow is over the sea and it's a great spectacle, but you miss the beginning and end of each performance as you never see the aircraft take off or land.
 
Appears that the latest report is the pilot was too low entering the manoeuvre.

This goes back to the possibility of an incorrect altimeter setting before takeoff, resulting in an incorrect reading while airborne, as was shown to be the case with that Thunderbirds, and resulted in a procedural change for them.
 
Back