Shoreham Airshow aircraft crashes into A27 road

[TerraHertz]

Just to confirm that image is genuine:

It seems the line of movement is almost directly along the line of sight of the first image, except descending at a steeper slant. Looks like the plane impacted about adjacent to that barriered-off side street.

Does that suggest to anyone else that the plane is in a stall? Its angle of attack is too high for that line of movement.

So, the pilot would have had virtually no control at that point.

[G7PSK]

and how did they get this shot?

From looking at the crash video posted again, I  don't see how this shot was physically possible.
There doesn't appear to be a hill or overpass on the left side of the plane as it comes in.
And all those people in that ditch watching doesn't add up.
A stock photo?

Where is the big red bus in the actual crash photo, there is no report of a bus being hit by the plane and I am sure the bus is not fast enough to overtake the plane and be in front and it is not in the traffic jam behind the wreckage.

http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2015/08/24/airshow-n325j2oj3euiyxyhqk2_fct1131x848_t620.JPG

[TopLoser]

Where is the big red bus in the actual crash photo, there is no report of a bus being hit by the plane and I am sure the bus is not fast enough to overtake the plane and be in front and it is not in the traffic jam behind the wreckage.

http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2015/08/24/airshow-n325j2oj3euiyxyhqk2_fct1131x848_t620.JPG

Look again.

[G7PSK]

Where is the big red bus in the actual crash photo, there is no report of a bus being hit by the plane and I am sure the bus is not fast enough to overtake the plane and be in front and it is not in the traffic jam behind the wreckage.

http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2015/08/24/airshow-n325j2oj3euiyxyhqk2_fct1131x848_t620.JPG

Look again.

Yep I did spot that almost as soon as I posted but then wondered how many others might, it certainly would appear to authenticate the photograph.

[IO390]

The QNH and QFE mixup can't be the problem as Shoreham is at sea level. The picture of the crash site was taken from Mill Hill, also a popular R/C slope soaring site.

[cimmo]

Does that suggest to anyone else that the plane is in a stall? Its angle of attack is too high for that line of movement.

So, the pilot would have had virtually no control at that point.

I doubt it was in a full on stall, like most swept wing aircraft of that generation, Hunters usually didn't stall cleanly, one wing usually drops, sometimes quite violently. In the video, at a point in time just prior to this photo, you can see a bit of wing rock - this was the beginnings of a proper stall.

No, the pilot still had control and was pulling up at the maximum rate achievable (which requires the wing to be unstalled). The flight path angle and apparent angle of attack seem plausible to me.
Another 50ft and he might have made it.

Some background info on Hunter stalling characteristics here:
http://www.rafjever.org/hunter6pic077.htm#stall

[TheElectricChicken]

well I give the pilot respect for going down with his ship. If yer going to kill people, you have to fight it, if your going into the trees, then eject is best. I guess everyone at the airshow got their money's worth and the people getting the freebie look at the side of the road got best value !! You can enjoy an airshow for kilometers.

At Bankstown airport, sydney, they used to have airshows like that, aerobatic jets, mirages and so on. The sonic boom broke some greenhouse windows and then it was all over. HA! you live near an airport you gotta expect planes to fall on you.

Sports matches turn deadly, and they're not as much fun to watch. blah!

[cimmo]

if your going into the trees, then eject is best.

It is not certain that this particular aircraft actually had operating ejection seats. There has been some debate about the usefulness of bang seats on civil jet warbirds, on the one hand, under the right circumstances they may save a life, but often the reverse is the case.

There have been fatal incidents involving improper use of bang seats - civil pilots rarely have proper training in their use. The regulatory authorities do not seem to require them to be functioning, so it can be an operator choice and since the maintenance of e-seats is very expensive sometimes the seats are deactivated.  Also, considering the age of the typical jet warbird, the capability of the installed e-seat even if properly serviced is pretty marginal at the low altitudes these aircraft are flown at.

Even if this Hunter had a functioning bang seat, in this scenario - diving at low altitude, the safety of the pilot would not be guaranteed if he did opt to bang out.

[wasyoungonce]

He was an ex military pilot so would have training in Mr Martin Baker ...as well as on going certification training, don't know which generation ejection seat was fitted though and this matters.

Problem is his velocity vector at bottom of loop(or half Cuban eight...or coming out of loop) was way too low and all wrong...he could never pull out...he started loop too low or didn't reach pre-set minima altitude for loop given starting altitude or could not attain energy force required to complete loop.  He obviously stayed with acft due to this.....more than likely trying to recover right to the end.

[TheElectricChicken]

the capability of the installed e-seat even if Even if this Hunter had a functioning bang seat, in this scenario - diving at low altitude, the safety of the pilot would not be guaranteed if he did opt to bang out.

interesting. Anyhow, having seen the seats, especially the ones with rockets, and the craft being in the upright position, then I would expect it would have worked well in this case, however, if it's going to kill 10 people, then maybe he'd choose to fight it all the way in. Sure they don't always work but it is good to have them as an option.

The NASA space shuttle flew a few times with ejection seats that the pilots could have used. As usual at NASA, they were removed for stupid reasons including cost. I certainly go the safety equipment, and if you can afford a jet, then you can afford a rocket seat if you value your life.

[cimmo]

Anyhow, having seen the seats, especially the ones with rockets,

The Hunter had an MB Mk4. No rockets, just a gun charge. Remember, it was a 60 year old aircraft.

The NASA space shuttle flew a few times with ejection seats that the pilots could have used.

The shuttle only ever had two ejection seats, just for the two pilots on the test flights. Since half the crew ride in the mid deck, it would have been very problematic to have functioning e-seats from that buried location in the vehicle. It was never really a plan to have any e-seats in operational shuttles.

[TheElectricChicken]

The NASA space shuttle flew a few times with ejection seats that the pilots could have used.

The shuttle only ever had two ejection seats, just for the two pilots on the test flights. Since half the crew ride in the mid deck, it would have been very problematic to have functioning e-seats from that buried location in the vehicle. It was never really a plan to have any e-seats in operational shuttles.

Yes, that's true I know, they never have any concern for safety at all and that shows in everything they do. Even now that NASA has no manned space program, the commercial mob they are helping have an appalling approach to safety as well. Looking at their spaceX mockup, it looks like there is nothing at all except three bare naked Spam Popsicles in an empty cam. Its really really bad.

http://www.space.com/15615-spacex-dragon-capsule-crew-mockup.html

NASA astronauts and industry experts check out the crew accommodations in SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft.

No room for spacesuits and no ejection seats. Why would you want that sort of stuff to get in the way of the awesome view you'll have of your crew-mates and the effects that decompression to the vacuum of space will have on them One small leak and as NASA astronauts say, it's "SPAM in a CAN."

The Hunter had an MB Mk4. No rockets, just a gun charge. Remember, it was a 60 year old aircraft.

I dont think it's a matter of age, I think it is a matter of attitude. You can always retrofit. Anyhow, for whatever reason I guess that some pilots don't mind flying without much concern for safety and well, who can care if they themselves do not.

[tom66]

How would ejection seats help in any orbital craft?

In the case of Discovery they would not be able to eject during a launch. The internal atmosphere of the crew cabin was compromised when the SRB exploded (crew likely lost consciousness rapidly), and it was destroyed when it impacted the ocean. Ejection would not be possible during any part of the descent, as the vehicle was falling downwards with little lateral velocity.

In the case of Columbia, they were well above safe ejection heights. And the problem was not immediately noticeable until critical systems began to be compromised.

In the case of the SpaceX Dragon2, the capsule is designed to safely abort from the launch vehicle if there is a fault



Weight is critical so the Dragon's walls are very thin. You can see the triangular structure of folds is used to increase the strength. Remember rockets have a mass fraction of something like 95% fuel to 5% rocket, very little weight is available for safety systems so you have to make compromises.

[TheElectricChicken]

How would ejection seats help in any orbital craft?
[...] very little weight is available for safety systems so you have to make compromises.

Do you work for NASA ?

The Soyuz can abort launch at any time and so can the Shenzhou. Communist countries do not compromise on safety. People, or, as the word communist indicates, Community, as in people, come first and foremost. Capitalism is about money being number one. ...and socialism about society and nationalism blah blah blah.

It's only impossible as a matter of ideology, not as a matter of engineering or science.

here is a video of a successful evacuation of the crew from a failed rocket. THIS is how you use an ejection system. You make it and install it, rather than just making excuses and installing those instead.


and the same thing is the case for the Chinese Shenzhou

[tom66]

As I said, the SpaceX dragon also can abort at any point during launch up to orbit using the integrated engines. Soyuz can't do that.

Very little weight available for safety systems is a fact. Over 95% of the vehicle is fuel. Every kilo used on additional safety is a kilo less science payload, crew payload, etc. Astronauts know their job is dangerous, this is one of the accepted compromises.

[TheElectricChicken]

Soyuz can't do that.

Soyuz can abort at any time, if it is someone's religion that they cannot accept that or look it up, I'm not going to read scripture to them and pray for their soul. Their faith is their faith, it's not up to me to destroy their faith.

Very little weight available for safety systems is a fact. Over 95% of the vehicle is fuel. Every kilo used on additional safety is a kilo less science payload, crew payload, etc.

Just make the whole thing larger.

Todd A Parker, MD, Ejectee #4822

“There is no doubt that Martin-Baker ejection seats have been saving aircrew lives for decades. As a matter of fact, the seat that saved me was designed and built before I was even born!

On January 8, 2000 I was ferrying a 1956 vintage Hawker Hunter from Mojave to Chino, California. I'd flown these jets in an adversary role since leaving the U.S. Marines as a fighter pilot about a year earlier. This particular jet was to get some electronics fixed in Chino, however, when preparing to land the engine decided to roll back and no longer responded to my throttle inputs. Not being able to make the runway, I set up on a farmers field to put her down in a safe area. I was planning to eject in a stable glide at a few hundred feet and 125 kts once I was assured the jet would impact the field. Unfortunately, as I was preparing for this I looked up at some very high power lines in my path that thwarted my efforts. I had to delay 'pulling the handle' until clearing the lines by flying underneath them. At approximately 40 feet altitude, I yanked the handle on that 44 year old MB seat (I was 39 at the time) and it fired, literally shooting through the canopy and out of the sick jet. I never got seat-man separation or a full chute, but I survived the impact with a few broken bones and a dislocated shoulder. I was alive!

So five years before I was born, the fine people at Martin-Baker built the seat that would save my life four and a half decades later. For that, my wife and I are eternally grateful to all the personnel at MB; past and present.”

courtesy http://www.martin-baker.com/clubs/ejection-tie-club

The bang seat can manage it at 40 feet, so maybe he was fighting it and chose not to bail. Dunno.

[Gixy]

The initial video clearly shows that the pilot initiated an inverted loop (he rolled inverted as he was stilll in level flight), then pushed and pulled with a slight roll to the left which led him to the left. Compared to an half cuban height where the roll is done after pulling at 45°, this manoeuver is more difficult and the loss of altitude is greater because you push less than you pull in a positive loop (at least on that type of aircraft). Definitely this manoeuver has been starded too low. I can't see if the flaps are down, but if it' the case this is an additional cause of the altitude loss due to the higher drag.
note: I'm a previous unlimited category aerobatic pilot on real aircraft, not on simulators...

[tom66]

Soyuz cannot abort at every point of ascent. The abort system is a forward mounted rocket motor which is detached before orbital insertion.  Whilst a failure there is less likely, it is not impossible.

The launch escape systems used by NASA and Russia's Soyuz capsules are mounted on towers directly above the crew capsule. They are jettisoned before reaching orbit. SpaceX's SuperDracos, however, can be used all the way to orbit, offering increased safety.

http://www.space.com/29329-spacex-tests-dragon-launch-abort-system.html

If it was as simple as making rockets larger I think it would have been done already. There are a lot of considerations that go into the engineering. "Make it larger" is not always the best solution.

[TheElectricChicken]

For anyone who is interested in successful ejector seat WINS, and saving the day and lives and so on, there is a pretty good read in

" Leaving Earth " by Robert Zimmerman:

Ninety seconds before blast-off, with Titov and Strekalov waiting at the top of their fully-fueled Soyuz rocket, a fuel valve at the base of the rocket malfunctioned, opening and spilling fuel uncontrollably onto the launchpad. A fire broke out and flames engulfed the rocket with its 180 tons of very flammable fuel. At that moment, the automatic launch-escape system should had kicked in, executing the following steps: First, explosive bolts fire, flinging the Soyuz T capsule free of the three-stage rocket. One second later, solid-fuel engines in a tower attached to the top of the capsule ignite, lifting the Soyuz T orbital module and descent module away and clear. Five seconds after that, more explosive bolts fire to separate the manned descent module from everything else. Its parachutes then release and its retro-rockets fire, slowing the capsule enough for a safe landing.

    The automatic launch-escape system did not kick in, however. The fire had burned the system’s wiring, preventing it from being activated automatically. Feeling strange vibrations and seeing black smoke and yellow flames outside their window, Titov and Strekalov tried to fire the launch-escape system manually, only to get no response. To fire the escape system manually from mission control required each of two different operators, located in two separate rooms, to press separate buttons at the same time. With flames rising from the launchpad and the entire rocket already leaning 20 degrees to the side, controllers scrambled madly to get the system to free.

    Just 10 seconds after the flames first appeared, controllers miraculously managed to somehow do this, activating the escape system and throwing Titov, Strekalov and the Soyuz T capsule more than 3000 feet into the air. For five seconds the emergency engines fired, subjecting the two men to forces exceeding 15 g’s. Then the engines cut off, the descent module separated, and its parachutes unfolded.

    At that moment, the entire rocket and launchpad exploded. The blast was so intense that the capsule, three miles away, was thrown sideways, and launchpad workers in underground bunkers felt the pressure wave.

    Strekalov and Titov landed safely, their capsule hitting the ground with a hard bump that shook both men up but did them no damage. Rescuers quickly pulled them from the capsule, then gave them a glass of vodka to calm their nerves as everyone watched the nearby launchpad crumble in flames and clouds of smoke. It took 20 hours to put the fires out.

There are so many cool stories out there, like the other time where some designer of the Soyuz rode up in it as something went wrong and so they came back ballistic and slammed into a snow covered mountain in an unfriendly country and survived, with injuries. Man there are such cool accounts.

Soyuz can abort at every point of ascent. Just read up man. ? ? ??, Sistema Avariynogo Spaseniya works all the way into orbit. You come back ballistic, it exists, it's been built, it works, it worked. There is footage, there are people alive today because of it. It works all the way to orbit man, get over it, it's not the end of the world.



http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soyescape.html
End of the day, they MAKE the safety systems, not excuses, they install the safety systems, and they use the safety systems, which save lives. It's not rocket science !!! wait, err, maybe a poor choice of words 

[G7PSK]

There was some "expert" on the radio today saying that the fault was most likely a stuck or broken aileron actuator he got this from the position of the ailerons in the photographs.   

[IO390]

Aileron actuator stuff is BS. The hunter has assisted flight controls, if the system fails then all the load is dumped on the pilot.

He was yanking the ailerons around to keep the wings level during the stall, hence aileron deflection.

[kosmonooit]

Others elsewhere are speculating the density altitude might  have had something to do with it - it was a hot day, and high power, low speed, high angle of attack, hot day, thin air is a very dangerous situation  in any aircraft

[TerraHertz]

Just because 'spectacular aerobatics', this:
flight demonstration of the SU-35 at the MAKS-2015 Air Show



No such thing as 'stall', apparently.

[miguelvp]

Thrust vectoring is a different ball park

[Mechanical Menace]

Communist countries do not compromise on safety.

Lol. There has never being a single true communist country and all the ones that have claimed to be communist have some dreadful safety records for the plebeian masses.

Also the USSR may have had half as many causalities, but they also had half as many manned missions as the USA.

So at the end of the day the reason people have died going to space is because it's hard work and the tech is still getting there. It has nothing to do with politics or overly (and possibly purposeful) naive interpretations and misrepresentations of it.