Shoreham Airshow aircraft crashes into A27 road - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 06:25:41 pm
content: Sadly, it would appear 7 people have been killed when a Hawker Hunter collided into the A27 during an airshow.I am interested to know what happened here. Rather tragic. It does look as if the pilot left the loop too late, or for some reason had a lack of power.The worst part is... all the traffic on that road. That has to be the worst possible place the aircraft could have come down.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 06:51:10 pm
content: It certainly is a tragedy, but I don't understand how (old?) people are allowed to fly old planes in a reckless manner like this over a busy public area. It's asking for trouble and you only have to look at the stats for airshow crashes to see that it's usually some old/grey ex pilot crashing an old ex military plane. I think the plane that crashed today was designed over 60 years ago.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:00:25 pm
content: Another year, another bunch of deaths at airshows. This time the victims probably also had nothing to do with the airshow the perpetrator was participating in. If it doesn't lead to a manslaughter charge for the organisers and those who green flagged it I think it's about time we looked into changing some laws.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:01:37 pm
content: And on CNN, they're calling it a 'stunt plane'.Morons...

author: orbiter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:07:45 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on August 22, 2015, 06:51:10 pmThe guy flying the Hawker Hunter was was an Ex RAF Harrier Jump-Jet pilot, so one would assume that he Is more than qualified to be flying here. There arealso suggestions that the aircraft lost power during the manoeuvre, which certainly would lessen any chances of flight recovery.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:15:00 pm
content: Quote from: orbiter on August 22, 2015, 07:07:45 pmThe flight path shouldn't have gone anywhere off of the airfield. Those at the event have agreed that they may be involved in an accident like this. If the pilot hasn't died (and I so hope he hasn't and is banged up to hell and will live a long, extremely painful, miserable bedridden existence fully conscious but unable to communicate from now on) I hope his service record doesn't keep him out of prison. And whoever gave that flight path the green light should end up in there too. Self entitled c*nts should be allowed to put their own lives at risk for their hobbies, but the general public shouldn't be put at risk so they can get hard from showing off.I feel for the victims and their families, I hope the murderers family feel ashamed of him.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:19:49 pm
content: I'm saddened that the first people in the UK to be killed on the ground from an airshow crash since 1952 leads some to think that all rich people should be hung drawn and quartered.We've no idea what the cause was. I do know that display flying is very very heavily regulated in the UK and that the AAIB will have a very thorough investigation into this.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:27:14 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on August 22, 2015, 07:19:49 pmThose in the cars weren't at an airshow, the plane wasn't above the airfield, the only people who should have had a chance of dying should have been the crowd and staff and pilots.QuoteNo, I think the pilot if he survived, the organisers, and those who gave the event the go ahead and permission to fly anywhere else but over the airfield should have the book thrown at them. They should have their day in court, not be lynched.QuoteWe may not know the cause of the crash but we do know arrogance and bad planning was the cause of the dead non participants, if the route didn't leave the airfield only those who consented to the risk would have been exposed to it.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 07:52:58 pm
content: Sad thing to see, hope pilot and people on the ground are ok.Most likely cause of crash - death loop type manoeuvre starting from the almost the ground level. That is far too low!!! Such manoeuvres almost always forces the plane to end up lower than the start position. Multiple air crashes related to such low flying are documented as well.Probably a pilot error to start a loop from such a low level.It is noteworthy that many of airplane crashes happen during airshows when performing aerobatic stunts (when compared to regular flying). Factors such as limited/restricted airspace, time limit, a desire to "show-off" skills, not 100% air worthy planes, flying too low/too slow, huge pressure on pilot to perform, possible pilot errors, etc. are all contributing to the fact that aerobatics manoeuvres during airshows are fundamentally very risky indeed.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2015, 09:03:40 pm
content: There are reports that the pilot is in a "critical condition". I am shocked that he was not killed given the severity of the crash.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 08:31:37 am
content: Would not surprise me if the cause was a flame out, the hunter was notorious for that and I don't think they ever completely cured the problem as it was something to do with the way the engines were set into the wings causing eddies.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 08:42:20 am
content: Woah, someone captured this photo as it hit:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 08:44:26 am
content: And this one skimming the tree tops:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shoreham-airshow-crash-after-fireball-6302887and how did they get this shot?

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 08:49:51 am
content: It seems like a frame of a video.They should ban those events around people. And people around curves on car racing.Alexander.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 09:14:44 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on August 23, 2015, 08:31:37 amNever heard of a flame out on a Hunter. Link?Judging by the shimmering behind the tailpipe on one of the pictures, the pilot had some thrust available.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:59:26 am
content: Not the first time recovery from a low level loop at an airshow has ended badly - usually these things come down to pilot didn't reset altimeter before flight, or had it set to msl and but forgot and read it as field elevation. Accidents happen, humans make mistakes.That said, looks like really rather poor planning and too cramped area for an airshow with low level high speed aerobatics.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 12:54:32 pm
content: It's important to note that airshow acrobatics operate the aircrafts on the verge of stalls. If you are even 1% off there is going to be an accident. It looks as if the plane already stalled too much on the vertical ascent and with no altitude there's not much that could have been done. I don't think it was ever the pilot's intention to be over the motorway at any time during the show.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 01:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2015, 08:44:26 amThis image clearly shows the engine producing high power (heat haze), the elevators fully or nearly fully deflected (nose up), and the flaps deployed.I think this is consistent with the aircraft systems operating normally. It might be a very old aircraft (60 years old), but I think it was working fine, the problem was the chosen flight path. On the video one can see some wing rock shortly before impact, this is consistent with the pilot pulling maximum angle of attack in order to pull out of the dive. But by then, the laws of physics dictated that a ground impact was inevitable. Having said that, it could have been worse, just a bit more pull and the aircraft would have departed controlled flight and hit the ground much harder - and probably inverted.I saw that exact thing happen at an airshow at Nowra a few decades ago - a Wirraway snap rolled (at about 100ft) pulling out of a modest dive and went in inverted. Without the (pilot induced?) aerodynamic stall/snap roll, the pilot of the Wirraway would have pulled out OK.Regarding the engine failure idea - The RR Avon engined Hunters did experience compressor stalls during gun firing - the intakes sucked up the gun gasses and the Avons didn't like it (some Hunters had a completely different engine - the BS Sapphire - and it was immune to this). The solution was a 'fuel dipper' circuit that would temporarily reduce the fuel flow while the guns were being fired.But that situation had nothing to do with this incident.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:03:18 pm
content: People don't go to watch a biker jump 100 cars, they go to watch him crash. Same with airshows, people go there to see crashes more than just enjoying the noise while you wait. Beats dying of consumption anyday.Oh I miss the Soviet days when there were spectacles to look at, like the largest ever plane and shuttle, both Soviet made, on show.the thing never did crash, but you could fit a whole airshow inside it, maybe with lots of crashesOh, those were the golden days of airshows. (sigh) even crashes don't cheer me up as much as they should nowdays...

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:09:47 pm
content: I'm reposting this from another forum:I was on the flight line and saw the crash from several hundred yards away. I will not offer my thoughts on the direct cause of the crash (for obvious reasons, given the nature of the internet), however I will let you know what I saw.He flew in from North Weald, and begun his display by making a pass along runway 02, before climbing, turning left and flying directly towards where I was (in the crowd near the A27). It had flaps down at this point, and was flying fairly slowly. He was flying on an easterly heading. He then turned left again, flying on a heading of around 050. Note that I may be wrong on this – he may have done some other manoeuvres beforehand but as one can imagine, the shock of seeing that happen didn’t help my memory.Anyway, he climbed up to an altitude of, in my opinion, 1000-1500ft. What he was performing was clearly a half cuban 8, which is when one climbs up, then rolls inverted before completing a downwards half loop and continuing on (looks like half of the number 8 on its side). Anyway, after the climb he rolled inverted and began descending inverted. I could still see that his flaps were down and I assumed that he would roll into a turn and continue (as he did when he first arrived at the show, after the low pass). I saw him fly down, and by the time the aircraft was level, he was at about 100ft. However, he was descending very fast and at a very high angle of attack. At this point, the wings began to wobble and he was still pulling up – the nose was up about 10 degrees and the aircraft was still descending very fast, at a very high angle of attack. It then disappeared behind the trees and a massive fireball appeared. Even more unfortunately, “Magic Moments” by Perry Como was playing over the tannoy at the time, which was stopped immediately after the crash, and the commentator said “what a beautiful aircraft” a few seconds before impact.I noticed myself, along with just about everyone else, staring in disbelief with my jaw dropped. I turned to the chap standing next to me and we exchanged looks of “what the f***”. I briefly discussed what I saw with a couple of other people (such as flaps down, etc) before returning to the hangars. I was hanging around at the college, and returned there for the rest of the day. I was there with my friend, whose father is a member of Raynet, which is a bunch of HAMs who help coordinate things. He had a good idea of what happened (police etc… were in the same room, and the meeting to decide what happened with the airshow took place there) and the last number he heard was 10 fatalities, not including pilot, and some people badly burned on the ground from the fuel.The show is cancelled for tomorrow, and the airport is closed. The A27 is closed and there is apparently damage to the road surface. All in all, a pretty shit day and I’d probably have rather stayed in bed.Edit: some additions added below.No more flying took place after the crash. I think that had it crashed in a field and no one hurt, some more flying may have taken place later on (such as the Hurricane crash in 2007). But due to the fact that it killed a number of people on the ground, this obviously made it a little more serious.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:25:51 pm
content: In reply to Dave as to how they got that shot, I wondered the same thing. Either someone long-lensed it from the hill near the Shoreham flyover, or they were on a car on the flyover.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:30:10 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on August 23, 2015, 11:59:26 amAs I said above, it's a reverse half cuban he was performing, and not a loop as was stated by many news outlets.Altimeter settings are set to MSL, and are adjusted according to the air pressure which is told to pilots by ATC, and it's also recorded on the ATIS. Altimeters are only set away from MSL if one is flying in on airways at a flight level, at which point it is set to 1013mB or 29.92 inches. Shoreham is next to the coast and is about 10ft above sea level, if that.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:33:44 pm
content: Somehow I'm thinking that the pilot wasNOTflying on instruments, same way you don't read and do a floor routine at the olympics at the same time, like, usually. So altimeter calibration in my opinion had nothing to do with it.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:58:27 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on August 23, 2015, 02:30:10 pmIt's not much of a reverse half cuban, to be honest. Never even came close to finishing his roll. I would have to think that whatever went wrong happened pretty early.Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 23, 2015, 02:33:44 pmTake it from someone who used to do aerobatic flying. You worry a great deal about the altimeter if you're anywhere near the ground.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:00:59 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on August 23, 2015, 02:58:27 pmReversehalf cuban. As I said above, he climbed up, rolled inverted before pulling down. He then didn't make it out of the downwards line. Ran out of energy and went into an accelerated stall.Edit: picture added

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:05:49 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on August 23, 2015, 03:00:59 pmHe never got to inverted. That's why he started in the frame flying to the left, but recovery was flying away from us. Watch the video again. The entry to the 3/4 loop looks more like a wing over than a half roll. If there was any running out of energy, it looks like it happened very early.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:07:52 pm
content: As I posted above, I was there and saw it. I described the entire flight.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:18:36 pm
content: I tried this on Xplane 10 a few times. Unfortunately, the closest model I have is the much newer F-4. I find that even with the F-4 running at near stall speed and then going into the climb if the loop is too small the plane stalls in the vertical ascent which one wing may lose lift first. It's hard to tell if the video point is actually a stable horizon image. If it is it does appear one wing loses lift and then the plane teeters a bit.Either way once the stall happens you can't recover because you aren't high enough to trade altitude for speed.Steps1) Fly at 130 knots with full flaps.2) Throttle pull in the flaps and go into the vertical climb of the loop.3) I find that an aggressive tight loop is around 2250-2500 ft / ~750 meters peak. If I try to do it tighter and only go to 2000 ft the plane stalls in the ascent and although look likes it's still under control it has not enough airspeed or altitude to ever recover lift.Also I did this completely on instruments. If I try to do it without I crash every time because I have to idea where I am. Even then it's hard because when the horizon disappears it's like being blind. I guess if you do this all the time you kinda know where you are or should be. But I normally try to fly with a horizonFrom the original video it looks as though he is trying to trade altitude for speed as the descent seems to appear controlled and straight down in order to recover speed and regain lift later but it never happened and he was trying to find the clearest place possible to put it down. But without lift you can't control the plane. To me this looks like what has happened because the plane has not much lift at all near the crash point as it appears to be descending 20 feet or more per second.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:25:28 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on August 23, 2015, 03:07:52 pmThe video is clear as day. He got through about 90 degrees of a roll, not even close to 180. That aimed him right at the camera, which I'm assuming is in the audience, at the top and you would generally never do that on purpose. That's why he's flying across the scene to the left at the beginning of the maneuver, and towards/away from the camera at the end. You may remember it differently, but there's no question what actually happened. Just watch the stupid video and see for yourself.For all we know, he may have been trying to get through a full loop and aborted, or any number of different things could have happened, but it's hard to believe this is a case of a half reverse cuban just starting too low. I hate to assume with so little information, but it seems pretty likely that something became botched up with plane, pilot or both very early on.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:25:50 pm
content: I searched for this Hunter's serial number WV372 on youtube and found this:I reckon this is the same plane (but don't know if it's the same pilot) and you can perhaps see what was meant to happen with this manoeuvre at 1:30 onwards in this video.I'm guessing this video will be in the media soon. Especially if it's the same pilot.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 pm
content: Looking back at the video, you are quite right. I've watched it quite a few times before but I think I skipped the first bit. It also looked different from where I was. The angle of the video is a bit more clear.The video was taken from Mill Hill and that's not near the airport. The airport is on the other side of the road from where the camera was.Note that I said I may be wrong on some things, knowing that he was attempting a full loop makes more sense as I remember I was expecting him to roll out at the top, having completed anormalhalf cuban. One could see that he was way too low to do the full loop.So yes, I was totally wrong there. But you're also correct that he was simply too low. The height of the hill that the video was taken from is 300ft, and hence my estimation that he wasn't above 1500ft at the start of the downwards leg.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:48:36 pm
content: If you watch the Shuttleworth video in my previous post you can see that the plane was able to climb and power through a big wide inverted loop. But at Shoreham the plane wilted as it approached the peak of the inverted loop and you can see it was in serious trouble because it couldn't power through the inverted loop. So it lost momentum and wilted down sideways and fell like a leaf from a tree and ended up in a different flight direction downwards.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on August 23, 2015, 03:25:50 pmNice video link. It appears this aircraft is at much more airspeed than the crash video on entry to the loop.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 06:06:52 pm
content: Meanwhile in Switserland:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34033478

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 06:19:50 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 pmI figured that was the case. Based on your name I assumed you were a pilot too and probably knew what you were talking aboutHopefully Andy Hill will survive and give some insight on what happened. If not, it will just probably get marked as "pilot error". I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the US a plane could get hit by a watermelon that fell from an alien spacecraft, and the NTSB would list the root cause as, "Failure of PIC to anticipate watermelons falling from alien spacecraft."

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:30:11 pm
content: My original thought about airspeed may be incorrect. It's hard to determine the perspective and distance in the video but based on the trees where I think the aircraft is I'm estimating an entry fly by speed of 300 knots before going into the loop. I thought someone had indicated the flaps were out during entry. At this speed that doesn't seem like it's necessary.So I go back to the video tape for more detailed analysis.Assume 300 knots entry.11 sec 10 degree climb12 sec 45 deg14 sec 60 deg15 sec 80 deg - plane starts to roll left21 sec 70 deg22 sec 65 deg - plane now inverted24 sec 0 deg invertedfrom the camera angle which started on a port side view and I would have figured would remain a port side view it became a top view of the aircraft. No afterburner is shown on the vertical ascent. Something isn't right at the 15 sec point. The plane is likely too long in a high angle position without afterburner and losing airspeed quickly.Who knows how to calculate g forces based on angle and speed assuming constant speed to make it easy?Did the pilot black out due to G forces? (I think this is probably not likely. I think at even an angle of 90 degrees at <Mach 1+ there is only about 5 G's)Did the flight suit fail?Equipment failure?Anyway this video shows a lot just in itself. So, I'll try again @ EGKA and see if I can pick anything up from the simulator with the wrong plane but just for experiment purpose.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:06:24 pm
content: Extending flaps is standard on this a/c during a loop.AAIB will give a factual account of the incident based on evidence, there is no subjectivity in it, but there are often several contributing factors. Typically in aviation, there is a Swiss cheese analogy, where it is a combination of events that cause such tragedies.FWIW, I did much of my instrument rating training at Shoreham. Nice airfield on a sunny day, but not so nice when cloud base is low and you're heading North knowing that the Downs are somewhere in front, and hopefully below you. Very sad what happened.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:55:43 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on August 23, 2015, 02:30:10 pmIn aerobatic, qfe is commonly used (height above field), for safety, doing mental calculations to determine your agl when operating over such a small local area, close to the ground, fast, while under pressure doesn't make much sense, set qfe and read it directly.Qfe is also often set by gliders. Microlights (ultralights) historically, but not so common now.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:56:24 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on August 23, 2015, 11:06:24 pmAre the flaps extended that you can see in this video? I don't know this aircraft well enough to see if they are.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 12:57:28 am
content: Quote from: kc3ase on August 23, 2015, 10:30:11 pmThe Hunter's engine is not fitted with an afterburner.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 01:12:40 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2015, 08:44:26 amFrom 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?

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 01:26:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2015, 01:12:40 amI'm thinking it is a movie set. I bet that picture has nothing to do with the crash.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 01:56:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2015, 01:12:40 amIt's a real image. I'm good at spotting fakes. Also a cameraman and photographer. The image may seem to be fooling you because it's something that your eyes are not used to looking at. If you look at the depth of the subject matter, that is a huge elongated area of the ground that has been imaged. So it's simply a very long-range lens that is being used for that image. Look carefully at the perspective of the image, the bus, the vehicles, the long length of road, the VERY long length. Not an image that can be taken with anything but a big-arse telephoto lens. A few grand at least.Also, people watch airshows ! and that is the only place that they can stand without being run over by cars. It's all good and above-board. TheElectricChicken gives this image his peck of approval. The photographer doesn't need to be very high, especially given the depth of the subject material. Looking at a hill through a telephoto looks just like this. Think distance from camera to target.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:05:24 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 01:56:20 amYes, I understand all that, I'm not saying it's faked, but it just doesn't seems right, the camera is on the left side of the plane, the North side of the A27. Seems pretty flat to me. Nor do I see that bend in the road, on the map it seems pretty straight.Perhaps I need to consult the map of the place better, I could certainly be wrong. It just didn't seem to add up at first glance as a pic of the plane moment before impact into the presumably A27 below it.https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Brighton+City+Airport/@50.8394853,-0.3025439,1630m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487599ef6cb32407:0x3dd527ac04e875c!6m1!1e1Here is a photo of the crash scene:Can someone identify the exact spot on google maps?

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:20:19 am
content: easthill way portslade at 6km looks down, or thundersbarrow hill at 4km also looks down, but I have trouble because of the curve of the road.....

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:28:29 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2015, 02:05:24 amfor this one, I place the camera at 2km, 80m above on an unnamed road bearing 60.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:35:29 am
content: Ok, for the photo you doubt, I place it for sure on mill hill 1.1 km bearing almost east and a smidgen of north. It all lines up perfectly. Everything about this photo is good. Everything about the location of the camera says it is correct. I'll make an image. h5

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:40:32 am
content: here it is

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 03:01:53 am
content: Here is Google street view of the same location. The details all match up:https://goo.gl/maps/evsVG

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 03:27:11 am
content: Yep, ok, looks good now.The people on the side of the road were standing here:http://bit.ly/1KG8PDmWould have crashed about 100m in front of them!

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 05:39:16 am
content: 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.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 07:14:46 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2015, 01:12:40 amWhere 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

author: TopLoser
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 07:28:52 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on August 24, 2015, 07:14:46 amLook again.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 07:31:20 am
content: Quote from: TopLoser on August 24, 2015, 07:28:52 amYep 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.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 07:37:48 am
content: 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.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 08:34:40 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on August 24, 2015, 05:39:16 amI 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

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 09:44:57 am
content: 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!

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:13:56 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 09:44:57 amIt 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.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:51:34 am
content: 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.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:54:26 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 24, 2015, 10:13:56 aminteresting. 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.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 11:27:17 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 10:54:26 amThe Hunter had an MB Mk4. No rockets, just a gun charge. Remember, it was a 60 year old aircraft.Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 10:54:26 amThe 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.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 11:54:06 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 24, 2015, 11:27:17 amYes, 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.htmlQuoteNo 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 themOne small leak and as NASA astronauts say, it's "SPAM in a CAN."QuoteI 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.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 01:30:19 pm
content: 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 faultWeight 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.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 01:53:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 24, 2015, 01:30:19 pmDo 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

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:11:51 pm
content: 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.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:25:27 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 24, 2015, 02:11:51 pmSoyuz 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.QuoteJust make the whole thing larger.Quotecourtesyhttp://www.martin-baker.com/clubs/ejection-tie-clubThe bang seat can manage it at 40 feet, so maybe he was fighting it and chose not to bail. Dunno.

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:31:44 pm
content: 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...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:38:01 pm
content: 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.Quotehttp://www.space.com/29329-spacex-tests-dragon-launch-abort-system.htmlIf 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.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:39:05 pm
content: 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 inQuoteThere 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.Soyuzcanabort 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.htmlEnd 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

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 03:37:25 pm
content: 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.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 04:55:31 pm
content: 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.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 06:34:23 pm
content: 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

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 03:58:14 am
content: Just because 'spectacular aerobatics', this:flight demonstration of the SU-35 at the MAKS-2015 Air ShowNo such thing as 'stall', apparently.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 04:09:50 am
content: Thrust vectoring is a different ball park

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 04:12:10 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 01:53:28 pmLol. 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.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 04:28:16 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 24, 2015, 01:53:28 pmHmmmm, isn't there a thread of a huge explosion in a port in China where all kinds of dangerous chemicals were stored together. Hundreds dead? How is that not a compromise on safety?

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 05:36:59 am
content: Quote from: Lightages on August 26, 2015, 04:28:16 amThat's right, a greedy capitalist thought totally ignoring all the rules was a great way to make a few dollars, so he bribed some officials as well. He put money first.There was a similar explosion in Waco Texas at a fertilizer plant where 14 people were killed. The plant in Texas stored more than 1,000 times as much as it needed to require government oversight, but didn't have any. It also didn't have any sprinklers, no fire walls, no deluge systems, and less public liability than your average kids birthday party with a jumping castle.Difference is in communist China, they immediately arrest the people in charge. In Capitalist USA the government says 'oh well, these things happen and we cannot burden rich people too much with rules and so on." and the government pats itself on the back for doing a great job. Not the same as in China, or clothing sweatshops in Bangladesh, no in places like that they arrest people. In capitalism you're expected to kill people to make a buck and that is a 'good job'.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 06:00:06 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 26, 2015, 04:12:10 amQuoteRubbish. 40 % of the NASA space shuttle fleet exploded in the largest inflight space disasters OF ALL TIME. They HAD ejector seats IN the NASA space shuttle for it's first few flights and REMOVED them. What, as a safety improvement ? They're all barking mad at NASA, and in the Government too.Bush was a moron who thought Moon-men working for less than minimum wages in sweatshops would build NASA rockets cheaper on the moon than on earth. Just to prove it wasn't some 'senior moment' the NASA chief came out the next day and repeated it verbatim. Barking mad I tell you.Here is what they said exactly. "Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraftassembled and provisioned on the mooncould escape its far lower gravity using far less energyand thus far less cost." Barking MAD. No wonder they couldn't put in ejector seats, they couldn't find their a&& with both hands and a roadmap. Just google that quote, quotation marks and all. President said it, NASA chief repeated it. Sending a workforce to the moon, provisioning them AND a factory to build rockets is cheaper than going to mars ? Only if they use what they've been smoking as rocketfuel to do all the moon launches it is.The Soviet Russian space program btw, has had ON AVERAGE just a little over 1 space station in orbit continuously since 1971. NASA has never spent more than 2 weeks in space without absolutely relying on the Russians.

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 06:06:26 am
content: yes, but when the challenger exploded, ejecting out of the shuttle at that speed would have killed them i think? I'm guessing you are talking about the challenger explosion. I was in the 7th or 8th grade then. I'm 41 now...so that was a long time ago. i remember that everyone in the school watched in on a wheeled in TV....because a teacher was going up in it. was very disturbing to all of us kids back then to see that. they haven't allowed events to be watched live in public schools since then if i remember correctly.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 06:11:47 am
content: Quote from: Falcon69 on August 26, 2015, 06:06:26 amDisturbing yes, it was even more disturbing / interesting to hear not long after that the manufacturers of the O ring seals had argued with NASA officials the morning of the launch telling them that the weather was too cold and the seals could fail. Naturally that would be long time buried nowdays, I mean, most people in the USA think that sally ride was the first woman in space, McDonalds printed that nonsense up on the wall. Then again they advertise bullshit like edison invented the lightbulb. The crap never ends.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 06:33:44 am
content: Remind me what Aeroflot was like in the 1980s when Russia was still communist

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 07:36:51 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 24, 2015, 11:27:17 amHi Cimmo....they probably updated the seat at some stage? Airforces always update seats and I'd reckon the people operating it may have also due to lack of spare for the old seat...aka "bang cartridges"?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 08:55:16 am
content: It was mentioned on the news that there was un-detonated explosives in the ejector seat holding up the removal of the wreckage. As to whether that was a gun type or rocket seat I don't know but explosives make it sound like a gun type.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 09:42:11 am
content: Quote from: Falcon69 on August 26, 2015, 06:06:26 amRidiculous and sad knee-jerk reaction. Kids shouldn't be "protected" from that.I can remember in primary school watching an horrific documentary of piles of dead corpses being removed from concentration camps. You learn a lot watching stuff like that.Bet they wouldn't dare show that to kids today. It's sad.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 11:28:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 26, 2015, 09:42:11 amAgreed. I was in 5rd grade when that happened, they wheeled a TV in after the explosion and the entire school watched the replays for hours.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 12:00:55 pm
content: All the TV news reports I've seen about the crash show the footage of the jet coming down, but cut it before impact, then show the aftermath!Are we really so sensitive in the UK now, or are the stations just scared of complaints?Oh, and for those singing the praises of communist countries, one assumes that they have never actually lived in one...

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 12:57:22 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on August 26, 2015, 07:36:51 amNope. Whilst in service the Hunter always had a Mk3 or Mk4 (The Hunter T.7 had the Mk 4H variant)."Airforces always update seats"NOT "always" at all. The RAF was notorious for not updating aircraft once in service.And upon service retirement, the cost of certifying an updated version would have been prohibitive for any private owner. (Not to mention the actual cost of the hardware - a new modern seat quite possibly would have cost more than the rest of the aircraft - and in the Hunter T.7 there are two of them.)Certification in the aviation world is NOT a trivial issue. They say that an aircraft only flies when the weight of the paperwork outweighs the weight of the aircraft (or so the story goes). And this paperwork does not come cheap.Remember, these jet warbirds are either rich men's toys (who often do not care about the safety aspects beyond the minimum legally required) or operated by groups of enthusiasts without the bottomless pit of airforce funding (and therefore cannot afford the best potential safety - only what is legally required).The bottom line is that since the regulatory authorities are far more concerned with primary safety - preventing any situation where an e-seat would be of any use (and therefore do not even require a fully functioning e-seat) I would be extremely surprised to find out that this aircraft had a newer seat design than a Mk4H.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 03:06:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 26, 2015, 09:42:11 amInteresting that in the second world war the USSR suffered the biggest losses. At least 27 million Soviet citizens died during the war defeating the Nazis, however when the last anniversary and memorial was held in Poland for the liberation of Auschwitz, Poland chose not to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin even though it was the Red Army which liberated Auschwitz and freed the Jews trapped there. Poland is on the US side in the US backed Ukrainian coup, so they don't like Russia right now, especially not as much as the Crimeans who held a huge referendum and voted to leave Kiev after the military Junta installed itself there, and try to re-join Russia.http://www.rt.com/news/226543-poland-auschwitz-commemoration-putin/Poland is GETTIN' BUSY re-writing history, to leave the Russians out of liberating the Jews from the Death camps.http://www.rt.com/news/224891-poland-ukraine-liberated-auschwitz/but that's nothing new, a lot of people are trying to re-write history.http://www.rt.com/news/253753-europeans-wwii-victory-poll/It's like hey, lose twenty something million people defeating Nazism and liberate the Jews and death camps, and what's the expression for ' totally ungrateful ' in this case, oh yeah, ' TOTALLY ungrateful ' is how it looks. Putin instead attended a Jewish museum and tolerance center in Moscow.I recall watching a RT documentary by one of it's regular reporters about her family being killed by the Nazis, she didn't know anything about it until someone found a box of letters. She lost 119 people from her family because they were Jews.http://www.rt.com/news/260493-rt-documentary-holocaust-slier/Must seem confusing to the Russians and to the people at RT especially when so many of them were effected personally by the fight against the Nazis. Larry King, who has his own show on RT, I didn't hear him say much about it though, but the other Jewish staff sure seemed perplexed by the ingratitude.Sorry for getting off topic !!!

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 03:08:05 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 26, 2015, 01:16:35 pmI like their live TV too, but the censorships is totally overwhelming. If you got NHK and nothing else, I'd say 3 or 4 days and a person would want to put a shotgun in their mouth. I recall how during the Fukushima disaster how the media 'switched' from honest reporting to 100 % Bullsh@# claiming for the evacuation that engineers intended to vent some gas and people had to move back. Sure, not causing panic has it's place, but they never, ever, ever, have switched back to normal. It's STILL 100% bulls#% as Fukushima empties hundreds of tons of radioactive groundwater into the ocean each week. They have no desire to control the disaster because it is so expensive and controlling information is so cheap. NHK is intolerable for long periods.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 04:59:25 pm
content: Argh ! off-topic. please let's start a new thread for this mojo-chan!Quote from: mojo-chan on August 26, 2015, 04:15:27 pmwell, that invites defining the average westerner. Lets not go there, NHK paints a bright and rosy picture because they read government script. Reality differs from the propaganda on NHK.Quotehttp://www.naturalnews.com/050707_fukushima_radioactive_soil_typhoon_nangka.htmlQuotehttp://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/fukushima-dumped-200-cubic-miles-of.htmlQuotehttp://enenews.com/officials-6000-increase-thyroid-cancer-rate-among-fukushima-children-asahi-16-new-cases-detected-first-3-months-2015-professor-urgent-countermeasures-against-suspected-outbreak-necessary-govt

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 05:34:52 pm
content: It's funny how every thread on EEVblog ends up discussing some meaningless (usually political) drivel. This is why I'm rarely here.On the actual topic, Eric Brown made a public statement that it was totally pilot error, too low at the top of the loop etc... He was there that day and I was planning to meet him, but point being he saw that and if he's confident enough to publicly say that, then theres probably not much that can be learned from looking at the wreckage.Currently, any possible failure of the aircraft can be debunked, at least any that I can think of. Would be nice if a problem was found though, but I'm not sure there's any excuse for the altitude and I the top of the loop. May be wrong altimeter setting (perhaps set for north Weald where he came from) but that's still his fault.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 05:43:16 pm
content: Ejection seats a rocket or a pyro gas generator driving a piston are pretty much the same in performance. Both get you out of the plane and above the tail so you do not get sliced into pieces. Limit is the acceleration of the initial push, too much and you break fragile things like necks and backs, and to little and you are sliced like bacon. In any case the seats do have a small delay from initiation, so that things like canopy separation ( but there is a penetrator in any case at the top of the seat if this does not work), harness tension and such can occur before the main event.If you as a pilot did not put the straps on to the leggings on sitting in the cockpit, so you have your legs pulled off the pedals, they will call you stumpy, as the instrument panel will trim you off at the knees. You might have 2 broken ankles, but at least you will be able to walk. You also are lifetime limited as to how many times you can eject and remain a fighter pilot. 2 strikes and your back might not survive no 3.I know of one pilot who was compressed 10cm in his unanticipated deplaning, though he did almost make it to the runway. He decided to eject after looking up from the instruments, and saw trees above the canopy. Basically landed next to the fireball, and luckily the fire brigade arrived in 2 minutes to put out the river bed and what was left of the plane. His new nickname was the $10M man....... He was also doing an airshow at 300m, and swallowed a vulture.My friend Gav was also there, and as he was an armourer, and had serviced that seat, he was very glad it did as designed. Biggest worry I had sitting in the seat to work was checking **EVERY** time I was head over the sill that those 2 locking pins were in. I knew a guy who was sitting and the seat fired. That was a closed coffin funeral, and I was part of the honour guard.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2015, 07:49:20 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law