Red Arrows CRASHED!!
21 August 2011, 04:18 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Bristol-ish
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usual course of action for a engine failure would be to level-out and gain height, to give the pilot time to assess his options and consider a relight. However, given the amount of housing in the immediate area and steep turn, maybe that wasn't possible in this tragic event.
An RAF Service Inquiry will have already been set up, and should issue an initial report early in the week, although it's contents are likely to be very thin.
21 August 2011, 10:37 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
22 August 2011, 12:41 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arborfield, Berkshire
Posts: 12,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for the info Les. Thats gotta be a horrible decision if your too low too eject - do I just try or go for the landing. Whilst I feel for his family Im also glad there was no contact or civilian lives lost as that would be another reason for people to try shutting down one of our last remaining institutions.
22 August 2011, 12:49 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly a tragedy.
His postion in the formation would be on the extreme right of the diamond so in a right turn he would have been closest of them all to the ground.
I feel that stalling the aircraft can be discounted becuase the Hawk gives plenty of warning appraoching the stall and a pilot of his experience and ability would have dealt with that easily.
He must have had some kind of catastrophic failure such as the flying controls or more likely an engine failure. I don't know how high they were but a forced landing from lowish level. he would have been preety poorly placed, obviously unable to glide to the airport and maybe too low to eject as far as the seat limitations of the Hawk are concerned. All he could do, assuming the flying controls were still working, would be to attempt a forced landing in the fields. With no engine, you have very little choice of a touch down point. The Hawk does not glide very far, I remember that if you lost the engine 1,000 feet above the runway threshold facing the direction of landing, you could just make it to the runway doing a 360 degree gliding turn for a deadstick touchdown on the runway. With a failed engine of course, the only way is down and your options are few, especially at the lower levels.
We don't know the full story of course and naturally all Hawks have to stop flying until the basic reason is found during the enquiry.
I feel sorry for the pilot of course, he was in one of the situations one used to wake up screaming in the night about and if he had a better place and a longer field for touchdown he might have escaped injury and death.
Les
His postion in the formation would be on the extreme right of the diamond so in a right turn he would have been closest of them all to the ground.
I feel that stalling the aircraft can be discounted becuase the Hawk gives plenty of warning appraoching the stall and a pilot of his experience and ability would have dealt with that easily.
He must have had some kind of catastrophic failure such as the flying controls or more likely an engine failure. I don't know how high they were but a forced landing from lowish level. he would have been preety poorly placed, obviously unable to glide to the airport and maybe too low to eject as far as the seat limitations of the Hawk are concerned. All he could do, assuming the flying controls were still working, would be to attempt a forced landing in the fields. With no engine, you have very little choice of a touch down point. The Hawk does not glide very far, I remember that if you lost the engine 1,000 feet above the runway threshold facing the direction of landing, you could just make it to the runway doing a 360 degree gliding turn for a deadstick touchdown on the runway. With a failed engine of course, the only way is down and your options are few, especially at the lower levels.
We don't know the full story of course and naturally all Hawks have to stop flying until the basic reason is found during the enquiry.
I feel sorry for the pilot of course, he was in one of the situations one used to wake up screaming in the night about and if he had a better place and a longer field for touchdown he might have escaped injury and death.
Les
23 August 2011, 12:24 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting about the bird remains. I think it would have to be a flock to be enough to cause the engine to fail. Could well have been a seagull of course which could be big enough to damage the engine. I did have a Vulcan engine fail once because of one seagull, but the Vulcan engines were extremely vulnerable to birdstrike damage. I also once hit a German eagle when in a Canberra B(I)8 which smashed the bullet proof windscreen! I was very lucky that it hit the corner of the screen's frame so did not hit me in the face. That would have finished me for sure.
Anyway we shall have to wait and see the real reason for the Red Arrow crash.
Les
Anyway we shall have to wait and see the real reason for the Red Arrow crash.
Les
24 August 2011, 10:33 PM
#67
25 August 2011, 12:00 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think that the light under the fuselage was most likely to be the strobe anti collision light which must have flashed on just as the photo was taken. It is a pretty bright light of course to be able to do its required job.
Les
Les
25 August 2011, 12:04 PM
#69
Pontificating
I must have taken 50 photo's of the display on Saturday I will have a closer look at mine later as I'm sure I have seen this light on more than one of the aircraft.
Sky scaremongering imo, just putting a story out there with very little basis of fact to fill a hole.
Sky scaremongering imo, just putting a story out there with very little basis of fact to fill a hole.
25 August 2011, 01:44 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 August 2011, 02:16 PM
#72
I must have taken 50 photo's of the display on Saturday I will have a closer look at mine later as I'm sure I have seen this light on more than one of the aircraft.
Sky scaremongering imo, just putting a story out there with very little basis of fact to fill a hole.
Sky scaremongering imo, just putting a story out there with very little basis of fact to fill a hole.
You have this from the photographer that took the pic
"The picture was taken by photographer and military aviation enthusiast, Ryan Money, 25, who claims he has taken about 1,500 photographs of Red Arrows planes over the years.
He said it "looks like a small explosion" and an "engine blow out".
"Mr Money did not think the light was due to a reflection: "If there is reflection on one (plane) it will appear on others like on the wing tip. The plane was flying over a cornfield."
You then have this from a former RAF pilot
"But one former RAF pilot told Sky News Online it looked "bigger than a strobe light".
He said in the picture the pilot "hasn't lost any speed and (the light) is not causing him any problems. There's no smoke coming out.
He added: "That light could be the start of something."
25 August 2011, 02:39 PM
#73
Pontificating
It would be scaremongering by sky if they didn't have any expert opinions to dismiss that bright white light as being anything other than a strobe light.
You have this from the photographer that took the pic
"The picture was taken by photographer and military aviation enthusiast, Ryan Money, 25, who claims he has taken about 1,500 photographs of Red Arrows planes over the years.
He said it "looks like a small explosion" and an "engine blow out".
"Mr Money did not think the light was due to a reflection: "If there is reflection on one (plane) it will appear on others like on the wing tip. The plane was flying over a cornfield."
You then have this from a former RAF pilot
"But one former RAF pilot told Sky News Online it looked "bigger than a strobe light".
He said in the picture the pilot "hasn't lost any speed and (the light) is not causing him any problems. There's no smoke coming out.
He added: "."
You have this from the photographer that took the pic
"The picture was taken by photographer and military aviation enthusiast, Ryan Money, 25, who claims he has taken about 1,500 photographs of Red Arrows planes over the years.
He said it "looks like a small explosion" and an "engine blow out".
"Mr Money did not think the light was due to a reflection: "If there is reflection on one (plane) it will appear on others like on the wing tip. The plane was flying over a cornfield."
You then have this from a former RAF pilot
"But one former RAF pilot told Sky News Online it looked "bigger than a strobe light".
He said in the picture the pilot "hasn't lost any speed and (the light) is not causing him any problems. There's no smoke coming out.
He added: "."
How about **** journalism
I read the link and all it suggests is they guy that took the photograph "it looks" like a small explosion or an engine blow out (what sort of engine was its candle powered
) I'm no expert but I believe if it was an engine blow out we would be seeing more than a light and he wouldn't have carried on at the same rate of knots as his team members banking to the right, it's only when he completes that turn that something goes horribly wrong.The RAF pilots first two sentences are sensible enough and as he said in the third That light "could" be the start of something, even he didn't know what it was.
Just lazy media journalism imo, they didn't have a clue what they were writing. I have taken thousands of photo's of aircraft and road/track vehicles of all descriptions but that doesn't make me an expert, we should also remember the fact the aircraft have been cleared to fly again suggests the light was nothing sinister at all.
Last edited by Funkii Munkii; 25 August 2011 at 02:40 PM.
25 August 2011, 02:48 PM
#74
Pontificating
LOL I have just read some of comments people have posted on there.
UFO attack FPMSL, and the guy that purports to be ex RAF and MOD (jam3000) turns out he was an air cadet, possibly he was the photographer that suggested it was an engine blow out
UFO attack FPMSL, and the guy that purports to be ex RAF and MOD (jam3000) turns out he was an air cadet, possibly he was the photographer that suggested it was an engine blow out
25 August 2011, 03:09 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Sky News is best for it's article comments not the articles themselves. Some absolute ***** on there as well as some very funny posters.
26 August 2011, 02:04 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be scaremongering by sky if they didn't have any expert opinions to dismiss that bright white light as being anything other than a strobe light.
You have this from the photographer that took the pic
"The picture was taken by photographer and military aviation enthusiast, Ryan Money, 25, who claims he has taken about 1,500 photographs of Red Arrows planes over the years.
He said it "looks like a small explosion" and an "engine blow out".
"Mr Money did not think the light was due to a reflection: "If there is reflection on one (plane) it will appear on others like on the wing tip. The plane was flying over a cornfield."
You then have this from a former RAF pilot
"But one former RAF pilot told Sky News Online it looked "bigger than a strobe light".
He said in the picture the pilot "hasn't lost any speed and (the light) is not causing him any problems. There's no smoke coming out.
He added: "That light could be the start of something."
You have this from the photographer that took the pic
"The picture was taken by photographer and military aviation enthusiast, Ryan Money, 25, who claims he has taken about 1,500 photographs of Red Arrows planes over the years.
He said it "looks like a small explosion" and an "engine blow out".
"Mr Money did not think the light was due to a reflection: "If there is reflection on one (plane) it will appear on others like on the wing tip. The plane was flying over a cornfield."
You then have this from a former RAF pilot
"But one former RAF pilot told Sky News Online it looked "bigger than a strobe light".
He said in the picture the pilot "hasn't lost any speed and (the light) is not causing him any problems. There's no smoke coming out.
He added: "That light could be the start of something."
Les
26 August 2011, 02:32 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly, though the official line is that the planes have been inspected... seems strange considering there's a reported 150 or so Hawks in the fleet. That's alot of planes to safety check in one week.
The Red Arrows were due to leave today but have delayed until tomorrow due to the weather this morning. However, it's cleared up alot this afternoon so I expect they'll slip away when they can.
The Red Arrows were due to leave today but have delayed until tomorrow due to the weather this morning. However, it's cleared up alot this afternoon so I expect they'll slip away when they can.
27 August 2011, 12:57 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Bristol-ish
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Red Arrows Website
Basically, nothing untoward has been found so far, either from the physical evidence of the wreckage or from the aircraft data recorder, to suggest that there was a catestrophic failure that could put other aircraft at significant risk. Read into that what you will.
The aircaft's engine is expected in our workshop sometime next week, where it will be stripped as part of the investigation.
In the absence of any critical safety recommendations in the Service Inquiry’s initial report the precautionary suspension of Hawk T1 flying activity has been lifted and flying operations have been resumed.
...
Display flying by the Red Arrows team, in an eight ship formation, will recommence subject to a successful period of consolidation and approval to display.
...
Display flying by the Red Arrows team, in an eight ship formation, will recommence subject to a successful period of consolidation and approval to display.
The aircaft's engine is expected in our workshop sometime next week, where it will be stripped as part of the investigation.
Last edited by DaveD; 27 August 2011 at 12:58 AM.
27 August 2011, 11:06 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was nothing to say that the aircraft was intrinsically at fault, then it can only be a bird strke of some kind or incapacity of the pilot,which could also be caused by a birdstrike through the windscreen.
Les
Les
27 August 2011, 11:36 AM
#82
Super Muppet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside out
Posts: 33,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 August 2011, 12:07 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK maybe scaremongering was the wrong word
How about **** journalism
I read the link and all it suggests is they guy that took the photograph "it looks" like a small explosion or an engine blow out (what sort of engine was its candle powered) I'm no expert but I believe if it was an engine blow out we would be seeing more than a light and he wouldn't have carried on at the same rate of knots as his team members banking to the right, it's only when he completes that turn that something goes horribly wrong.
The RAF pilots first two sentences are sensible enough and as he said in the third That light "could" be the start of something, even he didn't know what it was.
Just lazy media journalism imo, they didn't have a clue what they were writing. I have taken thousands of photo's of aircraft and road/track vehicles of all descriptions but that doesn't make me an expert, we should also remember the fact the aircraft have been cleared to fly again suggests the light was nothing sinister at all.
How about **** journalism
I read the link and all it suggests is they guy that took the photograph "it looks" like a small explosion or an engine blow out (what sort of engine was its candle powered
) I'm no expert but I believe if it was an engine blow out we would be seeing more than a light and he wouldn't have carried on at the same rate of knots as his team members banking to the right, it's only when he completes that turn that something goes horribly wrong.The RAF pilots first two sentences are sensible enough and as he said in the third That light "could" be the start of something, even he didn't know what it was.
Just lazy media journalism imo, they didn't have a clue what they were writing. I have taken thousands of photo's of aircraft and road/track vehicles of all descriptions but that doesn't make me an expert, we should also remember the fact the aircraft have been cleared to fly again suggests the light was nothing sinister at all.
The upshot of it all is flameout and no engine thrust and the engine would not run again either because of the damage to the compressor. It is possible to have an engine surge under normal running which concentrates the mind because of the bang but usually the engine will settle down and continue to run since it has not been damaged.
The first situation could well have happened in this case.
Les
29 August 2011, 04:12 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Still lots of speculation so no doubt until the official enquiry is sorted then we won't have a proper answer.
Now I was having a chat with an RAF instructor at the weekend, he was puzzled on a couple of matters, there was no explosion so that points to an engine issue, then the issue of the pilot not ejecting (they wear the G suits so shouldnt suffer blackouts).
Supposedly the mk X seats are a zero something seat, ie you can eject on a runway and it will fully open and you should land (abeit a little heavy), so even he said its best to wait until the official statement comes out, plus the hawks have a good glide according to him, 1000 feet glide per mile.
Tony
Now I was having a chat with an RAF instructor at the weekend, he was puzzled on a couple of matters, there was no explosion so that points to an engine issue, then the issue of the pilot not ejecting (they wear the G suits so shouldnt suffer blackouts).
Supposedly the mk X seats are a zero something seat, ie you can eject on a runway and it will fully open and you should land (abeit a little heavy), so even he said its best to wait until the official statement comes out, plus the hawks have a good glide according to him, 1000 feet glide per mile.
Tony
29 August 2011, 04:33 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still lots of speculation so no doubt until the official enquiry is sorted then we won't have a proper answer.
Now I was having a chat with an RAF instructor at the weekend, he was puzzled on a couple of matters, there was no explosion so that points to an engine issue, then the issue of the pilot not ejecting (they wear the G suits so shouldnt suffer blackouts).
Supposedly the mk X seats are a zero something seat, ie you can eject on a runway and it will fully open and you should land (abeit a little heavy), so even he said its best to wait until the official statement comes out, plus the hawks have a good glide according to him, 1000 feet glide per mile.
Tony
Now I was having a chat with an RAF instructor at the weekend, he was puzzled on a couple of matters, there was no explosion so that points to an engine issue, then the issue of the pilot not ejecting (they wear the G suits so shouldnt suffer blackouts).
Supposedly the mk X seats are a zero something seat, ie you can eject on a runway and it will fully open and you should land (abeit a little heavy), so even he said its best to wait until the official statement comes out, plus the hawks have a good glide according to him, 1000 feet glide per mile.
Tony
The way it just slid out of the formation to the ground was strange.
The engine seemed ok, no puff of smoke or flame, didn't look like it had ingested anything and started to surge.
The reports saying the pilot guided it away from houses means he wasn't blacked out or suffering hypoxia which would be the other option - if he had a failure of the onboard oxygen system.
It's one of those where we have to wait for the board of inquiry
30 August 2011, 12:11 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way he is going to be suffering anoxia at that height.
1,000 ft/mile is not that good a glide angle and if you imagine the height he was at should the engine have failed he would have very little choice of a landing zone, he would be relying on luck for a good spot for a forced landing.
If you were overhead the runway threshold facing the landing direction at 1,000 feet, and you lost the engine, you could only just manage a spiral turn to be able to land on that runway and that would be if you had flown a very well managed turn.
I am saying that he was very poorly placed at the time. The Mk10B ejection seat is a very good one but its survivabilty also depends on the rate of descent of the aircraft, ie you could be worse off at very low level with a high rate of descent than if you were standing in the station.
To be suffering from high G effects at the time and that speed he would have had to have a major and sudden control failure which caused the aircraft to tuck in violently. During normal display flying the Arrows would not be pulling high G anyway. Impossible to fly in formation at the sort of G being talked about anyway.
We shall only know of course when the enquiry is over.
Les
1,000 ft/mile is not that good a glide angle and if you imagine the height he was at should the engine have failed he would have very little choice of a landing zone, he would be relying on luck for a good spot for a forced landing.
If you were overhead the runway threshold facing the landing direction at 1,000 feet, and you lost the engine, you could only just manage a spiral turn to be able to land on that runway and that would be if you had flown a very well managed turn.
I am saying that he was very poorly placed at the time. The Mk10B ejection seat is a very good one but its survivabilty also depends on the rate of descent of the aircraft, ie you could be worse off at very low level with a high rate of descent than if you were standing in the station.
To be suffering from high G effects at the time and that speed he would have had to have a major and sudden control failure which caused the aircraft to tuck in violently. During normal display flying the Arrows would not be pulling high G anyway. Impossible to fly in formation at the sort of G being talked about anyway.
We shall only know of course when the enquiry is over.
Les
30 August 2011, 01:23 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the video the plane was banked over at 90° when it descended out of formation. Would the ejector seat automatically 'lock' when flying upside down near the ground, or is it pilot judgement whether to pull the handle?
31 August 2011, 03:25 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
31 August 2011, 05:42 PM
#90
