CAA swept wing restrictions

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
User avatar
Gonzo230
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun 01 Jul 2012, 8:13 am

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Gonzo230 »

Mike wrote:
Sat 23 Jul 2022, 9:54 pm
Gonzo230 wrote:
Sat 23 Jul 2022, 9:08 pm
One doesn’t have to go too far into past airprox reports to understand why anything else on airshow arrival or departure days can introduce hazards to operations.
Maybe so, but he wasn’t at RIAT this year.

Nor Cosford either. Funny that…
My post wasn’t about personalities, and the point stands.

Thoughtful_Flyer
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 12 Sep 2008, 8:32 am

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Thoughtful_Flyer »

Mike wrote:
Fri 22 Jul 2022, 8:01 am
The Gnat accident also had a bearing on the CAA's decision

Basically they've decided that a bunch of civilian wannabe fighter pilots have no business performing low-level aerobatics in swept-wing jets, so they've outlawed the practice. Quite rightly IMO
From memory, the Gnat accident didn't injure (or worse) anybody but the pilot or damage any property apart from the aircraft?

However, from what I remember of it, from a flying and / or regulatory point of view there was far more to condemn? Shoreham is of course far more talked about because of the tragic outcome to (unofficial) spectators and completely uninvolved passers by.

User avatar
centaurus18
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:59 am
Location: Ex-Yeovil, now Southampton, UK
Contact:

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by centaurus18 »

The Gnat near miss at Abingdon was probably also related the decison following what occurred years later.
Mark
'We’re in the stickiest situation, since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.'

Stagger2
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2011, 8:46 am

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Stagger2 »

This is a tough subject for the relevant authorities to deliberate on, especially as there isn't really a strong case or need to do so! According to historic incident statistics sufficient restrictions were in place prior to the Shoreham & Gnat events to minimise likely incidents causing loss of life? That was clearly in hindsight NOT the case. :frowning2: However diligently the Risk Assessment is done & the actual Operator/Pilot/Aircraft rules & guidance are executed (even if they are! :open_mouth: ) there will always be an inherent risk in operating aging jets by aging pilots. I personally don't have an issue with a ban on looping manoeuvres & barrel-rolls which naturally have a greater risk of catastrophe should there be pilot/aircraft failure. Who didn't get a blast (some actually!) from the SwAFHF trio on their arrival, low overshoot (Draken afterburner) & landings at RIAT 22? Great to see the HHA Hunter too. :grin:
It just demonstrates that high-risk, high-energy historic jet aerobatics are no longer necessary, even for enthusiasts like me who've seen the Full Monty previously. Just as well, because these UK. restrictions are here to STAY!

Mike
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Mike »

centaurus18 wrote:
Sun 24 Jul 2022, 10:19 am
The Gnat near miss at Abingdon was probably also related the decison following what occurred years later.
I'd forgotten about that, even though I was there that year and witnessed it first hand. One of those times when I was absolutely convinced I was going to see an accident and, thankfully, didn't. Extremely scary stuff!

A video clip I found on YouTube:


User avatar
Seahornet
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 1:55 pm
Location: Shropshire, Severn Valley

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Seahornet »

This is a bit of a tangent, but it's worth remembering that the long and detailed reviews that the CAA conducted after Shoreham weren't just focussed around the accident itself. They represented a full root and branch examination of all relevant procedures and risk assessments regarding how airshows are conducted. So, if some the outcomes don't seem like a proportionate response to Shoreham (or even relevant to it), that doesn't mean they are unnecessary or 'overkill'.... :thinking:
And as the smart ship grew,
In stature, grace and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....

Mgmarky
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2022, 5:53 pm

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Mgmarky »

As someone who regularly walks the dog in the woods at Oulton Park the Gnat accident was a shock to the system.
The aircraft came down just a few yards from the road and the many well trodden paths that surround it.
The only difference between this accident and the one at Shoreham a few weeks later can be summed up in one word,Luck!! and that luck ran out at Shoreham.

User avatar
Gonzo230
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun 01 Jul 2012, 8:13 am

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by Gonzo230 »

Seahornet wrote:
Sun 24 Jul 2022, 8:51 pm
This is a bit of a tangent, but it's worth remembering that the long and detailed reviews that the CAA conducted after Shoreham weren't just focussed around the accident itself. They represented a full root and branch examination of all relevant procedures and risk assessments regarding how airshows are conducted. So, if some the outcomes don't seem like a proportionate response to Shoreham (or even relevant to it), that doesn't mean they are unnecessary or 'overkill'.... :thinking:
Good point, this cannot be stressed enough.

User avatar
phreakf4
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: CAA swept wing restrictions

Post by phreakf4 »

Mike wrote:
Sun 24 Jul 2022, 8:13 pm
centaurus18 wrote:
Sun 24 Jul 2022, 10:19 am
The Gnat near miss at Abingdon was probably also related the decison following what occurred years later.
I'd forgotten about that, even though I was there that year and witnessed it first hand. One of those times when I was absolutely convinced I was going to see an accident and, thankfully, didn't. Extremely scary stuff!

A video clip I found on YouTube:

That is my footage....
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....