ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Eurofighter crash - Italy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by nodandawink, Sep 24, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bread and circuses.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. There is a certain line they have to follow to perform certain aerobatics to try and prevent aircraft endangering the public, I think its a line parallel to the runway but a few hundred feet further opposite the main spectators and yes, they will get banned. One of ours at Warton in DA2 or 4 did a tight turn in front of our hangar and spent a very long time flying the Hawk India Synthetic Training Equipment.

    In the case of Mario here, I think out of respect for the poor chaps family he wont be receiving his ban posthumously.

    Very sad and I read his parents and girlfriend were watching to.

    Tragic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    That restriction is, quite rightly, to protect the audience - what about protecting the pilot by banning loops?
     
  4. Or airshows and air to air combat?

    The cause will be found but the display is usually very well planned, if the pilot follows the display plan then aside from aircraft issues, nature (bird strikes) or atmospheric anomalies, it shouldn't be 'that' dangerous.

    I think a lot of these guys ride the planes in because they think they can recover it, they are a different breed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Wah shield up -
    Loops are perfectly safe if the manoeuvre is started at sufficient height above the unforgiving earth .
    Why ban anything that's deemed unsafe ? Smoking still kills more a year than 50 years worth of aviation related crashes
    In the case of Shoreham the actual manoeuvre was not the issue.....it was all the other factors surrounding it......as is the case in most crashes .
    And down -
    Good job all those WW2 Biggles types were not restrained by Elf and Safety
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Point to note: there are very few instances in combat where a loop would be being performed that close to the ground. For that matter, in the modern BVR environment there are fewer and fewer instances where they're performed at altitude.

    Such manoeuvres are crowd-pleasers. Unfortunately, crowds tend to be on the ground.

    I won't pass comment on a dead man with considerably more flying skills than me. That's for an enquiry to do (or not) but suffice to say that doing such things so close to the ground leaves very little margin for error.
     
  7. I think we have to consider basic design shortcomings and the aircraft's overall unfitness for role.

    Here is evidence of what can be achieved.

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Like Douglas Bader :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Loop (singular unless repeated as part of a sequence, then its loops) is not a dangerous manoeuvre when you’ve got altitude. Low level loop(s) are bloody dangerous since the ground and gravity always punishes the careless, unlucky or foolhardy. Which just about summed up my cack handed Aeros so I always added a few thousand feet insurance.

    There’s a very good description at @19 mns about pulling out of a vertical path. Ok not a loop but clearly describes the balance of pulling not too hard or not too little to avoid that punishment.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. why can they not build in technology to recover the aircraft if the pilot passes out ?
    surely a system could be built in to calculate the point at which to pull up, and then move the aircraft away to safety until the pilot recovers ?
     
  11. I'd imagine the difficulty is in building a system that flawlessly overrides pilot inputs - c.f. the 1988 Paris Airshow A320 crash.

    Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia

    Short version: pilot performs low speed pass with wheels down, flaps down. When he goes to increase power - computer says no, as it thinks he's landing. Aircraft augers in. I believe the tragic 1994 Mull of Kintyre crash may also have been the result of the FADEC software overriding pilot inputs.

    Pilots, especially of high performance military aircraft need to be able to manage the aircraft without worrying that the computer is going to overrule them.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 3
  12. Imagine a mil pilot trying to win a dogfight pulling beyond the software writers design limits when the ‘puter says

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  13. The loop is one of the easiest of aerobatic manouevres, however it would normally be done at such a height that cockups or problems don't represent a safety hazard. The ground or water for that matter is very unforgiving.
     
  14. Stretching my memory back a bit I seem to remember that the minimum eject height equals one tenth of the rate of descent. So I don't know what speed the jet would have been doing on the descending bit of the loop but even if he was going at only 200kts (slow) his minimum ejection height would have been 2000' MSD. Couple that with an built in reluctance to bang out as long as the jet can be saved and some pilots simply leave it too late. However the BoI will no doubt determine the cause of the problem and why no bang out.
    Whatever the cause, still a tragic loss.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. just thinking back to my younger days when I used to sit at my desk in my room on my PC 80486 playing "Falcon" dreaming of being a pilot.

    Nowadays, pilots don't have to leave their rooms to fly aeroplanes either.

    Now that's what I call a Full circle!
     
    • Like Like x 1