Red Arrow Crash Inquest

[CarlT]

Inquest today in Bournemouth. Put down to partial blackout due to G forces
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10107817.Red...partial_black_outbefore_crash/

[Eric Mc]

Which is pretty much what I suspected at the time.

[Godalmighty83]

Is there any system which could let an aircraft know that the pilot was suffering from a loss of consciousness? Iam thinking in regards to something that could kick in and return the aircraft to a specific level height, speed and course.

[Simpo Two]

Ah, the Miracle button...

It seemed an odd time for him to be pulling such G but too bad now.

[Eric Mc]

According to the news last night, the turn and break before landing is one of the higher G manoeuvers they do. The inquest seemed to suggest that he might have been a bit under the waether that day and that might have been enough to reduce his G tolerance.

Very sad.

[mrloudly]

The effects of G are also cumulative. I know the Typhoon has a G limiting system that is profiled to the pilot flying the machine i.e. the longer he/she has been sustaining G it reduces the amount the pilot can pull.
I guess here we sadly saw the combined effects of feeling a bit poorly, cumulative G and quite possibly a bit of relaxing against the tensing as the routine was over and they were homeward bound. Very sad indeed!

[saaby93]

The Beeb report said theyd cut short their display due to an overheating spitfire waiting to take off so performed then alternative end that has a higher G.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20708693
Still an acceptable manouevre

[Steve_D]

saaby93 said:

The Beeb report said theyd cut short their display due to an overheating spitfire waiting to take off so performed then alternative end that has a higher G.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20708693
Still an acceptable manouevre

I think you may have misread the report.
The display was over and they were back at the airfield where they were to overnight.
It is normal for them to arrive at a field and do a fast past and a climbing burst. This is 'A' for the benefit of the field and 'B' the burst splits the formation in a controlled fashion for them to then circle and land.
The Spit was waiting to take off so they did a low level burst which is tighter and brings them in to land sooner.

Steve

[PaulG40]

The Service Inquiry was led by my old OC, a proper good guy and without a doubt would have left no stone unturned to get to the route of the cause. It's a shame that it was caused simply by the body's reaction to sustained G, but I take solace in the fact that improvements to training and awareness are being put into effect.

[speedtwelve]

I teach aerobatics at work, and the difference anti-g straining can make on a particular individual is marked. With tall, skinny, fit low-blood pressure blokes I've had some had their vision tunnel into grey completely even with only a 4g pull; the same manouevre again when they remember to strain gave no vision effects. I've seen the results of g-impairment, and even after recovering back at 1g disorientation and confusion can remain for a short time.

AFAIK Jon Egging was wearing 'g-jeans', but they only give 1 or 2g worth of support.

Edited by speedtwelve on Friday 14th December 20:43

[eccles]

speedtwelve said:

AFAIK Jon Egging was wearing 'g-jeans', but they only give 1 or 2g worth of support.

That seems a very low figure. Hawks used to be stressed to +9/-4 , and would regularly pull those figures. I can't see many 'standard' fast jet instructors and students being able to stand high G figures with such minimal support from their G-suit.
From my very minimal experience of wearing G suits they inflate harder the more G you pull, and certainly on the ground test rig they can inflate to very high pressures (no recommended the morning after your leaving do!).

[Mojocvh]

As has been said the effect of cumulative G exposure, even to benign 2-3g is easily misunderstood to the lay person or even RAF groundcrew!

The cousins had a bit of a deal with the A-10, low, slow, and turning nice at 3-4g but NO room [literally] for error at tree top height...

[eccles]

Mojocvh said:

As has been said the effect of cumulative G exposure, even to benign 2-3g is easily misunderstood to the lay person or even RAF groundcrew!

The cousins had a bit of a deal with the A-10, low, slow, and turning nice at 3-4g but NO room [literally] for error at tree top height...

Whilst being mere groundcrew, I do understand the cumulative effects of G, I was merely surprised that apparently a G suit has of so little effect.

[speedtwelve]

eccles said:

speedtwelve said:

AFAIK Jon Egging was wearing 'g-jeans', but they only give 1 or 2g worth of support.

That seems a very low figure. Hawks used to be stressed to +9/-4 , and would regularly pull those figures. I can't see many 'standard' fast jet instructors and students being able to stand high G figures with such minimal support from their G-suit.
From my very minimal experience of wearing G suits they inflate harder the more G you pull, and certainly on the ground test rig they can inflate to very high pressures (no recommended the morning after your leaving do!).

Was chatting about this just yesterday in the pub with some of the ex-FJ blokes from work. IIRC 7g was the 'norm' for max-rate turns in the Hawk, and even then it required a spiral descent to maintain. 8-9g eats a lot of fatigue life; I don't know of any ex-Hawk pilots regularly pulling those numbers at Valley, other than when their stude got over-excited in the front. Tornado etc I think were max 7g, less when loaded-up.

A mate had a famil flight in a Hawk at FRADU. He wasn't used to fast-jets, but was experienced with pulling g. He recalls going very grey indeed during 6g turns before realising his g-trousers had failed and weren't inflating. The competition aeros guys in Edge 540s and SBachs are pulling +10g with straining only, albeit those g-loadings are quite transient.

Typhoon has Gucci anti-g kit, and on a different level to standard g-trousers. I'll have to wait until New Year to confirm the level of 'normal' g-suit support. Ginetta G15 Girl will know.

Edited by speedtwelve on Friday 14th December 20:40

[anonymous-user]

GLoC can easily take you by surprise if you're not the one initiating it.

[eccles]

speedtwelve said:

Was chatting about this just yesterday in the pub with some of the ex-FJ blokes from work. IIRC 7g was the 'norm' for max-rate turns in the Hawk, and even then it required a spiral descent to maintain. 8-9g eats a lot of fatigue life; I don't know of any ex-Hawk pilots regularly pulling those numbers at Valley, other than when their stude got over-excited in the front. Tornado etc I think were max 7g, less when loaded-up.

A mate had a famil flight in a Hawk at FRADU. He wasn't used to fast-jets, but was experienced with pulling g. He recalls going very grey indeed during 6g turns before realising his g-trousers had failed and weren't inflating. The competition aeros guys in Edge 540s and SBachs are pulling +10g with straining only, albeit those g-loadings are quite transient.

Typhoon has Gucci anti-g kit, and on a different level to standard g-trousers. I'll have to wait until New Year to confirm the level of 'normal' g-suit support. Ginetta G15 Girl will know.

Edited by speedtwelve on Friday 14th December 20:40

There were a lot of Hawks at Valley and you'd be surprised at how many times they pulled high G, whether it be by instructor or student. From Memory The Tornado (GR) was +4 and less when loaded up.
And if we're just quoting stuff about aeros, don't the American Blue Angels do their displays without the aid of G suits.

[speedtwelve]

The 4g limit on the Tornado was introduced latterly wasn't it? 2008 I think. It used to be quite a bit more for a clean aeroplane.

There's a video clip of the results of G-LOC taken during a famil trip in one of the Blues' F18s where a journo finds it all a bit too much.

Edited by speedtwelve on Saturday 15th December 00:52

[Mojocvh]

eccles said:

Mojocvh said:

As has been said the effect of cumulative G exposure, even to benign 2-3g is easily misunderstood to the lay person or even RAF groundcrew!

The cousins had a bit of a deal with the A-10, low, slow, and turning nice at 3-4g but NO room [literally] for error at tree top height...

Whilst being mere groundcrew, I do understand the cumulative effects of G, I was merely surprised that apparently a G suit has of so little effect.

Sheety, it's ok.

[frodo_monkey]

speedtwelve said:

The 4g limit on the Tornado was introduced latterly wasn't it? 2008 I think. It used to be quite a bit more for a clean aeroplane.

There's a video clip of the results of G-LOC taken during a famil trip in one of the Blues' F18s where a journo finds it all a bit too much.

Edited by speedtwelve on Saturday 15th December 00:52

4G on the F3 due to airframe fatigue, used to be 6g before that for a clean jet Less on a GR but we tend to be more of a bomb truck anyhow. G-pants are great but having G-loc'd myself before in a Hawk I know how much of an effect physiological factors can have (lack of breakfast/poor sleep in my case) - lucky I'm a backseater.

RIP Eggman, could have happened to anyone

[speedtwelve]

I know a chap who G-LOC'd himself in a Hawk while going through Valley as a stude during a solo G/H sortie. Woke up with a windscreen full of Wales and the machmeter increasing through 1.0. He still had loads of height to recover though. His first supersonic solo (inadvertant).