Top Gun Instructor killed at airshow
Discussion
Charles Coleman sadly died at an air show New Mexico. https://news.sky.com/story/top-gun-maverick-flight...
Footage looks to be too slow and low https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wg2PO_X5-Ag
Footage looks to be too slow and low https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wg2PO_X5-Ag
I've seen some of the footage. He was performing what is called a Lomcevak manoeuver which is essentially where the aircraft is put into a tumble but emerges pointing downwards, picks up speed and recovers. He performed the same display, at the same location and altitude, the day before and had no problems.
On this occasion the aircraft seemed to fall out of the Lomcevak and did not gain enough airspeed fast enough to pull out.
On this occasion the aircraft seemed to fall out of the Lomcevak and did not gain enough airspeed fast enough to pull out.
Eric Mc said:
I've seen some of the footage. He was performing what is called a Lomcevak manoeuver which is essentially where the aircraft is put into a tumble but emerges pointing downwards, picks up speed and recovers. He performed the same display, at the same location and altitude, the day before and had no problems.
On this occasion the aircraft seemed to fall out of the Lomcevak and did not gain enough airspeed fast enough to pull out.
The Lomcevak is a seriously disorienting manoeuvre, if you are blowing smoke, it’s even worse, as you temporarily lose external visual cues. It’s also typically fairly high G at the pull up point ( no doubt not normally an issue for someone used to pulling 9s and higher in a jet) but G-L.O.C. has been known to affect event the best fighter / display pilots, who aren’t using air bags. I guess the investigation will reveal all, in the meantime I fear there will be ( yet another ) set of restrictions put in place. It’s always terrible when folk die during shows, I fear this may be another nail in that coffin ( do to speak).On this occasion the aircraft seemed to fall out of the Lomcevak and did not gain enough airspeed fast enough to pull out.
Always hard to make a really informed decision from the quality of video. And it’s positional vantage.
I’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
I’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
I've seen a video where the previous day's routine is run alongside in a split screen format. Both days appear to be pretty much identical - except for the fact that in the crash video the plane seems to fall out of the Lomcevak in a disorganised way. It looks like it stalled during the manoeuver which meant it didn't come out pointing in the right direction and at too steep a descent angle.
Jim H said:
Always hard to make a really informed decision from the quality of video. And it’s positional vantage.
I’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
A friend was killed back in 2015 in almost identical circumstances - a very experienced display and competition pilot - failed to recover from a low-level tumbling figure. In that case a suspected undiagnosed heart condition was thought to have played a part, even though he had undergone an RAF flight medical earlier in the day before a back-seat trip in a Tornado. There could of course be a myriad of other possible causes, including a control restriction or even an incorrect altimeter setting.I’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
As an aside, I'd have said the figure the accident pilot was flying was a Ruade, entered from a 45 up line, rather than a Lomcovak entered from a vertical up line, but freestyle aerobatic nomenclature isn't an exact science.
I can concur with the earlier poster about the effect smoke ingress in the cockpit can have when flying tumbling figures - flying a Lomcovak in my old Pitts , despite not having a smoke system fitted the oil breather at that time drained into the 4:1 exhaust manifold which delivered a healthy glug of oil just as the tumbling commenced, completely filling the cockpit with smoke. Not pleasant.
Last time I saw MAXG after I sold my share they had shifted the breather pipe to the right gear leg (rather than running it all the way to the tail as is the more general approach), but then it went farming up at Breighton and I haven't seen it since the rebuild.
Having watched the video again. Following the manoeuvre, it does look like the pilot was ‘wings level’ and attempting recovery which may suggest no cognitive or physical impairment.
My observation on lack of altitude comes from the earlier manoeuvre (it looked like a stall turn) and the time taken in the vertical descent, compared to the (time) in the assent prior to the Loncovac differs to some degree - however no real comparable visual references.
I know when I’m flying my RC aircraft I get as much Altitude possible before attempting such a manoeuvre, not exactly comparable - but it does give you more wriggle room. Should something go wrong.
I’d say it’s perhaps one advantage of RC piloting over the real thing: is you can actually see what the aircraft is doing relative to it’s orientation and proximity to ground. Even though it’s a bit of a blur and all happening very quickly.
It’s difficult to comprehend what it’s like if you are within the cockpit and your mind and body have been stressed to some extent.
I wasn’t too sure and didn’t want to ask, so I looked it up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomcovak.
As I suspected, and this is what I do with my RC aircraft in similar manoeuvres. I do full Rudder/ Aileron / Elevator (up/down) throws.
However the wiki article mentions in all variants of this manoeuvre: “full down Elevator “ and the potential for stress on all aspects to the airframe during such.
If the pilot was fighting an elevator which had been at full throw, due to a failure in mechanism, without sufficient altitude.. Or shift in aircraft balance from an unknown other failure
As Mr Harding suggests (who is far more knowledgeable on these things) - it really could be anything.
And as we all know, it doesn’t take just one. The old Swiss Cheese Model to multiply into a sad situation like this
My observation on lack of altitude comes from the earlier manoeuvre (it looked like a stall turn) and the time taken in the vertical descent, compared to the (time) in the assent prior to the Loncovac differs to some degree - however no real comparable visual references.
I know when I’m flying my RC aircraft I get as much Altitude possible before attempting such a manoeuvre, not exactly comparable - but it does give you more wriggle room. Should something go wrong.
I’d say it’s perhaps one advantage of RC piloting over the real thing: is you can actually see what the aircraft is doing relative to it’s orientation and proximity to ground. Even though it’s a bit of a blur and all happening very quickly.
It’s difficult to comprehend what it’s like if you are within the cockpit and your mind and body have been stressed to some extent.
I wasn’t too sure and didn’t want to ask, so I looked it up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomcovak.
As I suspected, and this is what I do with my RC aircraft in similar manoeuvres. I do full Rudder/ Aileron / Elevator (up/down) throws.
However the wiki article mentions in all variants of this manoeuvre: “full down Elevator “ and the potential for stress on all aspects to the airframe during such.
If the pilot was fighting an elevator which had been at full throw, due to a failure in mechanism, without sufficient altitude.. Or shift in aircraft balance from an unknown other failure
As Mr Harding suggests (who is far more knowledgeable on these things) - it really could be anything.
And as we all know, it doesn’t take just one. The old Swiss Cheese Model to multiply into a sad situation like this
I sometimes go up in ex RAF T67s and an extra 300, with a company based not far from me. The T67 is good for simple manoeuvres like wing overs, loops and stall turns / gyros, and ( in my opinion) The extra, is a very capable aircraft, with higher energy manoeuvres like Cubans 1/2 Cubans high power Gyros tumbles etc, but to my eyes, the start of that pilots tumble, did look a tad low. It is almost impossible to judge it correctly from the video, because we don’t know if the camera person was level with the runway, or below it ( bottom of a slope etc). As I said previously, it’s best to let the investigators do their job, and work out the most probable cause. It could have been hundreds of individual things, which in combination, caused the accident. Human factors, mechanical factors, lots of possible combinations. I think we just need to wait for the outcome of the investigations.
Jim H said:
Always hard to make a really informed decision from the quality of video. And it’s positional vantage.
I’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
Thank you, ColumboI’ve watched it a few times now, and my only thoughts are, it didn’t really look like he started the manoeuvre with enough altitude to recover successfully.
What I mean is has he miscalculated, that would seem an odd mistake from such an experienced pilot?
Eric Mc said:
Yes Eric, I watched it first thing this morning, I’m subscribed to Juan and he pops up on my feed quickly. My takeaway from this was Juan talking about “armchair aviators” - to which I class myself.And the little understanding of High Precision Low Level Aerobatics.
It’s been an education to myself as to how little room these pilots leave themselves - and the exacting parameters to within they perform.
And there was me yesterday going on about how high I give myself (altitude) with my RC models!
I think it’s a real credit to Juan, the level of research he carries out on each of his videos, which is why I’m sure he has such a high regard from his followers.
It was interesting how he’d looked into the air density altitude on the day of accident.
Obviously most commenting on here would never think of that, just observing and commenting on the video footage.
But also highlighting the ‘Stall’ mid manoeuvre, I wouldn’t have spotted that - I just thought it was part of the tumble.
Jim H said:
Yes Eric, I watched it first thing this morning, I’m subscribed to Juan and he pops up on my feed quickly. My takeaway from this was Juan talking about “armchair aviators” - to which I class myself.
And the little understanding of High Precision Low Level Aerobatics.
It’s been an education to myself as to how little room these pilots leave themselves - and the exacting parameters to within they perform.
And there was me yesterday going on about how high I give myself (altitude) with my RC models!
I think it’s a real credit to Juan, the level of research he carries out on each of his videos, which is why I’m sure he has such a high regard from his followers.
It was interesting how he’d looked into the air density altitude on the day of accident.
Obviously most commenting on here would never think of that, just observing and commenting on the video footage.
But also highlighting the ‘Stall’ mid manoeuvre, I wouldn’t have spotted that - I just thought it was part of the tumble.
A lot of times there just isn’t the bandwidth, during high energy manoeuvres , to process all the info from the instruments, quickly enough. It’s often just a glance at ASI / pitot-stat Altimeter to confirm where you are. The guys with the most legs tend to use the ‘one potato two potato three potato’ gauge, as to when to pull the manoeuvres. If it sounds a bit flakey, it is, but it’s just the way things are done in reality. If the pitot-stat is not playing ball because of environmental conditions, it’s also surprisingly accurate, as long as you are confident of your airspeed ( from your ASI ) at the start of the manoeuvre ( which is normally considered to be less susceptible to environmental factors) generally speaking. I’m not saying he was potato counting, just that it does happen.And the little understanding of High Precision Low Level Aerobatics.
It’s been an education to myself as to how little room these pilots leave themselves - and the exacting parameters to within they perform.
And there was me yesterday going on about how high I give myself (altitude) with my RC models!
I think it’s a real credit to Juan, the level of research he carries out on each of his videos, which is why I’m sure he has such a high regard from his followers.
It was interesting how he’d looked into the air density altitude on the day of accident.
Obviously most commenting on here would never think of that, just observing and commenting on the video footage.
But also highlighting the ‘Stall’ mid manoeuvre, I wouldn’t have spotted that - I just thought it was part of the tumble.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff