View Full Version : Typhoon accident rate.
Before anyone holds their heads in their hands, and says ".. someone shut him up.. NOW", I looking at Coningsby's 4x4 trials version last week, and thinking. It seems that we have a pretty good track record with it, save one or two mishaps.
Is it attributable to better design, training and monitoring, 'better' flying, the on board tech, better maintenance and culture, more realistic sims, higher risk aversion aloft/planning? Pro rata, taking into account the fewer hours flown and size of the fleet, how does it compare to rates of other jets of the 80s onwards?
MACH2NUMBER
5th May 2016, 19:08
AL R, I think you have most of your points exactly right. It must be remember that the threat and environment was much different then. In the 70s and 80s, the risks taken were much higher, to meet the threat and the necessary training profiles. Unfortunately many of us lost friends through risk that would be unacceptable today. We flew far more hours, with quite demanding aircraft and relatively poor simulation. Our new generation of aircrew have different challenges. I think and hope they can meet them.
andrewn
5th May 2016, 21:58
Agreed with both in that, in many respects, those things you mention all must contribute to a lower loss rate. However, in my limited knowledge, all that "sensor fusion" must create a very high workload, at times, for the Typhoon jockey.
All credit to the guys for both getting job done and managing to keep it all in one piece:D
Pontius Navigator
5th May 2016, 22:05
AlR, I think you will find the F2/F3 was also very low on hull losses at a similar stage in service.
I haven't checked but just a feeling.
MAINJAFAD
6th May 2016, 02:01
From what is on the UK Serials Site for the F3 Losses PN. RAF Typhoon losses 1 confirmed CAT 5 in the States and I don't known if the one that ate the runway at the cabbage patch after nose gear failure ever flew again.
July 89 X 1 (Hit sea during ACM)
June 94 X 1 (Engine Fire)
August 94 x 1 (Hit sea on landing approach to Cyprus)
October 95 X 2 (Mid air at night NVG formation sortie) One Crash / One CAT 5 damage.
January 96 X 2 (Mid air during ACM).
September 96 x 1 (Crashed during BAE test flight after replacement of centre fuselage (FOD)).
May 97 X 1 (Engine fire caused CAT 5 Damage).
June 98 X 1 (Crashed in North Sea)
November 99 X 1 (Uncontained Engine Failure)
October 05 X 1 (Uncontrollable Spin)
May 08 X 1 (Nose gear Failure, successful landing but Cat 5 damage)
July 09 X 1 (Struck ground during low level sortie)
Pontius Navigator
6th May 2016, 07:35
Mainjafad, that sort of proves my point, F2 entered Service 1985. Four years to first crash.
Similarly, with the Nimrod, it seemed only minutes after Win Harris at Kinloss said we should have lost a Nimrod by now before there was the crash in 1980.
To add to Al's, when a new type is introduced the initial aircrew cadre will be from highly experienced aircrew. As the system beds in and its capabilities and tactics are developed probability of low risk factors occurring will increase as in the Nimrod case above.
PN,
That's why I imagined people holding their heads in their hands. I'm sure precedent is prominent on Flight Safety radar.
Chris Kebab
6th May 2016, 09:42
Think Typhoon is probably on track to turn out to be a very safe aircraft (touch wood). Combination of design and, even more importantly, a real cultural shift with respect to committing to aviation which is especially noticeable for guys of my "mature" generation.
One think I am certain of is that, despite their probable claims, it has had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the MAA. Progress has been made in spite of, not as a result of, their activity. Just a personal view like!
MAINJAFAD wrote
... I don't known if the one that ate the runway at the cabbage patch after nose gear failure ever flew again.
That was ZJ810. Repaired and still flying!
Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=ZJ810)
MAINJAFAD
6th May 2016, 19:02
Thanks TEEEJ. last time I saw it, was a while after the incident and it was still in the TMU 'dead frame' hanger so to speak, but that was a few years back.
MAINJAFAD
6th May 2016, 19:07
Mainjafad, that sort of proves my point, F2 entered Service 1985. Four years to first crash.
A bit better than the Lightning where AFDS lost two in the first year!!
teeteringhead
6th May 2016, 21:12
Didn't Lightning (and maybe Harrier??) Have a worse record pro rata than the F-104?
MAINJAFAD
7th May 2016, 00:58
I did once try to work out the Lightning loss ratio of aircraft lost v built and if memory serves it worked out at around 1 in 3 point something. The F-104 loss ratio was very dependent on who was operating it and where. The Air force with the highest loss ratio were the Canadians who lost 1 in 2. The German loss ration was somewhere around 1 in 4, one air force (I can not remember which) didn't lose any.
Pontius Navigator
7th May 2016, 08:23
Teetering, indeed, but numbers and fatalities make better media script than rates. The downward ejection seat, great theory Hoskins, set the media tone.
kbrockman
7th May 2016, 15:48
, one air force (I can not remember which) didn't lose any.
IIRC it was Spain
Tarnished
11th May 2016, 12:02
As has been said, its a sign of the times.
When I was actively involved in selling the jet, I found this site: Air Force Safety Center - Aircraft Statistics (http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/) and from it came up with the stat that by the time F-16 and Typhoon fleets had each accumulated 250,000 hours the F-16 had had 26 "Cat 5s" against the Typhoon's 1. I wasn't allowed to use it publicly because we all know we are always only as good as our last trip.