Yak 52 down Nr Boscombe 8/7/2016
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Carlisle
Age: 70
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I count at least 9 errors of fact in that paragraph alone....
The minimum for revalidation of an SEP (Land) Class Rating is either a Proficiency Check, or 12 hrs PIC in the 12 months before expiry plus a total of an hour of refresher flying with an instructor.
- Revalidation is required every 2 years
- An FI certificate has to revalidated every 3 years by completing '2 out of 3 ' of the following: attending an FI refresher seminar, 50 hr of instructional time or an Assessment of Competence. An Assessment of Competence is mandatory at least every 6 years.
The minimum for revalidation of an SEP (Land) Class Rating is either a Proficiency Check, or 12 hrs PIC in the 12 months before expiry plus a total of an hour of refresher flying with an instructor.
- Revalidation is required every 2 years
- An FI certificate has to revalidated every 3 years by completing '2 out of 3 ' of the following: attending an FI refresher seminar, 50 hr of instructional time or an Assessment of Competence. An Assessment of Competence is mandatory at least every 6 years.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
high spirits,
I guess the thing to remember here is that the AAIB have primacy over this accident not the DAIB. There was some errors in military supervision which contributed to the accident; however, I would think that the AAIB's focus will be on how this un-airworthy aircraft was being used for demonstration flying with more than a minimum crew for commercial purposes breaching Article 23 of the ANO.
I guess the thing to remember here is that the AAIB have primacy over this accident not the DAIB. There was some errors in military supervision which contributed to the accident; however, I would think that the AAIB's focus will be on how this un-airworthy aircraft was being used for demonstration flying with more than a minimum crew for commercial purposes breaching Article 23 of the ANO.
You are correct about the 12 hrs flight time including 6 hrs PIC minimum - my late night error!
However,
has now been amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/445 of 17 March 2015; the hour if refresher flying no longer needs to be a gained in a maximum of three flights with the same instructor.
Anyway, the report should really have been 100% correct to establish whether the PIC had a valid SEP Class Rating and Instructor Certificate.
Nevertheless, the report makes shocking reading concerning flying supervision, aeroplane maintenance records, ANO compliance, pilot qualifications, pilot recency etc. etc.....
The engine hadn't received any overhaul in 24 years, no-one seemed to have checked or replenished the oil that day, many of the engine instruments were unserviceable as were the artificial horizons and altimeters...
Does the RAF still have a Flying Supervisors' Course? If so, this accident should be used as an example for FSC students.
However,
a training flight of at least 1 hour (or a maximum of three totalling 1 hour) with the same flight instructor or class rating instructor.
Anyway, the report should really have been 100% correct to establish whether the PIC had a valid SEP Class Rating and Instructor Certificate.
Nevertheless, the report makes shocking reading concerning flying supervision, aeroplane maintenance records, ANO compliance, pilot qualifications, pilot recency etc. etc.....
The engine hadn't received any overhaul in 24 years, no-one seemed to have checked or replenished the oil that day, many of the engine instruments were unserviceable as were the artificial horizons and altimeters...
Does the RAF still have a Flying Supervisors' Course? If so, this accident should be used as an example for FSC students.
I'm having trouble opening Airsound's link, which produces mainly blacked out pages interspersed with occasional readable ones. Is this a problem at my end or simply security redaction?
As I understand it this was a civilian registered aircraft, hence subject to the civilian regulator rather than the MAA, and subject to AAIB investigation primarily. Is that correct?
The aircraft was being operated for Boscombe Down and included a Service pilot, hence this SI. Is that correct?
As to airworthiness, it has been said repeatedly on this forum, "Implement the Regs". No amount of huffing and puffing, or creating new "independent" authorities will gainsay that. The UK military air fleet is riddled with unairworthiness because that simple requirement was not adhered to.
As I understand it this was a civilian registered aircraft, hence subject to the civilian regulator rather than the MAA, and subject to AAIB investigation primarily. Is that correct?
The aircraft was being operated for Boscombe Down and included a Service pilot, hence this SI. Is that correct?
As to airworthiness, it has been said repeatedly on this forum, "Implement the Regs". No amount of huffing and puffing, or creating new "independent" authorities will gainsay that. The UK military air fleet is riddled with unairworthiness because that simple requirement was not adhered to.
Sounds like at your end - I've seen that when there is an incompatability between the PDF and the reader you are using (Usually, but not always, the version of Adobe Reader).
Yes to your other questions - Civil aircraft, operated at/for ETPS, incident involved the death of a service pilot.
Many thanks Daveof68. I'll check out my adobe reader. Thanks also for the confirmation of my queries. If the MOD tries making hay out of poor civilian airworthiness, then the words glasshouses and stones come to mind.
Years ago we had numerous aircraft types of various vintages and design concepts owned and maintained by the UK test pilot organisations. Other nations did likewise and with mutual cooperation across nations this gave an extensive list of aircraft for test pilots to fly inside the military domain.
Costs money though.
Much cheaper to contract to one company (who prefers collecting and storing documents, rather than reviewing them), who contracts another, who contracts yet another, who then hires an aircraft from an individual who operates on a PtF, complete with an installed engine that has never been overhauled in its 24 years of service. For safety, just add a PIC with little currency or experience on type, no supervision, questionable ability, a cavalier attitude to rules and regulations, doubtful airmanship and a madcap scheme to hand a forced landing to the front seat occupant (even if not qualified and on his first trip) as he doubted his own ability to execute one from the rear seat.
Seems a perfect mix to conduct extended envelope spinning, both erect or inverted and expanded envelope flying. Best not worry the aircraft & airworthiness owner though, the PIC can just send a quick email to state that it would just be gentle and benign flying.
I had known Alex for 20 years and flown with him in a number of aircraft types. He deserved better than this.
Costs money though.
Much cheaper to contract to one company (who prefers collecting and storing documents, rather than reviewing them), who contracts another, who contracts yet another, who then hires an aircraft from an individual who operates on a PtF, complete with an installed engine that has never been overhauled in its 24 years of service. For safety, just add a PIC with little currency or experience on type, no supervision, questionable ability, a cavalier attitude to rules and regulations, doubtful airmanship and a madcap scheme to hand a forced landing to the front seat occupant (even if not qualified and on his first trip) as he doubted his own ability to execute one from the rear seat.
Seems a perfect mix to conduct extended envelope spinning, both erect or inverted and expanded envelope flying. Best not worry the aircraft & airworthiness owner though, the PIC can just send a quick email to state that it would just be gentle and benign flying.
I had known Alex for 20 years and flown with him in a number of aircraft types. He deserved better than this.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lordy lord. There is so much wrong here. Headlines:
Confusion over DH responsibilities
Process 'holes' - numerous
Contractural weaknesses/ignorance
Sub-Sub-Sub- contracting (nothing new there)
Civilian Airworthiness (not just MoD/QinetiQ oversight)
Permit to Fly rather than CofA - no exemption from CAA to undertake specified activity (breech of ANO)
Ignorance within QinetiQ regarding PtF vs. CofA
Aircraft/pilot Insurance
A 24 year-old engine that had never been overhauled
Rear seat PIC did not have engine MAP or serviceable RPM gauge.
Numerous other unserviceable instruments
Questionable (by MoD standards) pilot currency/competency.
Inadequate pre-flight crew brief
Incorrect ARTM (Aviation Task Risk Matrix)
Shortened timeline - rushing
We've now arrived at the aircraft!
One other morsel:
FFS.
Confusion over DH responsibilities
Process 'holes' - numerous
Contractural weaknesses/ignorance
Sub-Sub-Sub- contracting (nothing new there)
Civilian Airworthiness (not just MoD/QinetiQ oversight)
Permit to Fly rather than CofA - no exemption from CAA to undertake specified activity (breech of ANO)
Ignorance within QinetiQ regarding PtF vs. CofA
Aircraft/pilot Insurance
A 24 year-old engine that had never been overhauled
Rear seat PIC did not have engine MAP or serviceable RPM gauge.
Numerous other unserviceable instruments
Questionable (by MoD standards) pilot currency/competency.
Inadequate pre-flight crew brief
Incorrect ARTM (Aviation Task Risk Matrix)
Shortened timeline - rushing
We've now arrived at the aircraft!
One other morsel:
The PIC was sitting on a high visibility jacket that had been borrowed from the Contractor as a booster cushion
We need to ask ourselves why this could happen under the gaze of the world's premier Test Pilot School
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 16th Jun 2017 at 10:26.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, round 2.
I don't normally get annoyed by stuff like this; I try to take an objective stance. BUT - this is shambolic. This reads like a flying club/group hidden in the wilderness. In fact, I'm probably doing flying clubs a disservice. ETPS military personnel shouldn't have even walked within 50ft of that aircraft, never mind fly in it.
I don't normally get annoyed by stuff like this; I try to take an objective stance. BUT - this is shambolic. This reads like a flying club/group hidden in the wilderness. In fact, I'm probably doing flying clubs a disservice. ETPS military personnel shouldn't have even walked within 50ft of that aircraft, never mind fly in it.
If the name of the organisation that was supposed to be providing supervision and oversight had been redacted we'd all have assumed this was either the world's worst flying club or a real banana republic Micky Mouse airforce operating that Yak. The Empire Test Pilots School? Really?
I'd known Alex since we were Air Cadets together..
I shared some of my EFB work with him and sought advice on getting stuff into the cockpit. A more enquiring and professional mind I have yet to meet.
The report is a truly scary read and I feel that he was let down by a series of safety checks that should have stopped that aircraft ever getting to the QE course.
I shared some of my EFB work with him and sought advice on getting stuff into the cockpit. A more enquiring and professional mind I have yet to meet.
The report is a truly scary read and I feel that he was let down by a series of safety checks that should have stopped that aircraft ever getting to the QE course.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
There are also a number of very good and well cared for Yak-52s out there as well as the world's most experienced Yak-52 instructor (ex-DOSAAF) who is based in the UK.
I have no doubt one could have been made available to ETPS with all the Is dotted and Ts crossed if they had asked around.
I have no doubt one could have been made available to ETPS with all the Is dotted and Ts crossed if they had asked around.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That SI is an absolutely shocking read and, as Beagle states, ought to become the starting point on any course discussing how a flying organisation ought not to be run. It is probably one of the most startling for many years.
QinetiQ should never have let that aircraft get airborne from Boscombe Down with either a military or civilian member of ETPS (which, as I understand it, they now own) on-board, looks a real dereliction of their airworthiness and safety responsibilities. QinetiQ - a supposed world class organisation, I just hope they have been able to acknowledge and rectify their failings.
And where was the AWC is all of this with regards the much vaunted MAA DH process? Surely they retained primacy with regards the duty of care to a serving Flt Lt while flying on duty, or did they? What oversight/assurance were they providing to serving ETPS military aircrew on a day-to-day basis while flying on behalf of QinetiQ? Personally I couldn't untangle the division of responsibility between the AWC and QinetiQ in this report with regards a serving military pilot, flying a CAA regulated aircraft, in an MOD funded, privately owned, flying organisation - or is that just me? Who is the dog and who is the tail in this QinetiQ/AWC arrangement?
Suspect the fallout from this could run and run - and that's even before the AAIB present their report. As others have said the good Flt Lt was seriously let down - in my opinion by both QinetiQ and the AWC - and he did deserve a lot better; RIP.
QinetiQ should never have let that aircraft get airborne from Boscombe Down with either a military or civilian member of ETPS (which, as I understand it, they now own) on-board, looks a real dereliction of their airworthiness and safety responsibilities. QinetiQ - a supposed world class organisation, I just hope they have been able to acknowledge and rectify their failings.
And where was the AWC is all of this with regards the much vaunted MAA DH process? Surely they retained primacy with regards the duty of care to a serving Flt Lt while flying on duty, or did they? What oversight/assurance were they providing to serving ETPS military aircrew on a day-to-day basis while flying on behalf of QinetiQ? Personally I couldn't untangle the division of responsibility between the AWC and QinetiQ in this report with regards a serving military pilot, flying a CAA regulated aircraft, in an MOD funded, privately owned, flying organisation - or is that just me? Who is the dog and who is the tail in this QinetiQ/AWC arrangement?
Suspect the fallout from this could run and run - and that's even before the AAIB present their report. As others have said the good Flt Lt was seriously let down - in my opinion by both QinetiQ and the AWC - and he did deserve a lot better; RIP.
Last edited by Chris Kebab; 17th Jun 2017 at 05:07. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Just this Once
The Yak-52 being on a PtF is irrelevant, it's either airworthy or it's not - in this case NOT airworthy. I've seen enough PtF aircraft and flown some and being on a PtF is not an excuse for poor maintenance/adherence to AD's.
Agree with the other posters that this is banana republic territory.
This was an accident waiting to happen compounded by what appears to be a level of complacency that beggars belief.
The Yak-52 being on a PtF is irrelevant, it's either airworthy or it's not - in this case NOT airworthy. I've seen enough PtF aircraft and flown some and being on a PtF is not an excuse for poor maintenance/adherence to AD's.
Agree with the other posters that this is banana republic territory.
This was an accident waiting to happen compounded by what appears to be a level of complacency that beggars belief.
No, it is relevant as the PtF is linked to the incomplete airworthiness chain, oversight and design support. As a result the burden of airworthiness passes directly to the owner and the residual risk is mitigated by the restrictions stipulated in the PtF (e.g. prohibition on revenue earning flights, limited POB etc). Airworthiness and serviceability are different things, albeit intertwined.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read through the report and could not help but wonder how military airworthiness processes are hopelessly wrapped up in paperwork - with no proper linkage to the real world.
The risk assessment would have stopped the engine stopping? The reason the engine actually stopped (operation or fault not even established - FFS?) not established. Lots of indignation about a Ptf - when military aircraft do not actually meet civilian standards anyhow..... and so do not have a C of A (and when they are supposed to the standards are not met anyhow - anyone for gliding?)
The limits for spinning breached on multiple occasions and none of these military trained and experienced pilots thought to even mention it?
Little or no sortie briefing, little or no checking the aircraft is even ready.
Everything passed over to a contracting company who themselves obviously had a similar level of non-competence.
Yes it is a shambles - but one created and perpetuated by the military processes and plain lack of competence, discipline and organisation within it
The risk assessment would have stopped the engine stopping? The reason the engine actually stopped (operation or fault not even established - FFS?) not established. Lots of indignation about a Ptf - when military aircraft do not actually meet civilian standards anyhow..... and so do not have a C of A (and when they are supposed to the standards are not met anyhow - anyone for gliding?)
The limits for spinning breached on multiple occasions and none of these military trained and experienced pilots thought to even mention it?
Little or no sortie briefing, little or no checking the aircraft is even ready.
Everything passed over to a contracting company who themselves obviously had a similar level of non-competence.
Yes it is a shambles - but one created and perpetuated by the military processes and plain lack of competence, discipline and organisation within it
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk assessment would have stopped the engine stopping?
The risk assessment would have stopped the accident.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bradford
Age: 54
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree Cows but it should never have got anywhere near a risk assessment the aircraft was unserviceable.
I read it this morning when airsound posted the link and still cannot believe the complacency.
Would be interesting to hear Engines thoughts as a senior engineer.
Best
John
I read it this morning when airsound posted the link and still cannot believe the complacency.
Would be interesting to hear Engines thoughts as a senior engineer.
Best
John