Originally Posted by rlsbutler
Let us consider the para 1.4.201 HSTF analysis.What a difference it would make if the text was not “while landings were achieved on a few occasions” but “more than one landing was achieved” and if the text was not “On almost every occasion the HSTF showed indications of stall” but “occasionally there were no indications of stall”.
The panel seems to regard the “contract” parameters as critical to their investigation. It is however clear that the “contract” is only incidental to the exercise that R3 was conducting. It should be appreciated that the “Contract” is for the instruction of students and for the guidance of experienced Hawk pilots.
How many UK Hawk students have been taught PFLs or PEFATOs airborne in the last 15 years? Zero. The contract is critical. To the qualified Hawk pilots who fly it.
The panel might have examined the possibility that the “contract” actually interfered with R3’s safe execution of the exercise. Have the simulations discussed in para 1.4.201 and the successful landings achieved been fully reported to, at least, the Red Arrows ?
You don't know enough to be dangerous.
The new rule of 1400ft at the final turn, deemed essential to meeting the “contract” terms, could not be met by R3 and might almost never be met by the Arrows. The Arrows presumably risk an EFATO on every launch and still brief for it, on the clear understanding that the “contract” cannot apply. I expect that even to land on the launch runway would still be briefed, if there was no alternative and since the simulations have shown it can be done.
Not a rule! There's no rules in the 3225H. It's guidance. As the report says! When you fly a single engine aircraft be it a C152, a Cirrus Jet, a Hawk or an F35 you risk an EFATO that will result in a generally downwards trend.
If you'd like to phrase your questions as questions I'd be more than inclined to answer or ignore them. Unfortunately you're making statements and those statements are incorrect.