ex Military Jet Trainers (JP's, L39 etc.)

[Say again s l o w l y]

Thanks NoD, the figures about the ejection stats came straight from a senior chap at Martin Bakers. I won't give his name here, but he was certainly in a position to know this, especially as he also has a company that overhauls seats for the civvy market as well. I will stress that these are his personal opinions, NOT those of MB. How he got the data I'm not sure, but why would he provide false figures?

All data I have quoted has been given by very well respected people in the Historic world. I won't post their names here without their permission. Sounds a bit shonky I know.

The JP crash at Bradwell where the chap was killed is an example of not having the right kit.
"Had he been wearing a life jacket and been able to inflate it he would, although lapsing rapidly into
unconsciousness and suffering from hypothermia, most probably have survived with his head
supported clear of the water, for the 20 minutes or so that it took for the airborne rescue services to
arrive on the scene." This is the final paragraph of the AAIB report.

In that case, the seat worked, but the SYSTEM failed since part of it wasn't there. ie no life jacket or life raft attached to the seat.

I'm happy to see that the accidents are being taken note of, especially in regard to the oxygen system. That was a lucky escape.
My point is that there should be a way of operating these machines and finding probs before there is an accident.

Your seats are 'live', but do all the systems work as they should? I'm sure they do, but that may not always be the case for others.

The biggest potential worry is not really with current seats, but how are overhaulers and groups going to cope when newer jets with far more sophisticated seats come on to the market? If we can nail problems now. I worry about it simply because of the lack of current regulation. In my mind this leaves a gap that could be exploited to the detriment of future operations. It's easier to work with clear guidelines than a mish mash or none at all.

I'll apologise if my tone has offended anybody, that certainly wasn't the intention, nor was it supposed to accusatory. As I've said before NoD, it sounds as if your group is well run. It is not down to me to tell the CAA what to do, but it is up to us how we operate our a/c. If we are content to just do what the letter of the law says and no more, what sort of message is that.
But I do feel very strongly about this subject mainly due to having known people who have been killed because of stupid mistakes of theirs or of others and had to deal with their families and the consequences, any hint of a lax safety culture is something I find very hard to stomach.

The Definition of a 'historic' a/c is not really laid down in any U.K documents. There is no mention in the ANO for example, but there is a mention in the EASA rules.

"ANNEX II OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1592/2002 (ANNEX II COVERS WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM EASA REGULATIONS) STATES:
aircraft having a clear historical relevance, related to:
participation in a noteworthy historic event; or
(ii) a major step in the development of aviation; or
(iii) a major role played in the armed forces of a Member State;
and meeting one or more of the following criteria:
its initial design is established as being more than 40 years old;
(ii) its production stopped at least 25 years ago;
(iii) fewer than 50 aircraft of the same basic design are still registered in the Member States;"

Whilst the JP wasn't really a major step in the development of aviation! It did have a major role in the training of military pilots.

This is the only mention of historic that I know of, that also came coutesy of a speaker.

I will concede the point about risk, but how you count risk in a mathematical sense compared to how we personally percieve risk is very different. Crews and Associations often quote the risk added together to form a cumulative total. This may not be mathematically correct, but it gives an idea of the enormous risks they faced.
Another way is that if we lose 8 a/c a year eventually we may end up with the situation of NO historics anymore. Unlikely, but possible. Stats are irrelevant to that end, but they are very useful in trend analysis, though their use becomes less clear as numbers dwindle. (1 spurious event can have a much larger affect on the statistics than in real life.)

The Shuttleworth collection mainly uses TP's for a couple of reasons they are of a known standard and have the ability to move quickly from type to type.

I believe that for the first year of their tenure at Old Warden they don't even get to fly, but have to prove their motivation by helping out.

Then there is a very progressive training regime moving slowly from type to type. The a/c themselves are categorised together, eg. wing warping, radial engine etc and the pilots are taught on those groups.

Genghis, I thought you had to be invited to fly for them?