...
Bayliss Inquest - Prevention of Future Deaths letter
The Defence Minister's reply dated 7th March 2022 is here -
https://www.judiciary.uk/publication...deaths-report/ along with the Coroner's PFD letter.
With respect - They all seem to have completely missed the point.
The historic risk assessment and mitigation for back-seater carriage was shot to pieces by the death of Corporal Bayliss. A risk re-assessment seems to have been done since 2018, but whatever its conclusions, it clearly missed the point
and has done nothing for back-seat safety.
Back-seaters, including Circus are still being carried and the only changes made so far are administrative. If MoD thinks that future 'promised' changes are enough to make continued
current carriage ALARP and Tolerable, they need to think again. Alternately, they may think the paper changes and 'promises' are enough to hoodwink us.
The Coroner put up two half-hearted Matters of Concern 'in order to prevent further death' but missed the obvious elephant. She did not ask why it was considered necessary to carry Circus members on certain (or any) Hawk flights. She did not ask how the new risk-assessment of continuing to carry Circus members could be considered ALARP and Tolerable in view of the fatality and when safer alternatives were available.
The Minister replied in the same vague vein, though he did, to my surprise (because I don't remember that being promised at the Inquest) suggest - "
the development of a Command Ejection capability, and ... are already in train."
The principal reason Jon Bayliss died was because he was unlucky enough to be sitting in the back of a perfectly serviceable aircraft when it happened to crash.
More warning and he might have ejected when so ordered.
Command Eject and he might have been successfully command-ejected by the pilot.
Why was he in the aircraft in the first place ? He was not a required member of the operating crew, thus his presence was arguably optional. He was in the aircraft because it suited some long-standing and so far unquestioned organisational agenda, as a convenient and cheap way of transporting ground crews. Also, up to now - it was probably considered great fun and a bit of a reward
for hard-working and trusting ground crew who presumably did not have to be
ordered to fly, or forced to join the Circus.
No matter what shuffling of paper or tweaking of simulators, the next time a pilot screws up, the back seater will still be at the same serious risk as Jon Bayliss, while there is no front to back Command Eject.
It may well be that the current Minister honestly intends to install 'front to back' Command Eject - but for a mere couple of dozen Hawk Mk 1s - what would you believe ? If the modification work is easy or inexpensive,
why wasn't it done years ago ?
There are (or were) plenty of 'spare' transport aircraft which might fit the bill for routine RAFAT support. Many other national aerobatic teams fly single seaters. They don't have a problem with provision of support aircraft. The Blue Angels bought one of our 'surplus' C-130Js.
Time to put up or shut up ?
Historically, for many aircraft types, practising the failure killed more folk than any actual failure. Civvy-wise, it is no longer permitted to practise engine failure on a real (air transport) aeroplane. It can only be done in a simulator. Bear in mind that a civvy aeroplane may be carrying hundreds of pax who don't have the benefit of ejector seats or parachutes and who might not use them even if ordered.
Question 1. Why is it still considered necessary to practice 'engine failure after takeoff ' in terms of what is demonstrably a challenging flight regime ? Horsing a Hawk round in the weeds with not a lot of knots has contributed to some nine crashes and four deaths since 1982. What is wrong with 'zoom and eject in comfort' ?
And in the mean time, the only way to ensure that RAFAT back-seater risk is ALARP and Tolerable - is regrettably to ban back-seat rides for all but required pilot training and assessment, at least until front to back Command Eject is in service.
Question 2. Why does MoD believe it is still safe to continue carrying non-pilot back-seaters, without front to back Command Eject ?
LFH
...