2LP, particularly,
Is it your feeling that practise asymmetrics are actually so dangerous as to be of no training benefit, especially because real asymmetric situations are so 'few and far between'. In other words that this training is killing more aircrew than it can possibly save? (As Wheelbarrow infers).
Or are practise asymmetrics at night exponentially more risky?
If it's a practise asymmetric, with the QFI in particular knowing exactly what's going to happen and when, why is it so fraught with danger? Presumably dozens of training asymmetric approaches and overshoots pass without incident every year - what is so different about the ones that end in tragedy?
Is one problem that a 'macho attitude' to the need for (and desirability of) asymmetric training has developed and that the need for it was established long ago, by older aircrew, when comparison with older types (Meteors, Hastings, etc.) the Canberra looked relatively benign, whereas in today's 'fluffier' more H&S conscious times, the damned thing looks more lethal?
Wheelbarrow,
"In answer to another post; a survey was prepared on refitting the canberra with Zero / Zero seats but as usual the cost was felt to be too much, I hope the person who came out with that felt the two lives that were lost were worth it, they both ejected but due to the antiquated seat did not get out within the seat's boundaries." - Do you remember roughly when this study was undertaken? I'm fascinated by this - it seems as disgraceful as the decision not to give V-bomber back-seaters (or Canberra B(I)8 navs) ejection seats. I wonder how many lives might have been saved by providing the Canberras with a zero-zero ejection capability.
Beagle/Maverick Lad, Bizflyer etc.,
There is nothing wrong with operating a 50 year old aeroplane. The Yanks plan to be operating 80 year old Buffs, for goodness sake. And in point of fact, the PR9s are pretty low houred, and are only 40 - scarcely ten years older than some of the RAF's Jags, and certainly not much different to the older VC10s and C-130s! Many entirely sensible people would have been happy to keep the Canberra PR9 going for another 12-20 years had we sufficient airframes (or even noses with fewer pressurisation cycles on them and a cheap, robust solution to the upper wing skin issue). Had we not thrown away so many serviceable, low houred PR9 airframes in the late 70s and early 80s, further service would be likely. And quite rightly, since the machine has performed better in its intended role than even the U-2R/S in some recent ops. It's far from obsolete. But whether it should have undergone more safety-related upgrades (new seats, even a fixed base sim) is perhaps another matter.
Beeaye8,
You say: "As for it being an "assymetric". Has this been proven? Is this the cause? If so, I apologise, because the "public" gen doesn't say that."
The Beeb say:
"The jet, a 50-year-old Canberra T4, was involved in "touch and go" training, where the crew practise landing and take-off.
'State of shock'
Squadron Leader Mike Lence, deputy commander of 39 Squadron - the Canberra squadron - paid tribute to the men who lost their lives.
He said: "The squadron is in a state of shock over the loss of two valued men. I knew them personally and they will be sorely missed. Our thoughts at the moment are with their families."
The squadron leader added that the three men involved in the accident were all experienced aircrew.
"They were practising a specific technique - and one pilot would have been acting as an invigilator or instructor", he said.
"I want to stress that these were all experienced aircrew. They were not training in the sense that they were novices. They were practising a specific technique."
I don't think it's unreasonable to infer what the 'specific technique' was.
I was puzzled about your remarks about ejection seat tubes and hatches. Wouldn't the aftermath of a 'last minute' emergency ejection look exactly the same as the aftermath of a 'premeditated' ejection in these respects?