Alty,
Why pick on civvie fast jets? Ok, the instructor may not have been 100% current on type, but he had adequate FJ time that fulfilled the CAA requirements. Why say the CAA ought to restrict who flies/instructs on these aircraft? What criteria would they use? Tell me who is 'current' on an L39 these days in the UK, apart from some ex-Eastern Bloc asylum seekers called Boris! The CAA have very strict guidelines relating to who gets to fly a civvie FJ, and believe me, Johnny Rich Kid with 60hrs on a PA28 aint going to get his mits on something like a Hunter without LOTS of basic FJ training first (normally from ex-mil instructors)
There are 1000s of *uckwits out there flying private aircraft ranging from microlights to large Biz Jets, people who I wouldnt trust my son's Scalextrix set with, but do we call for these idiots to be restricted? No, of course not, because when they have 'accidents', the media doesnt pick up on it as much as the newsworthy 'Fast jet', or 'warbird'.
Getting a bit of a nanny state here......
Forgot to say, that as far as ejection systems go, the CAA insist they are optional on aircraft such as the Jet Provost, L29 etc, but mandatory on Hunter, Gnat, F86. Many Jet Provosts are currently operated quite legally without live ejection seats (To save money??) which is lunacy.
Succesful ejection relies on good training, an appreciation of the risks, and sound knowledge of the seat and its parameters. As was demonstrated in the L39 accident, pulling the handles below the minimum speed for the seat does not guarantee a succesful landing! One has to ask oneself why the 'experienced' ex-military back seater rode it out, yet the relatively inexperienced civvie P/UT perhaps saw the carriageway approaching, pulled the red handles and hoped for the best?
Last edited by Zlin526; 31st Jul 2003 at 03:23.