Radio 4 Today

[robin]

Did anyone hear the item on Radio 4 this morning on the scandal of PPLs being able to fly jets???

Seems there have been lots of crashes at displays so a new licence should be created so that unqualified pilots can's use hotships like Jet Provosts

They even got the guy who banged out of the Hunter recently (a pilot with 4000 miles experience!! they said) to say that civilian pilots shouldn't be able to fly jets without specific qualification.

So, all in all, a rounded accurate piece of journalism

[Timothy]

There are jets and jets. A JP or Citation 1 is no real problem, but a Hunter or Albatross is an altogether different matter.

[robin]

True - but do you know anyone with a Hunter that will allow you to solo it without a VERY good idea of your skill level?

[2Donkeys]

They even got the guy who banged out of the Hunter recently (a pilot with 4000 miles experience!! they said) to say that civilian pilots shouldn't be able to fly jets without specific qualification.

The debate is starting from a false premise, since flight in ex-mil jets is governed by CAP632, which lays down a strict process by which a civilian pilot gets to fly such aircraft solo or accompanied. The process is much tougher for those with 200 hours whose last mount was 172.

2D

[englishal]

Its unlikely that any group would let you solo a jet without at least 25hrs dual, plus other mimimums (like TT etc)....

Do you not need a letter of authorisation from the CAA anyway? In the USA to fly an "experimental" like an L39 you need a LOA, which is issued after you have done a conversion course.....

EA

[MichaelJP59]

You can hear this again on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

Scroll down to 0720

(RealPlayer required unfortunately)

- Michael

[Fly Stimulator]

Just listened to it. I noticed that the (British) journalist kept talking about 'airplanes' throughout. :*

What is the BBC coming to?

[RAC/OPS]

Don't think I'd let someone fly my Hunter with only 4000 miles experience - between 8 and 10 hours!!

[18greens]

Just heard the article and I wonder what point they are making. One minute its hey isn't it great then next minute it shouldn't be allowed.

In my opinion the vast majority of pilots are extremely careful and err on the side of caution electing to cancel more often than fly.

As 2donkeys says CAP632 and sensible synicate owners as well as cautious pilots make the whole thing as safe as C152 flying but inevitably there will be bad luck. If you have bad luck in a car it involves your no claims. In a plane it always involves journalism.

I know the Hunter pilot in the article had a bunch of experience but elected to take off with one generator non operational. Would an inexeprienced pilot have taken that risk. A mag drop at the hold sends most low hour pilots scurrying to engineering and in the absence of engineering then to scrub. Haven't most of the accidents with jets involved high hour highly experienced pilots. Additionally how many innocent civilians have been injured much less killed as a result of the crashes? (is it none?)

[Tarnished]

18 Greens,
As the pilot in question with the four and a half thousand "miles" of experience you make an extremely good point and one which the AAIB picked up on too. "this accident is a salient reminder of the perils of operating old aircraft with known snags" or words to that effect. It is a clear distinction that comes with experience - you have the ability to make a balanced decision and it also marks a clear distinction between civil (private) and military aviators - the military pilot is of a mind to get the job done (because Queen and country demand it) and the private pilot is of a mind to err on the side of caution - quite correctly. What happens however when the PPL gets too big for the pond?

You may have noticed that my supposed call for the CAA to regulate this matter was only a reported quote not taken from my actual interview. The whole point I made in the interview was that I stuck with my jet far longer than I would have done if I were flying one of the Queen's aircraft because I was acutely aware that if I banged out at 9000ft (as is standard for premeditated ejections) the jet could have ended up in someone's back yard (school, church, convent, hospital) and the headlines the following day would have put an end to all the fun for all the big boys no matter how much they had paid for their toys!!! My four and a half thousand "miles" of experience did that, nothing more nothing less.

Fact of the matter is that the only true way to ensure safe aviation is to put all the toys in the hangar and lock the door. I don't ever want life to be that safe, but that sometimes means that people get hurt. For me it means my days as the test pilot for the worlds leading fighter are over, not to mention the other physical disabilities I (and my family) am left with.

Fly safe and look out for each other.

[MichaelJP59]

Tarnished, thank you for posting - it is certainly interesting to hear from the man who was directly involved in the quoted incident.

One question slightly off topic - why did you suffer the spinal injuries on ejection? Was it down to the early bang seat technology or did something malfunction? Or have I got it wrong and it was the low ejection height?

Thanks,
- Michael

[Tarnished]

Michael,

The spinal injuries I encountered were most probably due to a combination of the technological limitations of the Mk 2 ejection seat, the fact that the cartridges had recently been changed (so were as powerful as they could be) and a spot of bad luck. The stroke of the seat is the fastest (therefore harshest) of any MB product at 90 ft/sec, pure bang, no rocket boost. As far as I am concerned I did everything right as far as preparation and posture for ejection. After all I had long enough to think about it, donk flamed out at 25k ft and I pulled the handle at 2,000ft. I used the seat pan handle (as that is all most current seats have) however the AAIB report suggested the face blind might have been better - I guess the gentler ride of later seats negated the need for the better posture but harder access of the face blind. My training (and previous ejection) had always been for the quicker exit using the seat pan handle.

Anyway, pull handle , HUGE bang, no really really HUGE bang, watch cockpit disappear from around me, legs feel like they have swollen fit to explode (like your arm feels when you wake up after sleeping on it). Float down pretty fast until I realised that I had not separated from the seat, drop that off at about 200 ft, hit estuary water only to discover the tide was going out and the water was only 8 inches deep .. ouch. Long wait for anyone to arrive on scene, much relief when RNLI and then 3 helicopters turn up. Can't say enough thanks for all the efforts of those involved.

An the rest is history as they say.

Must right a book one day

[MichaelJP59]

..ouch indeed. Thanks for the write-up.

I must admit I didn't realise that the early ejection seats are so violent in their action - actually glad I didn't find out before my trial flight in a Hunter a year or so ago:)

- Michael

[18greens]

Tarnished, Thanks for coming on this thread.

I must relisten to the broadcast in light of your comments.

Well done for sticking with it to avoid third party damage. You make a good comment about experience. I must admit as a low hour pilot I would perhaps have thought more about where I landed than where the jet lands.

I hope your injuries heal soon.