INCIDENT AT VALLEY

[KPax]

Local news reporting a possible ejection at Valley, hope all ok.

[Mil-26Man]

..hope all ok.

Clearly not if there's been an ejection.

[roving]

Confirmation of an incident here ...

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/raf-valley-anglesey-crash-plane-14435702

[NickB]

Thank God for Martin Baker... hat, coat...

Seriously though... fingers crossed for a happy outcome for all concerned.

[airpolice]

Could we maybe give the Kinforming process a chance before identifying people involved?

[cornish-stormrider]

Here's hoping that the injuries are not too serious and that MB has done it again.......

Agreed about the kinforming

[BruisedCrab]

Could we maybe give the Kinforming process a chance before identifying people involved?

Could we maybe not presume that people will identify those involved?

[VinRouge]

Could we maybe not presume that people will identify those involved?

They had done. The title was changed.

[cornish-stormrider]

Could we maybe not presume that people will identify those involved?
Sadly past history shows otherwise....... A mix of people needing to show they know more than others or well meaning but naive individuals have in the past posted up things they really shouldn't have

[Longtimer]

Hope the crew made it out.
Red Arrow aircraft crashes at RAF Valley on Anglesey



An aircraft used by the Red Arrows display team has crashed at RAF Valley on Anglesey.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed it was a Hawk aircraft and an emergency ambulance crew was sent to the scene at about 13:30 GMT on Tuesday.

It is understood two people were on board when the aircraft crashed.

RAF Valley is a base used to train UK fighter pilots and aircrew for mountain and maritime operations.

In total, about 1,500 service personnel, civil servants and contractors work at RAF Valley.

Red Arrow aircraft crashes at RAF Valley on Anglesey - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-43476222)


An RAF spokesman said: "We are aware of an incident today at RAF Valley involving a Hawk aircraft. We are investigating the incident and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."

[NutLoose]

I understand the need not to mention the one involved, but as it is splashed all over the news, perhaps one family being worried instead of nine families in some ways is a better thing in a strange sort of way, not that I condone that at all. There are a lot of sites stating which one they believe it was, I am not going to repeat that, because no matter what aircraft number, one can never be 100% sure who was in it and as said the families come first... some are saying two on board.

Red Arrow aircraft crashes at RAF Valley on Anglesey - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-43476222)

[glad rag]

Yes, we know, we know...

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/606787-incident-valley.html#post10090443

[KPax]

Wish I hadn't started the thread. When you read the various reports something doesn't add up.

[roving]

https://s9.postimg.org/xgmiit7lb/Screen_Shot_2018-03-20_at_17.14.04.png (https://postimages.org/)

[PEI_3721]

KPax, you have the power to delete the threat; then start again seeking accuracy and common sense.

[cornish-stormrider]

If it was an arrow them that's one of nine crew - well two in this case meaning that kinforming should be pretty straightforward. After their last two losses the RAFAT management should have decent protocols to follow and to get them done pdq.

News abhors a vacuum and journos will spin wild rumours into a story just to be first. You see it on a weekly basis.

The only way to play is to wait for the official words, yes by all means post that somethings happened but don't be the lead source. Same with the endless and unnecessary speculation as to the cause....

If the crew got out ok ( fingers crossed ) and no other fatal or serious injuries then let's take it as a win, retire to the bar and have a thankful drink. If the news is otherwise then we toast the fallen and support the families and friends.

Leave the rest for another day eh....?

[AndoniP]

The RAF feed up there is asking people to email a btconnect account?? :confused:

[mad_collie]

Post 15 - Royal Air Force request - has a date/time group of 20 Mar 2018, 8:03 am. Something appears wrong here as incident was at about 1330 today! Am I missing something?

That apart hope everyone is OK !!

Not sure where that image came from, but the same message is on the RAF website:

www.raf.mod.uk/news/incident-involving-raf-hawk-aircraft/

[Airbubba]

The tweet will be local time for the user who posted it. Was posted at 1503Z meaning the user is likely towards West cost USA

Actually, 11:03 AM is 1503Z on the East Coast of the U.S.

Those local time stamps are an eternal source of confusion in emails, media releases and tweets.

[roving]

If one actually visits the RAF twitter account, it will be found there. I found it there.

[foxmoth]

Not even confirmed it was one of the Reds, could be the press with their normal accuracy i.e. Hawk = Red Arrows

[Fareastdriver]

It's amazing how many people look at Military Aviation on pPRuNe when there is a prang.

1850 looking;: 360 members: 1490 guests.

[roving]

foxmoth, if you carefully read every word of this Guardian report you will find your confirmation.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/red-arrows-jet-crashes-raf-valley-airbase-north-wales

[roving]

If one visits the Red Arrows twitter account, "red arrows@rafredarrows" there is a post which includes the statement "We are investigating the incident".

[ORAC]

“Local aviation enthusiast Wyn Evans said the aircraft was seen to be taking off when something happened, and speculated it could either have been engine failure or a bird strike.

“It continued banking right towards the railway line and back again towards the airfield. It approached the runway and two were seen to eject and the Hawk crashed on the airfield”, he said.

[DaveReidUK]

Not even confirmed it was one of the Reds, could be the press with their normal accuracy i.e. Hawk = Red Arrows

Had reportedly just departed Valley for Scampton, with two on board, pretty high probability that it would have been a Red.

[wub]

Photos on the BBC website show red aircraft wreckage

[roving]

There is a large photo of it after it crashed in the Daily Mail.

Red Arrows jet has crashed after incident at RAF station in Wales | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5523137/Red-Arrows-jet-crashed-incident-RAF-station.html)

[NutLoose]

Do they still carry an Engineer in the back?

[hoss183]

I hope both are ok. Reports are of two on board and only 1 chute seen, i sincerely hope that's a witness error.

[NutLoose]

Saw one report seeing two chutes, I too hope they are good.

[XV490]

Do they still carry an Engineer in the back?

:D:D:D That's given the media vultures eyeing this thread another line of invasive enquiry...

[dead_pan]

Several hours since the incident and still no news. Not looking good. F*ck.

I see the Reds were scheduled to play BBMF is a charity footie match in Lincoln tonight.

[KPax]

My earlier comment about wishing I hadn't started the thread was based round the speed with which people reacted to a callsign and reports of a chute without waiting to see how many were on board the 2 seat aircraft. One comment regarding ' Martin Baker' in particular was unfortunate at the very least.

[Brian W May]

Christ Almighty, there's some really anal buggers on this site.

What part of Professional Pilots RUMOUR Network don't you like?

If you object to the posts, don't come here.

Just for the record, I'm an ex-SFSO, but I'm also here.

[H Peacock]

Tragically one confirmed fatality.

[CrabInCab]

Tragically one confirmed fatality.

Have you got a source for that H?

[Ashling]

The BBC have just reported that, tragically, an Engineer has been killed. The pilot is being treated in hospital.

My thoughts are with all concerned. RIP.

[Above The Clouds]

Tragically one confirmed fatality.

Sadly the engineer that was back seating.

[cargosales]

BBC News on R4 just now confirming an apparant RAF report that an engineer has sadly died.

RIP..

[H Peacock]

Valley Staish just been on the news. Pilot in hospital, engineer fatally injured.

[Airbubba]

Have you got a source for that H?

MOD has confirmed pilot survived, ground engineer did not according to news sources:


https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/976162912573280256

[cornish-stormrider]

Seen it reported by BBC Wales - not a happy day.

Per Ardua and RIP.
Someone open the ground crew bar and write a couple of barrels off in the best liney tradition

[NutLoose]

My sincere condolences go the family and friends of the poor guy who lost his life today in this tragic incident, my thoughts are also with the pilot and his family and i wish him a successful and rapid recovery.



..

[H Peacock]

I wonder if the observed 'loop' was a cct / PFL! The wreckage appears to have ended up close to the caravan/threshold.

[STENDEC North]

Wreckage shows front seat gun fired, rear did not.

[roving]

Tragic accident. RIP.

The C.O. of Valley appears in a video recording here reading a statement which includes a request by the family of the Engineer for a 24 hour news black-out.

Red Arrows engineer killed in RAF Valley jet crash - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-43476222)

[NutLoose]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1GBt91799SzZs7-4eVO8Y5tZqttFCZZT26dEtCotfhF-mvh31DA

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/20/red-arrow-jet-crashes-raf-valley/

[Distant Voice]

Wreckage shows front seat gun fired, rear did not.

No command ejection.

DV

[Pure Pursuit]

No command ejection.

DV

I assume you mean that command ejection wasn’t selected to ‘on’?

RIP, Per Ardua Ad Astra.

[andrewn]

I assume you mean that command ejection wasn’t selected to ‘on’?

RIP, Per Ardua Ad Astra.

Is Command Eject even an option for the front seater?

[cornish-stormrider]

It's a bit soon for pet theories and causes and what I think happened is...... Etc

How about we give the fallen a little respect - if you want to pontificate then PM each other, as the rest of us don't want to hear it right now

Let's look after family of the Fallen and help the pilot mend - spare a thought for him too eh.... He's lost his pax, and that is going to hurt a hell of a lot....

May the Liney Sunshine be thick and the beer cold, Godspeed

[STENDEC North]

No command ejection.

DV

Correct, I was implying that the rear seat wasn't fired.

[H Peacock]

Hawk command eject is either back-commands-front or off. The back seater always has to pull his handle.

I recall the TWU Hawk turnback accident many years ago where the CC held fully back could well have limited access to the non-handler's SPFH.

[cngaero]

Condolences to everyone involved with this Reds and the Blues and especially to the family of the Engineer who lost his life today.
RIP

[H Peacock]

Remember there are girls as well as boys in the Circus and amongst the Blues. The MOD have made no reference yet to specify 'him' or 'her'.

[Brian W May]

My sincere condolences go the family and friends of the poor guy who lost his life today in this tragic incident, my thoughts are also with the pilot and his family and i wish him a successful and rapid recovery.



..

Absolutely. That's the important bit.

[Alber Ratman]

Awful news, especially as it being one of the circus, one of my kind. Ad Astra friend. The hardship is for us left behind.

[spannermonkey]

I appreciate its all very interesting for those of you who want to discuss the details of this incident, but like every other incident that quickly finds its way onto these pages - a little respect for the chap who lost his life today. Put yourself in the shoes of his wife, girlfriend or even his kids if he has any or whatever his personal situation was, not to mention those who knew him and worked with him, they have also lost loved one a and dad, a friend and college.

As someone else has pointed out the pilot is the one who got out, but lost his passenger, so I'm pretty sure he's not feeling too great either, so accord him the same respect.

Like many units the Red's are a close knit team and have suffered some tragic losses recently, this unfortunately adds to that, so allow them as a team time to grieve as well.

Bottom line - the family have asked for 24 hours to themselves before any notification is provided of names - so respect that and stop posting you opinions or suppositions about what may or may not have happened. If however, you cannot contain your inconsiderate desire to pontificate - do so via PMs and I'm sure those of us who have or are serving, especially anyone who served with either involved will tell you to politely 'go away'.

Per Ardua fella.

Nuff said!!!!

[stingrayau]

Do they still carry an Engineer in the back?
Yes they do when away from Scampton for any amount of time. The pilot was at Valley for simulator training.

[Jayand]

Irrespective of the cause of this tragic loss this will inevitably lead to searching questions about the carriage of non aircrew in the back of fast jets. There are good reasons why aircrew selection and in particular FJ training is so stringent and difficult. Having limited trained, non aircrew personnel in the back of a single engined FJ with as I understand it no command ejection is asking for trouble. Sadly nothing will bring back this man or lessen the pain for his family but undoubtedly this practice will be reviewed.

[Bergerie1]

Very well said spannermonkey.

I was only a civil pilot, no military experience at all, but I don't think many outside the aviation community fully realise the distress and heartsearching that goes on in the aftermath of an accident - especially within such a close group as the Arrows.

My sincere sympathy to all the family, friends and colleagues of those affected by that crash.

[Brian W May]

Irrespective of the cause of this tragic loss this will inevitably lead to searching questions about the carriage of non aircrew in the back of fast jets. There are good reasons why aircrew selection and in particular FJ training is so stringent and difficult. Having limited trained, non aircrew personnel in the back of a single engined FJ with as I understand it no command ejection is asking for trouble. Sadly nothing will bring back this man or lessen the pain for his family but undoubtedly this practice will be reviewed.

Sadly inevitable and probably will call into question the SOP practised by RAFAT - or even its existence beyond 100 year season.

[dragartist]

Who was the guy on the BBC just now in the RAeS tie, suggesting you could eat your lunch of the Inside of the Jet pipe and describing a “Martin Baker letdown” could do without this at a time like this. He was almost rejoicing.

[BARKINGMAD]

I trust all the seats were checked after the last MB attributed mishap?

[daylyt]

Who was the guy on the BBC just now in the RAeS tie, suggesting you could eat your lunch of the Inside of the Jet pipe and describing a “Martin Baker letdown” could do without this at a time like this. He was almost rejoicing.

Sadly, another 'expert' who has been tapped-up to pronounce on something way beyond his level of knowledge or it seemed understanding.

[anchorhold]

What is the logic in the T1 for command eject for the front seat only from the back. I can see this might be useful in the case of a training flight where PUT sits in the front and P1 is in the back for example if there is a bad bird strike. But in the case of P1 in the front and an engineer or civilian in the back, why not have command over the rear seat.

In other words P! always has command of the other seat seems more logical.

daylyt... I rather agree with you, and I think the guy in the RAes tie, an 'ex-RAF pilot' thought he was being rather funny by using the term 'Martin Barker letdown, he cleary did not gauge the BBC audience would not understand him. But I think we all know the media always find these so called 'experts' who will speculate at the first opportunity, I think they like the thought of being on television.

[glad rag]

I had an associate, good oppo and fellow SNCO flung out the back of an F3 into the north sea (whilst on a "transit" flight to assist with the recovery aspects of another deployed F3) so "risk" is always there.

Sincerest condolences to all affected by this tragedy.










O/T F3 report.
Worth a read on how fragile the system is and how easily it falls apart.Mods feel free to bin as reqd.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/656903/2017-09430.pdf

[H Peacock]

The command system was designed only for back-to-front since there would be such a small percentage of trips where you may want anything else. (Invariably flown with QFI in the rear or flown solo) Quite a bit more pipework and valves if you want every combination. That said, I believe the T10 had a selector in the rear that gave you all of the options.

[spannermonkey]

Irrespective of the cause of this tragic loss this will inevitably lead to searching questions about the carriage of non aircrew in the back of fast jets. There are good reasons why aircrew selection and in particular FJ training is so stringent and difficult. Having limited trained, non aircrew personnel in the back of a single engined FJ with as I understand it no command ejection is asking for trouble. Sadly nothing will bring back this man or lessen the pain for his family but undoubtedly this practice will be reviewed.


This is exactly the sort of insensitive opinionated tosh I refer to. You have no idea what caused the incident, yet in your self appointed authority you now believe the RAF will/should now review the carriage of Pax in the back seat of any FJ. Your post can very easily be read as the guy who lost his life has no place to be in the aircraft in the first place as only aircrew have the capacity to appreciate the demands and risk of fast jet flying. Have you been through the selection process and do you speak form a position of authority? Have you even been through the pre-flight briefing that pax go though? Are you GC and are you versed in the operation and maintenance of an ejection seat as all GC are? I could go on. The guy in the back was not an idiot or some clueless buffoon, he was trained and possibly has flow in the back on more than one occasion. There is no released cause as yet and the family and friends are still getting to grips with this loss.

I suggest you and other who continue to post about what happened or why think about how utterly insensitive you really are. If you don't understand what I mean by that, by default that means you then have no idea about how insensitive such opinions really are.

Yes I know this is a public forum, but for goodness sake think before you post. While you may try to justify your opinions of how the press roll out some 'expert' to provide comment or opinion, you are doing exactly the same, only you feel justified as you are not doing so in front of a TV camera.

[Jayand]

Aside from the physical act of pulling the handle and all the decisions and timing that go with that what about the lack of Survival training non aircrew have for these backseat flights? What if an ejection occured over the sea, are they familiar/well practiced in the skills of sea survival? Annual pool drills? Liferafts, PSP's etc? The enquiry into this I suspect will be messy.

[Jayand]

This is exactly the sort of insensitive opinionated tosh I refer to. You have no idea what caused the incident, yet in your self appointed authority you now believe the RAF will/should now review the carriage of Pax in the back seat of any FJ. Your post can very easily be read as the guy who lost his life has no place to be in the aircraft in the first place as only aircrew have the capacity to appreciate the demands and risk of fast jet flying. Have you been through the selection process and do you speak form a position of authority? Have you even been through the pre-flight briefing that pax go though? Are you GC and are you versed in the operation and maintenance of an ejection seat as all GC are? I could go on. The guy in the back was not an idiot or some clueless buffoon, he was trained and possibly has flow in the back on more than one occasion. There is no released cause as yet and the family and friends are still getting to grips with this loss.

I suggest you and other who continue to post about what happened or why think about how utterly insensitive you really are. If you don't understand what I mean by that, by default that means you then have no idea about how insensitive such opinions really are.

Yes I know this is a public forum, but for goodness sake think before you post. While you may try to justify your opinions of how the press roll out some 'expert' to provide comment or opinion, you are doing exactly the same, only you feel justified as you are not doing so in front of a TV camera.

Show me exactly where I speculated about the cause? In fact I purposely avoided that exact point!
In answer to your questions yes I have been through the process of a backseat briefing on a fastjet and if you think that is sufficient to cover all scenarios for even an experienced back seat flyer then I believe you are sadly mistaken and
yes I am well versed in the maintenance and operation of Ejection seats in FJ's.
Nobody suggested that the guy was a "Clueless idiot" far, far from it.
But if you think the enquiry after determining the cause of the crash won't look at the issue on non aircrew sitting in FJ seats then you are very, very naive!

[anchorhold]

spannermonkey I completely agree, there really is no problem on the whole with RAF engineers or civilians as PAX in the Hawk particularly in transit.

i say that having been lucky enough as a civilian and ATPL to fly on a low level sortie through the Welsh mountains in a Hawk. The preparation for that included a RAF medical for the day, included measuring my limbs, height and weight. Likewise the briefing on the ejection seat and survival was thorough, although I do not recall being briefed on the command of the front seat from the back, perhaps intentional from the RAFs perspective.

I see no problem with engineers as PAX on transit flights, it is just practical. Likewise in respect of civilian PAX with the Red Arrows, I see no problem as the Red Arrows are there to seek publicity.

Some memorable moments for the Red Arrows in recent years was seeing Brian May of Queen fame strapping into a Red Arrows Hawk, likewise the RAF had a competition to allow nine air cadets to fly as PAX on a transit flight.

[wiggy]

Aside from the physical act of pulling the handle and all the decisions and timing that go with that what about the lack of Survival training non aircrew have for these backseat flights? What if an ejection occured over the sea, are they familiar/well practiced in the skills of sea survival? Annual pool drills? Liferafts, PSP's etc? The enquiry into this I suspect will be messy.

I suspect due to previous ejections involving non aircrew going into the water that is a road already travelled by previous BoI’s.

This also isn’t the first multiple ejection where one crewmember has been survived but another hasn’t, so I’m also not sure at this stage that we can draw any conclusions about survival simply because one of those involved wasn’t a Fast Jet Pilot/navigator etc....

[anchorhold]

Jayand, I can confirm that before flying in a Hawk, I was well briefed on ejection over sea, the only difference was that unlike RAF pilots I did not actually do the 'wet drills' but was fairly confident of the drills. To add I was also bried in vacating the aircraft in the event of the ejection seat failing, clearly you need height for that.

[eal401]

Yes I know this is a public forum

I suggest you remove yourself from it then, if YOU don't want it used as such.

Unless you are a moderator, it is not for you to dictate what people can or cannot post.

[Danny42C]

dragartist (#66),

In the mid-'50s, it was common for the "erks" to keep their NAAFI meat pies and Cornish pasties warm in a recently landed Vampire tailpipe. As the pipe is very hot just after shut down, any remaining traces of avtur are quickly burned off: the pipe is not at all smelly.

It was an (unofficial!) item on the next man's walk-around.

[The Oberon]

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me could explain why the engineer was there in the first place, surely there is enough expertise at Valley to carry out an AF/BF or turnround on a visiting Hawk. Are there great differences between a RAFAT T1 and the Valley types?

[Jayand]

spannermonkey I completely agree, there really is no problem on the whole with RAF engineers or civilians as PAX in the Hawk particularly in transit.

i say that having been lucky enough as a civilian and ATPL to fly on a low level sortie through the Welsh mountains in a Hawk. The preparation for that included a RAF medical for the day, included measuring my limbs, height and weight. Likewise the briefing on the ejection seat and survival was thorough, although I do not recall being briefed on the command of the front seat from the back, perhaps intentional from the RAFs perspective.

I see no problem with engineers as PAX on transit flights, it is just practical. Likewise in respect of civilian PAX with the Red Arrows, I see no problem as the Red Arrows are there to seek publicity.

Some memorable moments for the Red Arrows in recent years was seeing Brian May of Queen fame strapping into a Red Arrows Hawk, likewise the RAF had a competition to allow nine air cadets to fly as PAX on a transit flight.


There is a WORLD of difference between receiving a thorough briefing and actually being well practiced and confident in the drills and skills needed to exit and survive an aircraft crashing or ditching! especially given that the moment you are going to need those skills and recall the details of the "Thorough briefing" is likely to be highly stressful, split second and life threatening!

[Pontius Navigator]

Jayland does have a point about post-egress survival. In several aircraft types we briefed the pax ' in the unlikely event ' and ensured they were properly dressed. AFAIK none were trained in pressure breathing or dinghy drills, and few underwent abandonment practise.

[Davef68]

Very sad. My thoughts are with those involved.

I note one of the rags has named the pilot involved, not sure if this has come from an official source, an OfTR briefing or just informed speculation.

Perhaps the rarity of fast jet accidents these days causes the inevitable rush to be 'first' with the news.

[clareprop]

spannermonkey -
Unfortunately for your sentiments, this is a public forum and people on it will speculate and make wild guesses just like they can on other forums or in comment sections in the media. Should they have the time, they have a plethora of platforms on which to comment about this tragedy or indeed, any number of other tragedies that befall people every day.
The only consolation that can be offered is that relatives and friends affected directly by such incidents rarely go to such forums or comment sections of the press media. By far worse are the TV stations who, I believe, do cause considerable upset to those affected as they scavenge for their 'story'.

[PICKS135]

Aside from the physical act of pulling the handle and all the decisions and timing that go with that what about the lack of Survival training non aircrew have for these backseat flights? What if an ejection occured over the sea, are they familiar/well practiced in the skills of sea survival? Annual pool drills? Liferafts, PSP's etc? The enquiry into this I suspect will be messy.

According to a posting [14th Feb 2018] on the Reds facebook page
This week the 2018 Red Arrows Circus engineers carried out their Aircrew Maritime Survival training with expert tuition from personnel at the Defence Survival Training Organisation at RAF St Mawgan. The drills involved practicing in the pool prior to carrying out the final assessment in the very cold, rough sea off Plymouth Harbour.

[207592]

The Red Arrows are thought routinely to take ground crew in rear seats to airshows when they plan to be based away from Scampton. Back seat rides are also a much sought after perk.

It is distressing that life was lost in this accident, but that should not stop the practice. When the facts emerge, they may well reveal that the irretrievable emergency occurred when the aircraft was very near the ground. Certainly the passenger would have been fully briefed.

[roving]

The young journalist in this report, flew very recently with the Red Arrows. He describes in detail, with filming, the training he received on the ejector seat before the flight. See from 9 minutes in. He makes clear that he was instructed that there was no command ejection and what he was instructed to do if there was a bird strike or other issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ZjFZe_jCKkQ

[Brian W May]

I suggest you remove yourself from it then, if YOU don't want it used as such.

Unless you are a moderator, it is not for you to dictate what people can or cannot post.

Good point, I've had a couple of posts removed as I was a little less subtle than you when I said much the same thing.

PS I'm an ex-Flight Safety Officer (RAF) and flown many times on bang seats - albeit different aircraft. Also was the Aircrew Specialist working with BAE Systems on the Hawk T2 (and others) Aircrew technical documentation for over 3 years. What would I know?

[Mike Flynn]

Jayand, I can confirm that before flying in a Hawk, I was well briefed on ejection over sea, the only difference was that unlike RAF pilots I did not actually do the 'wet drills' but was fairly confident of the drills. To add I was also bried in vacating the aircraft in the event of the ejection seat failing, clearly you need height for that.

Agree with you 100% anchorhold. Having also flown the Hawk from Valley as a civvy P2 the pre flight drills and medical are exemplary .

To answer Mainjafad I cannot speak for todays regs but in the past quite a few civvy pilots with media connections and RAF groundstaff got to fly in the Hawk.

[airsound]

Prime Minister expressing condolences to "the family and friends of the Red Arrows engineer..." at Prime Minister's Questions.

Leader of the Opposition also wishing the pilot well in his recovery.

airsound

[Treble one]

Surprised to see a back seat PAX wearing a G suit with the Reds. Always thought they were prohibited as they can affect the controls when inflated.


Pretty sure Lewis Hamilton didn't wear them. I do stand to be corrected however.

[anchorhold]

I understand each Red Arrow has its own dedicated engineer who transits to displays as PAX with the crew. As for why the pilots were at Valley, it is reported is was for monthly simulator training. Perhaps the Red Arrows only use their own engineers for land aways. Also maybe the Red Arrows engineers do recurrent training at the same time, as Valley must be the major Hawk maintenance unit.

[anchorhold]

Treble One..... G suits do not significantly 'inflate' during high G, to the extentent that they would affect the controls, and you could not really fly in the rear seat without them.

[Ken Scott]

I did a back seat ride with the Reds many years ago & did indeed not get a g-suit in case of control restrictions- it was quite hard work, especially the rolling display, as we were pulling in excess of 7G as I recall. Tolerable as a pax, with only the G-straining manoeuvre to perform.

[MAINJAFAD]

Agree with you 100% anchorhold. Having also flown the Hawk from Valley as a civvy P2 the pre flight drills and medical are exemplary .

To answer Mainjafad I cannot speak for todays regs but in the past quite a few civvy pilots with media connections and RAF groundstaff got to fly in the Hawk.

Removed my last post but 25 years ago I did fly on a weather sortie in a Hawk myself. Got the flight at very short notice, had to starve myself for three days to make the weight limit for the medical and scraped in on the leg measurements by a millimeter!!! Brief was exemplary and included the switch locations that you could accidentally knock with your legs (Anti Skid being the one in particular). Best 30 minutes of a four year tour on Anglesey.

[H Peacock]

Pretty sure rear seat pax don't wear a g-suit when the Reds display due to possible snagging of the CC when full aileron deflection is used. Perhaps not the same during a transit or SCT.

[jindabyne]

spannermonkey

I side with your comments. Aside from a few posts, what a rotten thread. Sad reflection of the time.

[skua]

Well for a start Oberon, the Valley Hawks are all T2s with the Reds being possibly the last unit to operate the T1. Big difference in cockpit/avionics, for a start.........

[Treble one]

Treble One..... G suits do not significantly 'inflate' during high G, to the extentent that they would affect the controls, and you could not really fly in the rear seat without them.


Thanks anchorhold for the clarification. Maybe I was getting mixed up with The Blue Angels who don't wear them for that reason.

[oldmansquipper]

Skua: A different ejection seat too.....before the 'vultures' start down that route!

My thoughts and prayers go out to the pilot and all the families of those affected.

A sad day indeed.

RIP Engineer. ......Ad Astra.

[Bob Viking]

I am deliberately staying out of the wider conversation but I just wish to clear up a couple of things.

Until several years ago pax in the Reds did not wear G trousers. That changed and now pax do wear them.

Command ejection only works from back to front and not vice versa.

Several other units still operate Hawk T1s (836 NAS, 100 Sqn, RAFCAM).

I know plenty about how the Reds operate but I do not know enough to say any more than what I have said above.

I wasn’t there yesterday so I cannot add anything useful.

A very sad day And my sincerest condolences to all affected.

BV

Edited because someone pointed out my stupid error!

[H Peacock]

Command ejection only works from front to back and not vice versa.

Back to front surely BV. Ie back seater can command the front if it's selected up and on! The front seat cannot command the back seat!

[NutLoose]

spannermonkey

I side with your comments. Aside from a few posts, what a rotten thread. Sad reflection of the time.

I concur, the worst moments in life appear to bring out the worst in some of those remaining...
Such a sad state of affairs to see people who should know better picking over the death of someone without any regard to who may be reading it..
Have some respect guys.

[Mike Flynn]

I am deliberately staying out of the wider conversation but I just wish to clear up a couple of things.

Until several years ago pax in the Reds did not wear G trousers. That changed and now pax do wear them.
!

I flew P2 as a civvy with Ray Thilthorpe from the fast jet school back in the 1980's and went through an excellent briefing and medical. The G suit certainly did work. The eject routine was part of the briefing.
https://image.ibb.co/eF5zVH/IMG_2885.jpg

[SFCC]

But that's not with the Reds though, is it?

[jayteeto]

Around 2002 I did 3 display back seats all non gpants
First 2 were no problem but synchro pair was hard work g-wise. Glad to see them used now.
The press read these pages and quote them as fact, we have a duty to be responsible in posting. THINK before pressing send. If something if fact, great, if something is rumour? Great! But he careful of making speculation sound like fact

[RAFAT]

Irrespective of the cause of this tragic loss this will inevitably lead to searching questions about the carriage of non aircrew in the back of fast jets. There are good reasons why aircrew selection and in particular FJ training is so stringent and difficult. Having limited trained, non aircrew personnel in the back of a single engined FJ with as I understand it no command ejection is asking for trouble. Sadly nothing will bring back this man or lessen the pain for his family but undoubtedly this practice will be reviewed.

I couldn't disagree more with your opinion Jayand. As has been pointed out a number of posts ago, the unique nature of the RAFAT operation and the support structure means that those selected to be part of the backseat team are given appropriate extensive training (and medical testing) in order for them to fulfill their role.

So please let us not question the validity of the Team's operational policy in regard to this.

[BEagle]

When I was a cadet, I was lucky enough to be given a seat in a fast jet formation event.

A whole morning of medical, AEA brief, bang seat brief, dinghy brief before lunch and out to the jet having changed into flying kit. No turning trousers though.

That was over 50 years ago and the jet was a Sea Vixen; the event was Farnborough 1966. I greyed out a bit during the simulated rocket attack, but that was all - apart from using the honk bag after bouncing around at low level with only a tiny window for the coal hole.

My point being that pax trips in fast jets included thorough briefs even then and there's no doubt that they still do. RAFAT policy for back seat rides for non-aircrew will undoubtedly be of a very high quality indeed.

RIP to the back seater - a sad day indeed for the Team both red and blue as well, of course, for the friends and family of the deceased engineer.

[Sky Sports]

Expert!



Quote:


Originally Posted by dragartist View Post

Who was the guy on the BBC just now in the RAeS tie, suggesting you could eat your lunch of the Inside of the Jet pipe and describing a “Martin Baker letdown” could do without this at a time like this. He was almost rejoicing.

Sadly, another 'expert' who has been tapped-up to pronounce on something way beyond his level of knowledge or it seemed understanding.

He was an ex-Red. Don't know how much more knowledgeable/qualified you want your 'experts' to be?

[Mil-26Man]

He was an ex-Red. Don't know how much more knowledgeable/qualified you want your 'experts' to be?

Not PPRuNe-accredited though, is he.

[sitigeltfel]

Cpl Jonathan Bayliss named as victim of the accident.

http://https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-confirms-the-death-of-corporal-jonathan-bayliss-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows

[Jayand]

I couldn't disagree more with your opinion Jayand. As has been pointed out a number of posts ago, the unique nature of the RAFAT operation and the support structure means that those selected to be part of the backseat team are given appropriate extensive training (and medical testing) in order for them to fulfill their role.

So please let us not question the validity of the Team's operational policy in regard to this.

It is very reassuring and not surprising to read that the guys and girls on the circus do have a robust training programme for their back seat obligations. I wasn't aware of this and was merely making a point that this will undoubtedly be a point of particular scrutiny in the following weeks and months. At no point did I suggest that this was a cause or reason for what has sadly happened. With the knowledge of their training now known I still have and think the FJ community should have serious questions about pax and their very limited training/knowledge.

[roving]

The link above regarding the Royal Air Force Engineer did not work for me, but this one did.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-confirms-the-death-of-corporal-jonathan-bayliss-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows

[cyclic35]

The link above regarding the Royal Air Force Engineer did not work for me, but this one did.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-confirms-the-death-of-corporal-jonathan-bayliss-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows

The link describes a motivated, skilled, inspirational and well liked man.
It is an understatement to say he will be missed by his colleagues.
My sincere condolences are offered to all who knew him.

[NutLoose]

I notice they have removed all the individual photos of the circus from the website, it makes sense until things calm down.

[Zoom]

He was an ex-Red. Don't know how much more knowledgeable/qualified you want your 'experts' to be?

Although he was an RAF pilot he did not fly FJs and was not a Red. But he is a decent bloke who just chose his words badly this morning.

[Bravo Alpha One]

This is desparately sad for all involved. I wouldn't dream of speculating on such a tragic incident. I am content to wait for due process.

However, one thing puzzles me and as I have often been told that there is no such thing as a stupid question, here goes:

The guys on here in the know have confirmed that on the Hawk, command ejection is rear seat commands front, or front only and rear only so presumably the brief from the front is "If I go you go immediately"?

I can see the logic of techs going on fly aways, but what puzzles me is why the pilot doesn't fly from the rear seat [as the QFI would with a stude] on these occasions, so he/she can eject the front seat if need be?

[And I do know ejection seats cannot solve all problems].

[Evanelpus]

The link describes a motivated, skilled, inspirational and well liked man.
It is an understatement to say he will be missed by his colleagues.
My sincere condolences are offered to all who knew him.

Hear hear.

[Gericault]

I was lucky enough to have this outstanding engineer work for me back in Coltishall days. A lovely bloke, great company, professional and no doubt a dreadful loss to his current unit. Per Ardua Jon.

[oldmansquipper]

This is desparately sad for all involved. I wouldn't dream of speculating on such a tragic incident. I am content to wait for due process.

However, one thing puzzles me and as I have often been told that there is no such thing as a stupid question, here goes:

The guys on here in the know have confirmed that on the Hawk, command ejection is rear seat commands front, or front only and rear only so presumably the brief from the front is "If I go you go immediately"?

I can see the logic of techs going on fly aways, but what puzzles me is why the pilot doesn't fly from the rear seat [as the QFI would with a stude] on these occasions, so he/she can eject the front seat if need be?

[And I do know ejection seats cannot solve all problems].

All DISPLAYS are flown from the front seat, IIRC.

[Simplythebeast]

Irrespective of the cause of this tragic loss this will inevitably lead to searching questions about the carriage of non aircrew in the back of fast jets. There are good reasons why aircrew selection and in particular FJ training is so stringent and difficult. Having limited trained, non aircrew personnel in the back of a single engined FJ with as I understand it no command ejection is asking for trouble. Sadly nothing will bring back this man or lessen the pain for his family but undoubtedly this practice will be reviewed.

Sad to read this rubbish.

[Trim Stab]

I'm feeling very sad for the young engineer's family, and also for the pilot whose injuries are unknown but possibly severe given the lack of news.

But I have a simple question. Why don't all Hawks have an inbuilt selector switch for command ejection - front/rear/both? This is simple binary logic, costing peanuts. Even before the Hawk was conceived, it must have been pencilled in as a Red Arrows aircraft so could potentially have had rear-seat passengers. It has been through multiple refits since birth. So how has this been overlooked?

[airpolice]

I'm feeling very sad for the young engineer's family, and also for the pilot whose injuries are unknown but possibly severe given the lack of news.

But I have a simple question. Why don't all Hawks have an inbuilt selector switch for command ejection - front/rear/both? This is simple binary logic, costing peanuts. Even before the Hawk was conceived, it must have been pencilled in as a Red Arrows aircraft so could potentially have had rear-seat passengers. It has been through multiple refits since birth. So how has this been overlooked?

You seem confident that it has been overlooked. What's that based on? You think it should be so, but isn't, so everyone else must be wrong?

Perhaps, just perhaps, after all the years of experience in the team, they decided that experienced people could be in charge of their own destiny?

Let's wait for the SI to tell us whether or not the sink rate was outside the seat limits anyway.

As for "costing peanuts", aye right.

[langleybaston]

Why don't all Hawks have an inbuilt selector switch for command ejection - front/rear/both? This is simple binary logic,

This is binary? Definition must have changed!

[srobarts]

I notice they have removed all the individual photos of the circus from the website, it makes sense until things calm down.
Possibly because that part of the site was still displaying last years circus?

[Alber Ratman]

I never knew Jon Bayliss personally, but a lot of my friends from my Colt days did as he started his career on 16(R). Seeing their tributes on social media is very humbling indeed, especially D-Reg's. :(

[Jayand]

Sad to read this rubbish.

Are you doubting that this won't be reviewed?


The experience, training and requirement of any non specialist FJ pax WILL undoubtedly be closely looked at after this, irrespective of whether it was a factor in the outcome.

[Easy Street]

Answers to some earlier questions:

Q. Why isn’t the pilot in the back seat for passenger trips?
A. The front seat occupant needs to be competent at carrying out emergency drills because not all of the switches are duplicated in the back (the front seat has everything as the aircraft needs to be flyable solo). Students prove this in a lengthy sim package before being allowed to sit in the front.

Q. Do Reds passengers wear g-pants?
A. They didn’t use to, but they do now. They’re the internal ones that used to be worn underneath an immersion suit, so not very bulky at all and worn under the flying coverall to remove any risk of snagging. Changed sometime after the 2011 accidents during the first-principles review of all RAFAT activity.

[4mastacker]

Some of you may recall the incident when one of the Blues ejected from a Red Arrows Hawk after a wire strike whilst flying over the Scottish Highlands. The pilot remained with the aircraft which landed safely at Inverness. According the the guy, he didn't wait for the pilot's call.

[rolling20]

Some of you may remember the PFL Hawk crash at Chivenor in 92, in which a friend of mine from UAS days subsequently lost his life. He was in the back seat ,but was a fully qualified FJ pilot undergoing a TWI course I believe. The front seater went out but he didn't. The subsequent enquiry could not establish the reason why he did not eject, other than the possibilty he may not have realised until it was too late that the PFL had gone wrong and that after impact, he would probably have been unconscious. I am sure Corporal Bayliss would have been given a thorough briefing. The possibility that he was unaware until it was too late cannot be discounted. RIP.

[Alber Ratman]

The possibility that he was unaware until it was too late cannot be discounted. RIP.

Most of us technicians that have flown in FJs would have waited for the captains instructions of "Eject" before doing so. The circus guys are not low category one flight passengers, they will do all the training to fly on a daily basis without having to go through the requirements of a Cat B. I am sure most remember the Harrier T4 accident (in 1991?) where the cadet officer in the back only warning it was time to leave the aircraft was the captain "pulling the yellow and black" as the bird he had taken in the face had left him without comms or vision and he knew they were in deep poo at the height they were at. (this accident tightened up the restrictions on what Cat B FJ pasengers could do, the days of air test backseat for guys in the hangar being one restriction, I am sure came of that day). The investigation report will say the reason for what happened and the timings of events. :(

I did fly in a Tucano in the front seat. However as it was a basic trainer, all major controls were duplicated (with good reason). The only control I had to switch on was the anti col lights if memory serves, maybe the battery as well.

[F-16GUY]

Have wondered about the logic behind the Command Eject System in the Hawk T1.

I did my initial fast jet training on the Hawk Mk. 115 more then 15 years ago so I can't recall if its Command Eject System was rigged the same way as in the T1, but what is the logic behind the fact that the back-seat can command the front-seat but the front-seat can not command the back-seat?

In the F-16 our procedure is to have the system in AFT mode when both cockpits are occupied. When the Command Eject system is set to AFT, both the front and back-seat will command the other seat to go as well, in a sequence where the back-seat goes first (offset slightly to one side) and the front seat goes shortly after (offset slightly to the other side). This sequence will happen regardless of who pulls the handle and the seat that did not initiate the sequence will go even though it is not armed.

When we fly with both cockpits occupied, the system will be set to AFT but non-pilot pax will be instructed to keep their seat de-armed unless they can se the pilot is incapacitated. In that case they are instructed to arm the seat, fly the jet out over water (if able), slow down (if able) and initiate ejection. All this is briefed and trained in the sim before their ride and the pilot will also do a seat check/recap before the flight just to be sure that they know the procedure.

I have pasted in the 3 modes from the F-16 manual below:

• NORM -Activation of ejection system from rear cockpit results
in canopy jettison, then a .33-second delay
followed by only rear seat being ejected. Activation
of ejection system from forward cockpit following
rear seat ejection results in forward seat ejection.
-Activation of ejection system from forward cockpit
results in canopy jettison, a .33-second delay, aft
seat ejection, and a .4-second delay followed by
forward seat ejection.

• AFT -Activation of ejection system from either cockpit
results in canopy jettison, a .33-second delay, aft seat
ejection, and a .4-second delay followed by forward seat
ejection.

• SOLO - Activation of ejection system from forward
cockpit results in canopy jettison, then a .33-second delay
followed by only forward seat being ejected. Activation
of ejection system from aft cockpit results in
canopy jettison, then a .33-second delay followed by
only aft seat being ejected. Simultaneous activation from
forward and aft cockpits results in unsequenced ejections

In all modes except SOLO, which we use when only the front cockpit is occupied, front seat will always command back-seat to go first. Thats why I wonder why the Hawk T1 does not have that IMHO logical feature.

Sincerest condolences to all affected by this tragedy.

[unmanned_droid]

The reasoning given above is:

because the front seat is mostly occupied by a student under instruction in the Hawk.

The student in the hawk will not be as advanced as in a two seat viper.

[F-16GUY]

The reasoning given above is:

because the front seat is mostly occupied by a student under instruction in the Hawk.

The student in the hawk will not be as advanced as in a two seat viper.

Still does not make sense IMHO. How will the system in the Hawk work in a situation where the front seat student pulls the handle a split second before the instructor pulls his in the back? Will they have sequencing or do they risk post ejection collision and burns to the back-seater?

[son of brommers]

Not much winds me up but the Daily Fail have, in my mind, well and truly crossed the line with their publication today photos by an amateur photographer showing the crash unfolding. Not sure if other rags have published the same, very poor taste on both parts, not surprising for the Fail though.

[sitigeltfel]

One of the amateur photos purports to show the crash aircraft returning after take off and while the main wheels appear to be down the nose wheel does not. Or is that the nose wheel and the Port main wheel is masked?
Was the shot taken at a particular point while the gear was being cycled? Maybe Hawk drivers could comment.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/22/07/4A6D8E6500000578-5529365-image-a-9_1521704409906.jpg

[XV490]

https://s9.postimg.org/xgmiit7lb/Screen_Shot_2018-03-20_at_17.14.04.png (https://postimages.org/)

Did the Daily Mail's photo source not see the above? And how much, I wonder, did the paper pay for them?

[treadigraph]

I think the nosewheel is down siti, it's just in line with the left main leg. Look at the left main wheel, it's an odd shape.

[Photoplanet]

Some of you may recall the incident when one of the Blues ejected from a Red Arrows Hawk after a wire strike whilst flying over the Scottish Highlands. The pilot remained with the aircraft which landed safely at Inverness. According the the guy, he didn't wait for the pilot's call.

Does anyone have details for this one...? Would there have been a Service Inquiry for this, considering that the aircraft landed safely?

[t7a]

He was an ex-Red. Don't know how much more knowledgeable/qualified you want your 'experts' to be?


I think you have the wrong guy. The Andrew Brookes on the BBC is an ex V Bomber and Canberra pilot who has written many aviation related books.

[The Old Fat One]

Most aircrew I've met in my life are pragmatists schooled in the University of Hard Knocks.

So let's live in the real world people shall we?

By way of example, one of the off-duty Nimrod crewmates in Toronto was introduced to the unfolding events on a TV screen on his way to take The Telephone Call. That's how it happens these days.

Getting bent out of shape because photographs appear in the media pretty promptly is basically a denial of the world we live in...whether we like it or not.

[GrumpyGramps]

Does anyone have details for this one...? Would there have been a Service Inquiry for this, considering that the aircraft landed safely?
21 April 1983 I was a member of the RAF SAR Sea King crew that picked up the injured engineer after he ejected near Fort Augustus. I believe the team were on a low level transit and this aircraft managed to hit wires about 40 feet agl (measured later by Sea King Rad Alt!). At that height I think the passenger was prudent to self eject rather than wait to hear if the pilot decided they should leave. Unfortunately he sustained fractures/dislocations to both knees and elbows, if my memory serves me correctly after 35 years. After dropping the injured crewman at Inverness hospital we flew back via Inverness airfield and I took a photo of the Hawk, looking rather strange with the post sticking out of the rear cockpit.

[Photoplanet]

21 April 1983 I was a member of the RAF SAR Sea King crew that picked up the injured engineer after he ejected near Fort Augustus. I believe the team were on a low level transit and this aircraft managed to hit wires about 40 feet agl (measured later by Sea King Rad Alt!). At that height I think the passenger was prudent to self eject rather than wait to hear if the pilot decided they should leave. Unfortunately he sustained fractures/dislocations to both knees and elbows, if my memory serves me correctly after 35 years. After dropping the injured crewman at Inverness hospital we flew back via Inverness airfield and I took a photo of the Hawk, looking rather strange with the post sticking out of the rear cockpit.

Many thanks for the info, much appreciated.

[Whopity]

I was thinking back to that incident as I was at Machrihanish with Met Flight when the Hawk departed. We heard that somewhere en route he had lost the back seater and nobody was sure where.

[MAINJAFAD]

Of course there was the other Hawk pax ejection when a Scopie banged out of a serviceable aircraft in the same week as the incident in Scotland.

[Treble one]

There was a famous command ejection from a servicable Tornado due to a disorientated WSO/Nav as well?

[goudie]

Similar thing happened at Akrotiri in the mid 60’s. A Javelin suffered a shattered canopy whilst in the circuit. The pilot, over the noise of the slipstream shouted to the Nav, “if we have to, will you be able to eject?” The Nav heard the key word ‘eject’ and did so. The pilot managed to land safely, the Nav was picked up in Episkopi Bay!
With regard to non-aircrew backseaters, I can’t help feeling that, in spite of all the safety briefings, ( of which I’ve experienced) the split second reactions required in an emergency, are possibly not as sharply honed as experienced Aircrew.

[4mastacker]

.......I believe the team were on a low level transit and this aircraft managed to hit wires about 40 feet agl (measured later by Sea King Rad Alt!). ...............

OC Supply tasked me to raise the F34 (Write-off) for the incident after the BoI was concluded and the various VSOs had made their comments. One thing that sticks in my mind was a comment in the P1 file that they (I believe there were two aircraft flying together) were "gathering heather". The value of the write-off (including such things as damage to Scottish Hydro property, damage to the aircraft, loss of the seat, etc) exceeded the CinC's powers meaning it had to go to 2nd PUS level for approval.

[Basil]

Most aircrew I've met in my life are pragmatists schooled in the University of Hard Knocks.

So let's live in the real world people shall we?

By way of example, one of the off-duty Nimrod crewmates in Toronto was introduced to the unfolding events on a TV screen on his way to take The Telephone Call. That's how it happens these days.

Getting bent out of shape because photographs appear in the media pretty promptly is basically a denial of the world we live in...whether we like it or not.
Have to say that I agree.

My introduction to the OCU as I walked into the entrance hall of the OM was to overhear a discussion of a multi-fatality crash.
O1: "Yes, you know him; he looked a bit anaemic!"
O2: "Well, he's 'kin anaemic now all right!"

[roving]

Given the comments about the "command ejection" configuration I have been researching whether there was any previous incident where the front seat occupant of a Hawk was the pilot and ejected, and a rear seat occupant, who was not a pilot, remained with the aircraft.

I have found an example and very fortunately both survived. No explanation is given as to why the rear seat occupant did not eject.

The accident happened as the Hawk was landing in 1982.

The rear seat occupant was a flight test observer.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=55500

[Basil]

No explanation is given as to why the rear seat occupant did not eject.
I'm guessing that, if the pilot went at 90deg bank, by the time the observer thought "What the . . !", bank was over 90deg and ejection was no longer an option.
I'm sure his bonedome is a treasured memento.

[XV490]

Most aircrew I've met in my life are pragmatists schooled in the University of Hard Knocks.

So let's live in the real world people shall we?

By way of example, one of the off-duty Nimrod crewmates in Toronto was introduced to the unfolding events on a TV screen on his way to take The Telephone Call. That's how it happens these days.

Getting bent out of shape because photographs appear in the media pretty promptly is basically a denial of the world we live in...whether we like it or not.

In that case, I wonder why the Mail Online has now removed the story and photos?
Service personnel might be used to hard knocks, but less so the family and friends of victims.
Seems the Mail bowed to the overwhelming negative response in its comments section.

[sitigeltfel]

I think the nosewheel is down siti, it's just in line with the left main leg. Look at the left main wheel, it's an odd shape.

Possibly, but I can't see the nose wheel doors?

[dsc810]

Well here it still is
Moment Red Arrows pilot escaped crash fireball | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5529365/Pictured-Moment-Red-Arrows-pilot-escaped-crash-fireball.html)

[Basil]

In that case, I wonder why the Mail Online has now removed the story and photos?
Service personnel might be used to hard knocks, but less so the family and friends of victims.
Seems the Mail bowed to the overwhelming negative response in its comments section.
They don't appear to have done so:
Moment Red Arrows pilot escaped crash fireball | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5529365/Pictured-Moment-Red-Arrows-pilot-escaped-crash-fireball.html)

[The Old Fat One]

Edited out my follow up because, upon reflection, a discussion about the rights and wrongs of media intrusion are probably not appropriate, and definitely not necessary at this sad time.

RIP & condolences to the deceased and family.

[XV490]

Well it's gone from the mobile version of the app (Android), which is where I first saw it; and I'm no fan of the DM either.

[treadigraph]

Possibly, but I can't see the nose wheel doors?

Fairly sure the doors are there too, though it is hard to see clearly.

[XV490]

Regarding the DM article, I hope the rest of the spotters in the car park/on the hill will give this guy the treatment he deserves for selling the photos to the newspaper for a few quid when the RAF had asked for photos not to be given to the media yet.

What I can't understand is how close to the incident the snapper appears to have been: I couldn't see much long-lens 'flattening'.
Was he/she actually on the base? If so, it would be an even more astonishing 'up yours' response to the RAF's request.

[NutLoose]

I believe the Tornado command ejection was brought about during early testing of the Aircraft, if I remember rightly they were up on an Test Flight over the North Sea and an incident occurred ( birdstrike? ) disabling the front seater , the aircraft was in a shallow descent and the rear seater stuck it talking to the pilot hoping he would start to respond until at low height he was forced to bang out leaving the poor guy to his fate. The command ejection came about from that incident. Or am I getting confused?

[drugsdontwork]

There is a little photography spot in a car park just by the main gate and I really, really hope that photographer is not welcomed there again.

[NutLoose]

People keep complaining about the photographer so I thought I'd say my thoughts as a keen amateur photographer, a lot appears to revolve around the RAF's request, well it is just that, a request, copyright belongs to the photographer and rightly or wrongly it is up to him to decide what happens to his images.

Yes, he has sold then via an agency to the press and so is making money from them, but that does not mean he hasn't also provided them to the RAF to assist in their investigation.

Photography is a double edged sword and an expensive one at that, I currently own over 20K's worth of camera equipment and I am just an amateur, a lot of you probably are unaware a single lens can cost 10k though the most I have paid is about half that. Without people funding their hobby and spending time at the fence, the RAF would have nothing image wise to assist them, hence the double edge sword, would I have provided my images to the RAF and AAIB, undoubtably yes, but that's the ex RAF / Aircraft Engineer in me, would I consider selling any of them, that's a hard one, possibly as long as they do not include any distressing scenes, but in this case probably no.
Back to the photographer involved, I do not know his financial status, so the thousand or so he may get per image could well be life changing for him and I do not begrudge him that, and if he has provided the images then they will be of valuable assistance to the inquiry. With out the likes of him they would have none.
As for the Daily Fail printing them, end of the day they are a newspaper and that is what they do no matter how odious we see it personally, on the same note the BBC was running the film on their website of the Uber cab right up to it hitting the victim.

[drugsdontwork]

People keep complaining about the photographer so I thought I'd say my thoughts as a keen amateur photographer, a lot appears to revolve around the RAF's request, well it is just that, a request, copyright belongs to the photographer and rightly or wrongly it is up to him to decide what happens to his images.

Yes, he has sold then via an agency to the press and so is making money from them, but that does not mean he hasn't also provided them to the RAF to assist in their investigation.

Photography is a double edged sword and an expensive one at that, I currently own over 20K's worth of camera equipment and I am just an amateur, a lot of you probably are unaware a single lens can cost 10k though the most I have paid is about half that. Without people funding their hobby and spending time at the fence, the RAF would have nothing image wise to assist them, hence the double edge sword, would I have provided my images to the RAF and AAIB, undoubtably yes, but that's the ex RAF / Aircraft Engineer in me, would I consider selling any of them, that's a hard one, possibly as long as they do not include and distressing scenes, but in this case probably no.
Back to the photographer involved, I do not know his financial status, so the thousand or so he may get per image could well be life changing for him and I do not begrudge him that, and if he has provided the images then they will be of valuable assistance to the inquiry. With out the likes of him they would have none.
As for the Daily Fail printing them, end of the day they are a newspaper and that is what they do no matter how odious we see it personally, on the same note the BBC was running the film on their website of the Uber cab right up to it hitting the victim.

It’s a distressing image for many people. He is paparazzi trash. If the photographers give a toss about the people in the aircraft they should collectively ban him from that area.

[XV490]

....I do not know his financial status, so the thousand or so he may get per image could well be life changing for him and I do not begrudge him that, and if he has provided the images then they will be of valuable assistance to the inquiry. With out the likes of him they would have none.


I imagine the incident will also be "life-changing" for the victim's family. And how do you know the RAF don't have their own images of the tragedy?

[Thaihawk]

So Nutloose, because you’ve voluntarily chosen to spend 20k on your own hobby, that allows you to completely lose your moral compass and cause uncountable distress to families of a dead serviceman so that you can regain a small fraction of the cost of a new lens? Of course not. And I very much doubt that he’s received the 1k per photo that you quote... he’s sold himself out for a much smaller sum of money.

Personally, following this I would love to see the closing down of the spotter’s car park and a ban on jets through the mach loop

I understand your sentiments on this, but closing the spotter's car park at Valley because of one moron-and I hope this individual is named and shamed is both unfair and will impact negatavely on RAF public relations. Many 'normal' members of the public use that car park to watch the aircraft, and if this is closed, people will park elsewhere and in so doing are likely to cause a danger and nuisiance to other road users.

As for the Mach Loop, it is not used for public entertainment and if usage stops, the fast jet users will lose training experiance.

Again the identity of the individual needs to be exposed so all and sundry know who he is.

[Mil-26Man]

...a ban on jets through the mach loop

I know a fair few locals who would back you on this.

As to the photographer, making money out of this in any way is just wrong. Anyone with a moral compass doesn't need to be told this.

[Mil-26Man]

Again the identity of the individual needs to be exposed so all and sundry know who he is.

From the story - The jet was captured taking off in Anglesey by photographer David Taylor - who was horrified to see it burst into flames seconds later.

...but that does not mean he hasn't also provided them to the RAF to assist in their investigation.

From the story - Images show how just 116 seconds elapsed from take-off to tragedy. He said he will be offering his pictures to police and the RAF to help their investigation.

[Treble one]

I believe the Tornado command ejection was brought about during early testing of the Aircraft, if I remember rightly they were up on an Test Flight over the North Sea and an incident occurred ( birdstrike? ) disabling the front seater , the aircraft was in a shallow descent and the rear seater stuck it talking to the pilot hoping he would start to respond until at low height he was forced to bang out leaving the poor guy to his fate. The command ejection came about from that incident. Or am I getting confused?


I was thinking of a different incident NutLoose. I believe it was a LL sortie through valleys. The Nav/WSO dropped something on the floor and bent to pick it up-as he was getting up at a funny angle he saw the side of a mountain looming large-he concluded in the split second he had that the pilot had lost control and initiated a command ejection (details may not be 100% accurate, but something approximating it)?

[H Peacock]

Hang on a minute guys; are you telling me that none of you watched any of the images/video of the Shoreham Hunter, or am I missing something? Anyone happen to see the newsreel film of John Derry and Tony Richards succumb in the DH110? What about XV770 at Syerston?

Yes, a tragic accident with a loss of life, but surely you can't expect these images to remain out of the public domain?

[NutLoose]

As I said, would I sell them, no. Would I sell any image that I find could cause distress, no. I realise what I said would be seen as controversial, but what I was trying to get across was day in day out we are confronted with images like this in the press, the Uber taxi being an example.
To say we should close viewing areas because of such things is wrong plain and simple, those that stand at the fence are, and no, I am not one of them, a valuable source of video and photographic material when things like this go wrong, they are often seen at Civil airports as an extra layer of security too, as they may notice unusual activity. I incidentally do not remember such a knee jerk reaction when the shots of the impact at Shoreham were published.

[XV490]

HP - agreed. But with this incident the RAF quickly made a tweeted plea to be "sensitive". And this was certainly no airshow.
The wording on this page (http://www.sell-story.co.uk/home) is revealing.

[NutLoose]

Treble One, was it not a Tornado over the German plains, they had previously warned crews of uncommanded departure after one had flown near a mast, the German one if I remember correctly, was at low level when the pilot saw an A-10? In front of them and pulled hard to avoid it without time to alert the backseater who had been distracted, and thinking it was an uncommanded departure, ejected, unfortunately the seat was set to command so the pilot left too.

[NutLoose]

Exactly, for all anyone knows he may well have donated the monies gained.

[Treble one]

Treble One, was it not a Tornado over the German plains, they had previously warned crews of uncommanded departure after one had flown near a mast, the German one if I remember correctly, was at low level when the pilot saw an A-10? In front of them and pulled hard to avoid it without time to alert the backseater who had been distracted, and thinking it was an uncommanded departure, ejected, unfortunately the seat was set to command so the pilot left too.


That is the one NutLoose-thanks for the correction. Quite a well known chap flying it IIRC?

[H Peacock]

Treble One, was it not a Tornado over the German plains, they had previously warned crews of uncommanded departure after one had flown near a mast, the German one if I remember correctly, was at low level when the pilot saw an A-10? In front of them and pulled hard to avoid it without time to alert the backseater who had been distracted, and thinking it was an uncommanded departure, ejected, unfortunately the seat was set to command so the pilot left too.


Not German, but it was an RAF Tornado, ZA603 in the mid-80s.

[NutLoose]

Yes sorry re reading it sounds as if I was referring to a German Tornado, whenI was simply trying to put it in the country it happened in.

[matkat]

I believe the Tornado command ejection was brought about during early testing of the Aircraft, if I remember rightly they were up on an Test Flight over the North Sea and an incident occurred ( birdstrike? ) disabling the front seater , the aircraft was in a shallow descent and the rear seater stuck it talking to the pilot hoping he would start to respond until at low height he was forced to bang out leaving the poor guy to his fate. The command ejection came about from that incident. Or am I getting confused?

Nutloose are you sure this is not the F4 incident from Leuchars around 1988? you describe in good detail in reference to the Nav trying to talk to him and the shallow dive but there was no birdstrike as the Pilot had suffered a stroke, it was my profound honour to be in charge of the VAS nightshift when his body was recovered (By 22 sqn) we stopped all personnel and A/C movements and offered the decease the respect he deserved. Brought back a flood of memories I was also part of the honour guard when the cortege came through Leuchars for the burial at Leuchars cemetery.

[NutLoose]

That may well have been it, Age is catching up with the brain cells, I remember reading it in air clues? I have been looking through the accidents on Tonkas on the web and cannot find it, such a sad way to go :(

[matkat]

That may well have been it, Age is catching up with the brain cells, I remember reading it in air clues? I have been looking through the accidents on Tonkas on the web and cannot find it, such a sad way to go :(
No problem, very vivid to me having been there, please check F4 losses IIRC the crash site is listed as the bell rock area.

[glad rag]

That is the one NutLoose-thanks for the correction. Quite a well known chap flying it IIRC?

It was a bunt to avoid an a10, something about backseater being nervy after learning of HF incident but actually sfa to do with accident.
Spent 3 happy weeks picking up and sifting through tiny little pieces of Tonka, unfortunately someone sent the sib to control "sensitive" material, that :mad: the fun times up....

[glad rag]

Nutloose are you sure this is not the F4 incident from Leuchars around 1988? you describe in good detail in reference to the Nav trying to talk to him and the shallow dive but there was no birdstrike as the Pilot had suffered a stroke, it was my profound honour to be in charge of the VAS nightshift when his body was recovered (By 22 sqn) we stopped all personnel and A/C movements and offered the decease the respect he deserved. Brought back a flood of memories I was also part of the honour guard when the cortege came through Leuchars for the burial at Leuchars cemetery.

OCU cab ??

[megan]

So Nutloose, because you’ve voluntarily chosen to spend 20k on your own hobby, that allows you to completely lose your moral compass and cause uncountable distress to families of a dead servicemanI know it's tragic when you lose one of your own, but I don't understand the comments along the lines of "loss of moral compass". The news is full of video of accidents as they happen which result in fatalities, a recent one here was a family of five burning to death following a car accident. Who didn't see Ayrton Senna lose his life?

[AIRCRAFTSNAPPER]

I fully understand the feelings of some members, but we have no knowledge of any unpublished photos and also what we have seen could well help with the inquiry, members who have studied the photos are mainly acting as amateur accident investigators, even for their own inquisitive reason, it is not disgusting to take and publish the photos, people want to know as much as possible and as soon as possible, a photographer at the edge of an airfield is not waiting for an incident, just a nice day out in the fresh air persuing their hobbies, aeroplanes and photography. Formula one is for the crashes. so I do hope the AAIB obtain some useful information from these remarkable images. please lets not castigate David Taylor.

[Pure Pursuit]

I completely disagree. The photo of Red 3 parachuting to safety, whilst the hawk explodes behind him doesn’t help the public st all. All it shows is the immediate impact that killed a serviceman. Photos prior to that MAY help the AAIB in that they may show the moment of bird ingestion etc however, they offer the public nothing.

It’s not surprising that th Daily Fail publishes the shots. Credible newspapers will have no doubt said, ‘no thank you’ to the photographers offer to sell the shots. Taylor has shown very little respect for what happened here and I hope that avaiation publications turn their back on him.

[rolling20]

As a regular reader and occasional contributor to this forum for a number of years, I notice that this article has attracted a number of people who are not usually posters on here. Some of the regular contributors ( and you know who you are :) ) seem to me to be unfairly targeted for their comments. The regular posters are a font of RAF knowledge and their views should be respected.

[c130jbloke]

Or maybe the Daily Mail just offered the biggest amount of cash for the images. I think that they actually may have showed some judgement with their article, if you assume this guy took images of the whole crash sequence that would mean there are worse pictures out there.
One small bit of comfort is that hopefully the exact cause of this tragic event will be worked out fairly quickly.
RIP.

[Davef68]

Whilst i personally find pictures showing impacts where people have lost their life distasteful (be they car crashes, aeroplane accidents, powerboat accidents e.g. Bluebird)., there is no denying they from a legitimate and powerful part of photojournalism.

Someone mentioned the Derry accident earlier - I personaly hate that image, not least because the knowledgeable are able to discern what the various elements are but from a journalistic viewpoint it is a image that conveys the tradgedy and terror of the moment.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before (I may have missed it somewhere), but the Post at #85 shows a video.

If you watch the walk out (at 11:05 +) it appears the reporter is NOT wearing an anti-G suit. This in spite of the fact he mentions it during the video commentary.

Very sad to learn about the accident, particularly as I have just watched 'Britain's Ultimate Pilot's' on YouTube which shows, amongst other things, just how much enjoyment is given to the 'Blues' back seat riding the Hawk.

[EAP86]

I believe the Tornado command ejection was brought about during early testing of the Aircraft, if I remember rightly they were up on an Test Flight over the North Sea and an incident occurred ( birdstrike? ) disabling the front seater , the aircraft was in a shallow descent and the rear seater stuck it talking to the pilot hoping he would start to respond until at low height he was forced to bang out leaving the poor guy to his fate. The command ejection came about from that incident. Or am I getting confused?

This sounds a little like the accident where the aircraft (BS029?) suffered a complete electrical failure and the pilot was not responding to the Nav. If it is this one, I believe the cause is unexplained to this day. I'm not absolutely sure but I think the Tornado had command ejection from day one.

EAP

[NutLoose]

It feels like people on here are upset and I can see why, I am included, but to take it out and vent the outrage bus on the photographer who in the end may help draw a conclusion to the accident and possibly prevent it again seems to me wrong.

I completely disagree. The photo of Red 3 parachuting to safety, whilst the hawk explodes behind him doesn’t help the public st all. All it shows is the immediate impact that killed a serviceman. Photos prior to that MAY help the AAIB in that they may show the moment of bird ingestion etc however, they offer the public nothing.

It’s not surprising that th Daily Fail publishes the shots. Credible newspapers will have no doubt said, ‘no thank you’ to the photographers offer to sell the shots. Taylor has shown very little respect for what happened here and I hope that avaiation publications turn their back on him. Perhaps you should watch this and then tell me which is worst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0Jj-2x5rM

[wiggy]

I believe the Tornado command ejection was brought about during early testing of the Aircraft, if I remember rightly they were up on an Test Flight over the North Sea and an incident occurred ( birdstrike? ) disabling the front seater , the aircraft was in a shallow descent and the rear seater stuck it talking to the pilot hoping he would start to respond until at low height he was forced to bang out leaving the poor guy to his fate

FWIW I’m in agreement with others here who have stated the above sounds very much like the RAF F4 accident where the aircraft slowly descended towards the North Sea for reasons unknown and the pilot didn’t respond to the navigators prompts, for reasons unknown but possibly medical. The end result result was the navigator (only) ejecting - the F-4Ks and F4M’s did not have command eject.

I do not know if there was there was a similar accident involving a Tornado.

As for the general issue of images of accidents..many will have accidentally come across the really unpleasant images from the recent self drive car accident, we have all seen and no doubt will continue to see through various outlets countless replays of various high profile aviation and other accidents in the coming months and years. TBH I’m a bit uneasy at the “naming and shaming” going on in some of the previous posts...like it or not it is the world we now live in.

[Treble one]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before (I may have missed it somewhere), but the Post at #85 shows a video.

If you watch the walk out (at 11:05 +) it appears the reporter is NOT wearing an anti-G suit. This in spite of the fact he mentions it during the video commentary.

Very sad to learn about the accident, particularly as I have just watched 'Britain's Ultimate Pilot's' on YouTube which shows, amongst other things, just how much enjoyment is given to the 'Blues' back seat riding the Hawk.

I think that the G-trousers can be worn underneath the flying suit Spanner?

I saw a photo of a Lightning pilot (in the 70's) not apparently wearing G-trousers. I asked the gent in question (who had posted the photo of himself) and he said he was wearing them but underneath his flying suit.

[Treble one]

It was a bunt to avoid an a10, something about backseater being nervy after learning of HF incident but actually sfa to do with accident.
Spent 3 happy weeks picking up and sifting through tiny little pieces of Tonka, unfortunately someone sent the sib to control "sensitive" material, that :mad: the fun times up....

Glad rag thanks. I found the MAA report summary-very much as already described by yourself and others on here.

[ORAC]

Spannerin the Werks.

See post #126.

“Q. Do Reds passengers wear g-pants?

A. They didn’t use to, but they do now. They’re the internal ones that used to be worn underneath an immersion suit, so not very bulky at all and worn under the flying coverall to remove any risk of snagging.....”

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Thanks Guys - I said I might have missed it/misunderstood.

[wiggy]

I saw a photo of a Lightning pilot (in the 70's) not apparently wearing G-trousers. I asked the gent in question (who had posted the photo of himself) and he said he was wearing them but underneath his flying suit.


That makes sense. As I recall it external g-suits (for wearing over flying coveralls) probably first made an appearance in the RAF in the very early 80s. Even when issued with an external set we had to also retain the internal set for use under the immersion suit.

Anyone remember differently or offer a better estimate on timescale?

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I've just seen the Daily Mail photograph.

Speechless.

...............

That must be the worst, most insensitive depiction of the accident anyone could possibly publish.

I imagine my wife seeing that if I had been the engineer. My God.

[NutLoose]

Spanner splashed across about every paper at the time

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6405057.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/2015-Shoreham-Airshow-crash.jpg

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shoreham-airshow-crash-survivor-who-6321141

Does it make it right..NO, but it's the times we sadly live in.


..

[Brian W May]

Most aircrew I've met in my life are pragmatists schooled in the University of Hard Knocks.

So let's live in the real world people shall we?

By way of example, one of the off-duty Nimrod crewmates in Toronto was introduced to the unfolding events on a TV screen on his way to take The Telephone Call. That's how it happens these days.

Getting bent out of shape because photographs appear in the media pretty promptly is basically a denial of the world we live in...whether we like it or not.


Spot on. Like it or not it IS the world we live in.

[wiggy]

Agree with Brian..

Over 40 years back a U.K. local rag published an image, taken by their in-house pro, of the end result of an unsuccessful ejection...that truely was a shocking image, p*****ed a lot of people off at the time and I still find the memory of it distasteful.

Given what is visible in the Valley images I’m at a loss as to why the photographer is being given such a hard time here, and as for the Mail...what do you expect?

[Basil]

Agree with Brian..

Over 40 years back a local rag published an image, taken by their in-house pro, of the end result of an unsuccessful ejection...that truely was a shocking image, p*****ed a lot of people off at the time and I still find the memory of it distasteful.

Given what is visible in the Valley images I’m at a loss as to why the photographer is being given such a hard time here, and as for the Mail...what do you expect?
I agree re the images. In fact they may remind the general public of the increased risk of military flying even in training; not only FJ but Transport Support, AAR, Rotary etc.

[Jayand]

I fear people are getting just a tad oversensitive about the publication of these photo's due to it being "One of our own"
I don't remember anyone getting too upset about the still and moving images of 9-11, both the planes hitting and the people leaping from the building?
Just last week I watched a Discovery documentary about plane crashes, the one shown over and over in close up HD was the plane in Asia hitting an Uber taxi on a bridge first.
Then there was the General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan shooting picture that won the 1969 Pullitzer prize during the vietnam war, perhaps the most brutally graphic photo we've ever seen.

I don't doubt that the pics could cause distress to the families, but none of the photo's were obscene or showed anything personal or up close of the the sadly deceased.
It seems we're more than happy to digest others misery and death but just not our own?

[gpzz]

Of course this is all highly distressing for the families etc and there are times when I too cringe at some of the images we have to look at across either the airwaves or in print, but the day those from above slap a ban on this type of thing is the day we begin the rest of our lives living in a dictatorship.

The simple truth is press freedom in all its forms good and bad, unpalatable as it can be at times = a free and fair democracy.

[radar101]

BBC online news:


Red Arrows pay tribute to pilot killed in crash




The Red Arrows have released a video paying tribute to Jonathan Bayliss who was killed after a Red Arrows jet crashed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43492368) in Wales earlier this week.
Cpl Bayliss, 41, was killed when the Hawk aircraft, which is used by the aerobatic display team, crashed at RAF Valley on Anglesey on Tuesday afternoon.


One despairs!!

[melmothtw]

To the public, a crew member of a fast jet is a 'pilot'. Back to my earlier point about who the press writes for - I doubt that anyone outside of PPRuNE-land is as outraged at this as you.

[roving]

found on twitter here

https://twitter.com/rafredarrows/status/977198584025305090

[Two's in]

Those of you who are familiar with with B of I or SI know that there are a number of objectives in the Terms of Reference. The two most obvious ones are:

1. Determine the cause.
2. Prevent a re-occurrence.

Information surrounding an accident is perishable, and people forget or subconsciously change the mental narrative over time, so prompt documentation and collection of evidence is a critical factor in an effective investigation. Any photographs or video of the accident are particularly useful in establishing configurations and modes of operation, that is a fact. Concurrently, it is inevitable that the circumstances will be discussed by those directly related and those indirectly related to the accident. Those discussions can be counter productive when highly speculative, but can reinforce a culture of safety when highlighting risk mitigations around hazardous operations. These discussions will occur in all circumstances.

The objectivity of the B of I or SI should not be influenced by any social or emotional ties to those unfortunate enough to be the subject of such inquiries, whether the accident results in fatalities or not. Consequently the pursuit of the inquiry's objectives are not served by elapsed time or by any form of emotive distancing, other than the observance of the normal protocol and respect when appropriate. Serving as a member of an inquiry when the victim(s) were close colleagues and personal friends normally drives a desire to be absolutely professional and objective in determining the cause and preventing a re-occurrence.

That is the Service aspect of the inquiry, which is fortunately removed from the media coverage and public opinion (with obvious exceptions). If media coverage offends you personally, take it up with the guilty party, complaints can be effective. If you were emotionally involved with the victims, try to direct that energy into providing solace and comfort to the colleagues and families but also try and avoid having your emotions triggered by the media coverage and social media in particular. People will legitimately try to understand what happened through argument and speculation on such boards as this. That is a natural reaction to any accident. Admonishments based on your social proximity to the victims can be counter productive in an environment where discussion participants are anonymous or may deliberately misrepresent themselves.

I suspect many of us on here have been in the position of scrutinizing the last moments of friends and colleagues, and we repaid their contribution to the services by performing that task objectively and professionally, while not being distracted by the public and media clamour.

[matkat]

OCU cab ??
I believe it was.

[matkat]

FWIW I’m in agreement with others here who have stated the above sounds very much like the RAF F4 accident where the aircraft slowly descended towards the North Sea for reasons unknown and the pilot didn’t respond to the navigators prompts, for reasons unknown but possibly medical. The end result result was the navigator (only) ejecting - the F-4Ks and F4M’s did not have command eject.

I do not know if there was there was a similar accident involving a Tornado.

As for the general issue of images of accidents..many will have accidentally come across the really unpleasant images from the recent self drive car accident, we have all seen and no doubt will continue to see through various outlets countless replays of various high profile aviation and other accidents in the coming months and years. TBH I’m a bit uneasy at the “naming and shaming” going on in some of the previous posts...like it or not it is the world we now live in.

Wiggy, the autopsy showed he had a stroke.

[wiggy]

Wiggy, the autopsy showed he had a stroke.

matkat

Thanks.

[Rhino power]

Apologies for deviating from the primary reason for this thread but, further to the 228 OCU F-4 loss mentioned by several others, I believe this is the incident being referred to...

http://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/maas_19890109_xt908.pdf

-RP

[wiggy]

Brian..

Huntingdon - yes, that was the one...

[PapaDolmio]

Brian..

Huntingdon - yes, that was the one...

And got a smack in the face from a fireman for his trouble....

[Planemike]

Of course this is all highly distressing for the families etc and there are times when I too cringe at some of the images we have to look at across either the airwaves or in print, but the day those from above slap a ban on this type of thing is the day we begin the rest of our lives living in a dictatorship.

The simple truth is press freedom in all its forms good and bad, unpalatable as it can be at times = a free and fair democracy.


Agree 100%.......!!!

[NutLoose]

I have found the one I commented on, it wasn't the F-4 one mentioned but a Tornado under similar circumstances, Command ejection was used but sadly the pilot did not survive.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121109140812/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/25E631E7-41FB-416D-AE59-F4F411B072FB/0/maas83_19_tornado_gr1_zg558_28oct83.pdf

[Nige321]

All hawk T1s temporarily grounded... (http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/16112070.Planes_grounded_at_Anglesey_air_base_after_fatal_Re d_Arrows_crash/?ref=rss)

[Jobza Guddun]

I have found the one I commented on, it wasn't the F-4 one mentioned but a Tornado under similar circumstances, Command ejection was used but sadly the pilot did not survive.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121109140812/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/25E631E7-41FB-416D-AE59-F4F411B072FB/0/maas83_19_tornado_gr1_zg558_28oct83.pdf

Nutty,

This one sprang to mind for me, the first GR1 loss IIRC, from IX(B).

http://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/maas_19830927_za586.pdf

Thoughts with family and friends at this time.

[Tashengurt]

[QUOTE]Wiggy, the autopsy showed he had a stroke./QUOTE]

Accident report suggests the cause was inconclusive but a severe migraine was the cause.
An awful incident eitherway.

[david340r]

I have found the one I commented on, it wasn't the F-4 one mentioned but a Tornado under similar circumstances, Command ejection was used but sadly the pilot did not survive.





Where the pilot is incapacitated shouldn't the navigator generally be able to at least stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude if not get it home unless the pilot is making some pretty forceful involuntary control inputs? No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.

[k3k3]

Difficult without a stick.

[Easy Street]

Where the pilot is incapacitated shouldn't the navigator generally be able to at least stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude if not get it home unless the pilot is making some pretty forceful involuntary control inputs? No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.

When your knowledge of the subject is so abject that you don’t even know that most of the aircraft in question have no flying controls in the rear cockpit, you’d be well advised not to comment in any way on aircrews’ conduct, let alone make implied criticisms of those who have been killed or lost a crewmate. Here’s a tip: ask open questions if unsure of your ground; they place less emphasis on the asker’s ignorance.

[airpolice]

When your knowledge of the subject is so abject that you don’t even know that most of the aircraft in question have no flying controls in the rear cockpit, you’d be well advised not to comment in any way on aircrews’ conduct, let alone make implied criticisms of those who have been killed or lost a crewmate. Here’s a tip: ask open questions if unsure of your ground; they place less emphasis on the asker’s ignorance.

That's a very dignified way of saying what needed to be said.

[H Peacock]

That's a very dignified way of saying what needed to be said.

What! I see a post where d340r asks a reasonable question then gets the disappointing arrogant PPRuNe response! I guess you 2 must have had a really bad weekend, but I'm sure d340r will still accept your apology!

[airpolice]

What! I see a post where d340r asks a reasonable question then gets the disappointing arrogant PPRuNe response! I guess you 2 must have had a really bad weekend, but I'm sure d340r will still accept your apology!





David340r wrote: Where the pilot is incapacitated shouldn't the navigator generally be able to at least stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude if not get it home unless the pilot is making some pretty forceful involuntary control inputs? No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.

On the topic of the potential behaviour of Navigators, in F4 or Tornado aircraft, in this forum, you think the original question was reasonable? Really?




Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground.

[Wrathmonk]

No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.

Sorry H Peacock, I have to agree that the above is a fairly crassly worded statement (perhaps deliberately so from a poster with so few posts - what do they call it on t'other site - a sock puppet?). To me, that statement infers the navigators were "jack" and took the "easy" way out leaving the pilots to their fate.

If it had been worded something like "in those two cases would the navigator have been able to stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude?" then I'm sure the responses would have been less of a

disappointing arrogant PPRuNe response

However, I am surprised no one has added that there is a reason why many navigators are navigators.;)

[NutLoose]

David340 the rear of a Tornado is equipped with the stuff that isn't in the front cockpit, so there would be no room for a second set of controls. I suppose you could fit a button like the Russian use that brings it straight and level.

[H Peacock]

Well perhaps if you were under the (albeit incorrect) understanding that all aircraft had dual controls (Like many USAF do) then surely it's a reasonable question!

[Bill Macgillivray]

Don't assume - Check!

[glad rag]

XT 123

XT = Trainer....... EXCEPT...... We had to do a Houdini and FIT the stick as required by training role..aircraft had very limited operational capabilities ie heat with it in IIRC..

There are/were Tornado variants with dual controls in the rear too..

[Photoplanet]

XT 123

XT = Trainer....... EXCEPT...... We had to do a Houdini and FIT the stick as required by training role..aircraft had very limited operational capabilities ie heat with it in IIRC..

There are/were Tornado variants with dual controls in the rear too..

During my time on the RAF Tornado F3 / ADV as groundcrew, the twin-stick trainer variants were very few and highly sought after.

I don't remember whether the command ejection selector was any different on the trainer than on the normal F3...

[BruisedCrab]

Command eject was identical on single and twin stick F3s.

[glad rag]

The basic ej system was the same gr/f
However when they started to piss about with sem's at-al to add an interim nvg capability to the F3 cue mucho fannying around the top of seat, micro switches etc etc.

Did anyone actually blow them off in an ejection btw??

[Flap62]

Wat?

Send Mickey Over

[sandiego89]

Well perhaps if you were under the (albeit incorrect) understanding that all aircraft had dual controls (Like many USAF do) then surely it's a reasonable question!


Agree.


And since no one has explicitly replied, not all versions of the Tornado or Phantom have rear seat controls (stick, rudders, throttles). Few Tornados, and Phantoms varied widely. At the risk of over simplification, I provide the following for education:


When aircraft are so equipped with rear seat controls the spectrum of how much experience/capability the Navigator/Weapons System Operator had in piloting the aircraft varies by service, era, and doctrine of the operators (and if the pilots let them touch anything :E). In most cases a qualified WSO/Nav/back seater would indeed be able to conduct basic maneuvering, or in some cases the ability could go all the way up to full pilot qualifications. In some cases a "guest" occupant (Blue Angels publicity ride for example) the back seater would have no control instruction at all except not to touch anything.


As for particular jets and qualifications, rear (or side by side) controls vary by aircraft and service. Most USAF Phantoms had dual controls, and early USAF F-4 Phantom operations had the WSO first qualified as pilots. Most US Navy Phantoms did not have rear controls, and the WSO was not a rated/qualified pilot. F-4 rear controls varied by buyer/user/prior operator, etc.

[AIRCRAFTSNAPPER]

well done my sentiments, it gives some more strength to the investigators, I do wish that the 'click' would blend into a more general discussion and stop this 'Clip talking'
let everyone understand and join in, it furthers those that have not had the opportunity of enjoying our interest in a professional way

[bosnich71]

David340 the rear of a Tornado is equipped with the stuff that isn't in the front cockpit, so there would be no room for a second set of controls. I suppose you could fit a button like the Russian use that brings it straight and level.

Exactly how the posters original question should have been answered,well done.

[Dominator2]

I do wish that people would not speak with authority about things that they don't know nothing about.

In both the F4 Phantom and the Tornado F3, the 2 stick variants were fully mission capable. In the F4K and M the RAF normally removed the stick when a navigator flew in the back because the radar display could not be pulled out to its design position. It was, however, perfectly possible to use the radar with the display fully stowed. Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft! Many other nations, particularly those equipped with the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly. Conversely the USN and USMC had no 2 stickers!
In the Tornado F3 the rear seat control columns remained fitted in the dual control aircraft throughout.

As for command eject, the concept of command eject in a two crew fighter was different to that of an instructional aircraft such as the Hawk. BAE and the RAF obviously thought that they would not want a student in the front to be able to eject an instructor in the rear seat. Clearly, little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger". We will see if the Accident Investigation makes any comment or recommendation in this area?

[glad rag]

Quote

"I do wish that people would not speak with authority about things that they don't know nothing about."


1. "Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft!"

IE Training sorties.

2. "radar display could not be pulled out to its design position."

It's in the stowed or emergency position ie ejection position

"the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly."

Were they the same radar sets?

However back on topic

"little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger" "

IE "We've always done it this way"?

...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training..

[Dominator2]

glad rag, You have misunderstood, I stated:

As for command eject, the concept of command eject in a two crew fighter was different to that of an instructional aircraft such as the Hawk. BAE and the RAF obviously thought that they would not want a student in the front to be able to eject an instructor in the rear seat. Clearly, little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger". We will see if the Accident Investigation makes any comment or recommendation in this area?

And you answered:

IE "We've always done it this way"?

...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training..

My point was that it should have been possible in all command eject aircraft to set the system so that the front seater ejects BOTH crew.

In addition, I have over 2500 hours on both the F4 (D,E,K and M)and the Tornado F3 so I believe that I have some credibility to make comments about those aircraft?

[David Thompson]

Hawk T1's are flying again today with two up from Leeming with 100 Squadron .

[roving]

My point was that it should have been possible in all command eject aircraft to set the system so that the front seater ejects BOTH crew.



You will know, whereas I do not, but from reading about command eject, I gained the impression that it does not merely ensure both crew are ejected, but that they do so in a sequenced order, to give both the best possible chance of ejecting safely. I think I read that under this arrangement the rear seat occupant ejects about half a second before the front seat occupant. No matter how honed the skills of the professionals are, that kind of sequencing/timing may be more difficult to achieve.

[Bob Viking]

I am often one of the more vocal posters on here with all matters pertaining to Hawk operations. However, there are times to STFU. This is one of them.

I doubt (hope) that anyone is going to indulge your question I’m afraid. Now is not the time.

No offence intended but I have actually been impressed by the lack of speculation on this site so far. Please can we keep it that way?

BV

[dook]

Bob V,

Used to be the RAF's Anglo-French air supremacy fighter-bomber!

Careful with the fighter bit!

[Bob Viking]

So you have no issue with the ‘air supemacy’ bit?!

I’ll take that!

BV

[essdee]

Dook probably means that once you have established air supremacy you can deploy that asset.

[dook]

I do indeed.

d

[airpolice]

Bob, you seem a bit sensitive there. Did stickstirrer touch a nerve?

[Bob Viking]

You do like to stir don’t you?!

I am not at Valley right now so I know precisely zero about what happened. I’m not about to bug the guys at Valley for answers when they probably don’t have any and have better things to worry about.

All I have seen are the same pictures you have and I’m not about to hazard any guesses.

All I know is that one colleague is seriously injured and an (excellent and very well liked) engineer that I knew from my time on the Jaguar died.

Look elsewhere for your tidbits please.

BV

[Distant Voice]

Sincerely hope that this tragic accident is not the result of some rushed mitigation put in place as a result of Flt Lt Cunningham's accident. Late removal of SPFH safety pin springs to mind, along with modifications to the SPFH itself.

DV

[dook]

I expect this thread will develop once we get some well-informed armchair experts on the thread.

[H Peacock]

I expect this thread will develop once we get some well-informed armchair experts on the thread.

But that's to be expected from any internet rumour site! However on PPRuNe you will invariable find posts from many people with suitable experience that does mean their words can and do carry some creadance. The whole point of PPRuNe is that individuals can post a question, query, opinion, view etc before waiting for completed and published reports. If you don't want to read or hear these views then stay away. If you want to suggest that someone may have misunderstood an aspect then why not try to clarify!

It's tragic that a life was lost at Valley, but I don't believe that his thread has to become condolences only. Lots of discussion on command eject - not unreasonable with one of the 2 crew managing to survive, whether or not it turns out to be a factor. Also not unreasonable to discuss turn-backs; we know the Hawk took off from and turned-back to RAF Valley. Whether it was a practice that went awry or a real turnback/forced landing that ended in tragedy, you can't expect some speculation and hence 'discussion' not to take place.

[NutLoose]

Question, does the Hawk have a delay between both seats going out? like the Jag had. if I remember correctly the Jag had a slight delay to avoid the other seats rocket pack firing and also curved out both sides to avoid each seat.