"2 RAF personnel killed in mid-air collision" today
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am now told that the glider pilot did see the Tutor at a very late stage and attempted to avoid by diving the glider, unfortunately he as unsuccessful.
What however is clear is that the Tutor has a poor record for escape, three recent collisions and no one has been able to take to the parachute.
No doubt the BoI will be looking into this matter to see if the Tutor canopy design is a problem if the airframe is disrupted.
What however is clear is that the Tutor has a poor record for escape, three recent collisions and no one has been able to take to the parachute.
No doubt the BoI will be looking into this matter to see if the Tutor canopy design is a problem if the airframe is disrupted.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DayGlo patches
Well, Astir 8, firstly it wasn't "the ATC getting away with it" it was the Royal Air Force at the material time, these are RAF aircraft, RAF markings and Registrations, and until very recently were maintained by RAF fitters under RAF Eng Control and procedures. even now, with SERCO "rentacrowd" contract they are still under the control of the RAF Eng Authority. They are used for Cadet activity but they are RAF aircraft 100% - and their fleet size rivals some other RAF types ( not difficult now !)
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever thus far that this conspicuity marking scheme has had any deleterious effect on airframes and I have absolutely no doubt that every single aspect of GRP compatibility issues were considered after GROB and all releavnt authorities were consulted.
We are being led away from the main issues here - Mk 1 Eyeball, good and thorough checks before manoevres or aero's - No paint schemes can take out the risk of somebody NOT carrying out diligent and careful checks. Clearly someone didn't.
Survival aspects - yes Tutor doesn't seem to have a good record on the face of it, but..........
if the impact was taken on canopy area, then there may have been
1) Damage preventing safe egress
2) Injury to occupants caused by impact
There may also have been little height available for safe egress - we don't know whether any attempts were made.
There is also the consideration of whether the pre-flight brief was fit for purpose - we know that the Cadet sees a Video, but was this reinforced by a Staff parachute brief using an actual chute ? In my thousands of Cadet sorties, I have always been particularly careful to ensure that my subject knew exactly what would happen in the event of an emergency, and I always used to think the unthinkable just to condition my mind.
Were all aspects of Canopy jettison/removal correct on FRC's ? - we have seen a fatal many years ago in 1995 where a Pilot and Cadet died and who may have attempted to escape following a mid air where the RAF FRC's written WERE incorrect ( swiftly FAXED handwritten amendment within a day or two and then AL action followed ) - if followed as written then you would NOT have got out and they didn't !!! - although I don't know whether this little Admin detail ever saw light of day in Coroner's Court, and it certainly was missing from the official Accident report survival aspects.
All important questions that will no doubt be addressed by BoI and AIB and hopefully Wg Cdr Flying @ HQAC. I would hope that there would be some joined up thinking about any possible similarities between this accident and the recent S Wales Mid Air.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever thus far that this conspicuity marking scheme has had any deleterious effect on airframes and I have absolutely no doubt that every single aspect of GRP compatibility issues were considered after GROB and all releavnt authorities were consulted.
We are being led away from the main issues here - Mk 1 Eyeball, good and thorough checks before manoevres or aero's - No paint schemes can take out the risk of somebody NOT carrying out diligent and careful checks. Clearly someone didn't.
Survival aspects - yes Tutor doesn't seem to have a good record on the face of it, but..........
if the impact was taken on canopy area, then there may have been
1) Damage preventing safe egress
2) Injury to occupants caused by impact
There may also have been little height available for safe egress - we don't know whether any attempts were made.
There is also the consideration of whether the pre-flight brief was fit for purpose - we know that the Cadet sees a Video, but was this reinforced by a Staff parachute brief using an actual chute ? In my thousands of Cadet sorties, I have always been particularly careful to ensure that my subject knew exactly what would happen in the event of an emergency, and I always used to think the unthinkable just to condition my mind.
Were all aspects of Canopy jettison/removal correct on FRC's ? - we have seen a fatal many years ago in 1995 where a Pilot and Cadet died and who may have attempted to escape following a mid air where the RAF FRC's written WERE incorrect ( swiftly FAXED handwritten amendment within a day or two and then AL action followed ) - if followed as written then you would NOT have got out and they didn't !!! - although I don't know whether this little Admin detail ever saw light of day in Coroner's Court, and it certainly was missing from the official Accident report survival aspects.
All important questions that will no doubt be addressed by BoI and AIB and hopefully Wg Cdr Flying @ HQAC. I would hope that there would be some joined up thinking about any possible similarities between this accident and the recent S Wales Mid Air.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Enig
OK "got away with it" might have been a careless use of English, sorry
However the Grob Maintenance Manual for the G103 Twin Acro (which is the Viking glider to the RAF/ATC) Page 25, Section IX "General Care" states
"All structural parts of GFK (= Grob) glider (sic) should have white surfaces to avoid them heating up in sunlight"
(not a great translation from the German but it's the official translation)
I am not trying to score points or any such thing here. I'm a BGA inspector and if there's a modification to the manual out there which allows the application of high viz patches to civilian Grob gliders, please could give me the reference. Ta. PM if you like
In these days of EASA the fact that the glider conforms with the official manuals seems to be regarded as far more important than if bits are falling off it.
OK "got away with it" might have been a careless use of English, sorry
However the Grob Maintenance Manual for the G103 Twin Acro (which is the Viking glider to the RAF/ATC) Page 25, Section IX "General Care" states
"All structural parts of GFK (= Grob) glider (sic) should have white surfaces to avoid them heating up in sunlight"
(not a great translation from the German but it's the official translation)
I am not trying to score points or any such thing here. I'm a BGA inspector and if there's a modification to the manual out there which allows the application of high viz patches to civilian Grob gliders, please could give me the reference. Ta. PM if you like
In these days of EASA the fact that the glider conforms with the official manuals seems to be regarded as far more important than if bits are falling off it.
Last edited by astir 8; 2nd Jul 2009 at 11:16.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astir 8,
For many years the RAF did not have to comply with civil requirements and could self authorise modifications etc to RAF "registered" aircraft.
Nowadays they compy with civil requirements whenever possible.
The motorgliders have had daglo patches for some time.
For many years the RAF did not have to comply with civil requirements and could self authorise modifications etc to RAF "registered" aircraft.
Nowadays they compy with civil requirements whenever possible.
The motorgliders have had daglo patches for some time.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enigmaviation,
I can assure you that all cadets passing through Benson for AEF flying are required to demonstrate not just the knowlege of how to use the parachute but also how to safely remove it when being dragged in the wind.
After a mid air the crew are at the very least going to be very confused and disorientated. If the cockpit is damaged then possibly unconcious. It the wings or tail are damaged then the aircraft is probably going to be rotating violently. I would imagine escape from any aircraft after a mid air would be very difficult.
What is the accident involving a cadet in 1995 ?
I have carried out jettison/abandonment drills in both Bulldog and Chippy as far back as 1980 and the drills always worked for me.
I can assure you that all cadets passing through Benson for AEF flying are required to demonstrate not just the knowlege of how to use the parachute but also how to safely remove it when being dragged in the wind.
After a mid air the crew are at the very least going to be very confused and disorientated. If the cockpit is damaged then possibly unconcious. It the wings or tail are damaged then the aircraft is probably going to be rotating violently. I would imagine escape from any aircraft after a mid air would be very difficult.
What is the accident involving a cadet in 1995 ?
I have carried out jettison/abandonment drills in both Bulldog and Chippy as far back as 1980 and the drills always worked for me.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dayglow part 2
Astir 8
I think a following correspondent has covered this - RAF Eng Authority carries where they are RAF aircraft, in similar vein to rules re Pilot qualifications / Glider pilot qualifications vis a vis CAA and BGA. All the evidence will have been considered and a risk assessment and Eng assessment carried out by the RAF.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof - no tragedies caused by dayglow causing wing rot thus far, with tens of thousands of launches and flying hours in Grob 103 and 109B and potentially many averted, - case closed ! Could be a bit of Grob risk management as a cautionary note to avoid any possible future claims - after one of their staff read too many spooky H & S manuals ! All manufacturers of any product have liability insurers that require an "exclude all causes" terms, conditions and risk avoidance bulletins.
I suppose the risk of wing heat absorption caused by colours other than white is to some extent offset by good soaring / flying at higher levels where the lower temperatures provide a natural cooling effect. Avoid the problem, get soaring ! - or use the instant lift lever in a 109B !
I think a following correspondent has covered this - RAF Eng Authority carries where they are RAF aircraft, in similar vein to rules re Pilot qualifications / Glider pilot qualifications vis a vis CAA and BGA. All the evidence will have been considered and a risk assessment and Eng assessment carried out by the RAF.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof - no tragedies caused by dayglow causing wing rot thus far, with tens of thousands of launches and flying hours in Grob 103 and 109B and potentially many averted, - case closed ! Could be a bit of Grob risk management as a cautionary note to avoid any possible future claims - after one of their staff read too many spooky H & S manuals ! All manufacturers of any product have liability insurers that require an "exclude all causes" terms, conditions and risk avoidance bulletins.
I suppose the risk of wing heat absorption caused by colours other than white is to some extent offset by good soaring / flying at higher levels where the lower temperatures provide a natural cooling effect. Avoid the problem, get soaring ! - or use the instant lift lever in a 109B !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
I remember when the Slingsby was taken on for the initial training, Hunting did the work and they were cleared to have the yellow black scheme added to the later new versions, however amongst them were two used earlier Aircraft G-HONG and G-KONG that came from believe it or not HongKong.
They 2 were painted in the Yellow Black scheme, however they returned to the paintshop soon after the error was noted to be returned to a White Scheme and for some reason the paint had not adhered correctly to the wing and I watched a painter peel off the entire Yellow top surface of a wing in one sheet. There was a fault wth the paint on the two in question and the Paint manufacturer picked up the tab I believe to have them repainted, but this time in white......... God knows how the likes of I think Jordan gets on with them in the heat as even the walkway paint had to be white.
They 2 were painted in the Yellow Black scheme, however they returned to the paintshop soon after the error was noted to be returned to a White Scheme and for some reason the paint had not adhered correctly to the wing and I watched a painter peel off the entire Yellow top surface of a wing in one sheet. There was a fault wth the paint on the two in question and the Paint manufacturer picked up the tab I believe to have them repainted, but this time in white......... God knows how the likes of I think Jordan gets on with them in the heat as even the walkway paint had to be white.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1995 Fatal mid air and mid air actuals
Karl Bamforth,
In response to your query, Accident was 2 x Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 former RAF Sealand 5/8/95 ZE 654 / ZE 677. 1 CGI + 1 Cadet fatal. FRC error not mentioned in RAF IFS report, although it was obliquely referred to in "Subsequent Actions" by stating "Measures have also been taken to brief all who fly in Viking gliders on the correct sequence of actions for canopy jettison" ( What they really meant was - we have now corrected the gross error in RAF FRC's, albeit too late for these two guys, but hey, now you know how to get out, it should make it a lot easier)
A RAF spin doctor ( at best interpretation!) must have drafted this, as the Emergencies page of RAF FRC's WAS WRONG and incorrect, was the subject of a handwritten AL within days, and was formally an AL shortly thereafter in print. Is that called being economic with the truth ?
The Viking T Mk 1 has subsequently in more recent years, been modified by an approved Eng Mod, to make the original Canopy jettison instruction in the original version of FRC's correct, and thus there has been subsequent AL action to change it back to the original.
The other spin off of this fatal was a recommendation "that consideration be given to increasing the conspicuity of gliders" - this was done in the case of both Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 and Grob 109B Vigilant T Mk 1 in RAF service by the addition of dayglow red patches. Since then there has only been one mid air involving RAF vigilant T Mk 1, and no structural failures as a result of the dayglow addition.
The underlying cause was more to do with breaking just about every rule of authorisation in the book, poor supervision, aided by poor skills and airmanship, in attempting to carry out a totally unauthorised air to air photography sortie. Conspicuity here was not an issue. Luck played a part in bringing both damaged A/C back as both were substantially damaged.
I accept what you say re your own safety brief, but we do need to ensure high standards throughout. Keep safe
In response to your query, Accident was 2 x Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 former RAF Sealand 5/8/95 ZE 654 / ZE 677. 1 CGI + 1 Cadet fatal. FRC error not mentioned in RAF IFS report, although it was obliquely referred to in "Subsequent Actions" by stating "Measures have also been taken to brief all who fly in Viking gliders on the correct sequence of actions for canopy jettison" ( What they really meant was - we have now corrected the gross error in RAF FRC's, albeit too late for these two guys, but hey, now you know how to get out, it should make it a lot easier)
A RAF spin doctor ( at best interpretation!) must have drafted this, as the Emergencies page of RAF FRC's WAS WRONG and incorrect, was the subject of a handwritten AL within days, and was formally an AL shortly thereafter in print. Is that called being economic with the truth ?
The Viking T Mk 1 has subsequently in more recent years, been modified by an approved Eng Mod, to make the original Canopy jettison instruction in the original version of FRC's correct, and thus there has been subsequent AL action to change it back to the original.
The other spin off of this fatal was a recommendation "that consideration be given to increasing the conspicuity of gliders" - this was done in the case of both Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 and Grob 109B Vigilant T Mk 1 in RAF service by the addition of dayglow red patches. Since then there has only been one mid air involving RAF vigilant T Mk 1, and no structural failures as a result of the dayglow addition.
The underlying cause was more to do with breaking just about every rule of authorisation in the book, poor supervision, aided by poor skills and airmanship, in attempting to carry out a totally unauthorised air to air photography sortie. Conspicuity here was not an issue. Luck played a part in bringing both damaged A/C back as both were substantially damaged.
I accept what you say re your own safety brief, but we do need to ensure high standards throughout. Keep safe
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duff info
Sorry Nutloose but G-HONG and G-KONG were painted yellow and black and stayed that way. They were sold in the same colour scheme as the rest of the EFT fleet soon after Babcock took over from Huntings mainly for engine commonality - M160 and M260 being in the majority.
Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.
There are no problems painting G115s another colour - it is down to cost and customer requirements.
Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.
There are no problems painting G115s another colour - it is down to cost and customer requirements.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years ago while gliding in Germany, my glider was very conspicuous or so i thought, being bright yellow..!!
However, when matched against against two low level F4's, approaching from slightly left of the nose, you can imagine the consequences resulting from a mid air..
Suffice to say, banking hard left towards them ( yes i know you are meant to break right, however Mk1 eyeball can see through glider floor), put the glider in a bigger plan view. My take on it was if i turn towards them, then i can see them and take further action.
Risk of collision was slight, but was there..
It was drilled into me, to maintain a good lookout, all single op aircraft have a higher workload in the cockpit, whether its a glider or jet.
With the best will in the world, collisions will happen, but hopefully with increased education/TCAS type systems and good airmanship skills, then hopefully the risk will be reduced...
However, when matched against against two low level F4's, approaching from slightly left of the nose, you can imagine the consequences resulting from a mid air..
Suffice to say, banking hard left towards them ( yes i know you are meant to break right, however Mk1 eyeball can see through glider floor), put the glider in a bigger plan view. My take on it was if i turn towards them, then i can see them and take further action.
Risk of collision was slight, but was there..
It was drilled into me, to maintain a good lookout, all single op aircraft have a higher workload in the cockpit, whether its a glider or jet.
With the best will in the world, collisions will happen, but hopefully with increased education/TCAS type systems and good airmanship skills, then hopefully the risk will be reduced...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
angelorangeDuff info
Sorry Nutloose but G-HONG and G-KONG were painted yellow and black and stayed that way. They were sold in the same colour scheme as the rest of the EFT fleet soon after Babcock took over from Huntings mainly for engine commonality - M160 and M260 being in the majority.
Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.
Sorry Nutloose but G-HONG and G-KONG were painted yellow and black and stayed that way. They were sold in the same colour scheme as the rest of the EFT fleet soon after Babcock took over from Huntings mainly for engine commonality - M160 and M260 being in the majority.
Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q) EGXX/QAFTT/IV/BO/E/000/999/5441N00219W999
FROM: 09/06/24 10:37 TO: 09/12/31 23:59
E) TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF RAF AIR EXPERIENCE FLIGHTS OPERATING
PROCEDURES ACROSS THE AVIATION COMMUNITY, A DRAFT AIC HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED.THIS DRAFT AIC CAN BE VIEWED VIA A LINK ON THE FRONT PAGE
AT NATS | AIS
THE AIC WILL BE PUBLISHED ON 13 AUG 2009 AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED
THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS AS WELL AS BEING AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR
VIEWING OR DOWNLOAD.
FROM: 09/06/24 10:37 TO: 09/12/31 23:59
E) TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF RAF AIR EXPERIENCE FLIGHTS OPERATING
PROCEDURES ACROSS THE AVIATION COMMUNITY, A DRAFT AIC HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED.THIS DRAFT AIC CAN BE VIEWED VIA A LINK ON THE FRONT PAGE
AT NATS | AIS
THE AIC WILL BE PUBLISHED ON 13 AUG 2009 AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED
THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS AS WELL AS BEING AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR
VIEWING OR DOWNLOAD.
Tim
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As commented elsewhere, it smacks of an exercise in CYA. If for example all weekend civilian traffic (power and glider) passing through the "squeeze point) between Benson and the Brize zone were to try to call Benson, the system would probably collapse.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draft AIC
Translation of the AIC
"Please look out for RAF aircraft operating in Class G airspace in the vicinity of certain RAF stations outside of published hours and where ATC may not be open. The pilots may not be carrying out full scans, lookouts and HASELL checks, and may, without any warning carry out a hazardous manoevre. Please be advised that you may now be held to be totally responsible for any ensuing accident or incident,as a result of the other pilot's negligent actions or omissions.
No guidance will be promulgated with regard to locations of the many RAF VGS squadrons also operating similar Grob aircraft (Vigilant T Mk1 - Grob 109B), from RAF and other non-RAF airfields. You will just have to spot them when you see them, but then they do have conspicuity markings and strobe lights. Their Instructors/Pilots will be carrying out instructional flight in most cases rather than purely an experience flight. "
A new dawn in air law perhaps.............(removing the airmanship obligations of some pilots, whilst completely overlooking the Vigilant T Mk 1 locations !!)
or could it be a brand new bucket of whitewash just opened by the spin doctors ?
Just like Yes Minister I guess ! Makes it appear that we're actually doing something, but in reality we're not doing much except providing a weasel clause in the event of another accident.
What about improved levels of competency checks, frequency and standards? Does anybody think that this aspect may better re-assure parents of our young prospective pilots ?
Do we think that some new regulations to prevent unregulated sorties may bring some improvements - e.g., permitted on sortie, not permitted on sortie, sign for a specific briefing by duty Auth ?
No sir, at the end of the day, sheer professionalism is what is required to eliminate this type of risk supported by supplementary measures, - not the other way round.
"Please look out for RAF aircraft operating in Class G airspace in the vicinity of certain RAF stations outside of published hours and where ATC may not be open. The pilots may not be carrying out full scans, lookouts and HASELL checks, and may, without any warning carry out a hazardous manoevre. Please be advised that you may now be held to be totally responsible for any ensuing accident or incident,as a result of the other pilot's negligent actions or omissions.
No guidance will be promulgated with regard to locations of the many RAF VGS squadrons also operating similar Grob aircraft (Vigilant T Mk1 - Grob 109B), from RAF and other non-RAF airfields. You will just have to spot them when you see them, but then they do have conspicuity markings and strobe lights. Their Instructors/Pilots will be carrying out instructional flight in most cases rather than purely an experience flight. "
A new dawn in air law perhaps.............(removing the airmanship obligations of some pilots, whilst completely overlooking the Vigilant T Mk 1 locations !!)
or could it be a brand new bucket of whitewash just opened by the spin doctors ?
Just like Yes Minister I guess ! Makes it appear that we're actually doing something, but in reality we're not doing much except providing a weasel clause in the event of another accident.
What about improved levels of competency checks, frequency and standards? Does anybody think that this aspect may better re-assure parents of our young prospective pilots ?
Do we think that some new regulations to prevent unregulated sorties may bring some improvements - e.g., permitted on sortie, not permitted on sortie, sign for a specific briefing by duty Auth ?
No sir, at the end of the day, sheer professionalism is what is required to eliminate this type of risk supported by supplementary measures, - not the other way round.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well EnigmAviation - may I suggest that you have not seen an AEF in operation, and most certainly you have not seen mine.
There is a requirement for all pilots to undergo a full-blown flying ability test (FAT) every year. This includes examination of their knowledge of checks and procedures, their ability to fly steep turns, stalling (3 variants), aerobatics, fully developed spins, incipient spins, emergency drills and actions, practice forced landings, circuits (normal, flapless, glide and low level), engine failure after take-off drills and actions, and - in the case of my AEF because not all runways in all conditions and circumstances have a safe "straight ahead" option - practice turn-backs. Following the flight test, there is an essential knowledge quiz.
At the 6 month point between FATs the pilots have to fly a "competency" check ride. In fact, I fly a full FAT with all pilots every 6 months rather than one FAT and a competency check. All pilots are further checked and standardised by flying with Central Flying School examiners at a minimum interval of once every 4 years.
There is an order laying out what events can be flown with cadets on board and what events can NOT be flown with cadets on board. All pilots have to fly "essential basic training requirement" manoeuvres every 90 days. To ensure that they can keep abreast of this requirement for the events that can't be flown with cadets on board, each pilots has to fly a certain minimum number of "staff continuation training" sorties each year.
All pilots have to sign authorisation sheets that they understand exactly what they are required to do on each sortie. In the vast majority of cases, I am the one that authorises their sorties. If I am away on leave, detachment, or on a course, then one of my deputies will authorise the pilots on my behalf. All of my deputies are vastly experienced and have been authorisers/supervisors in their past RAF careers. Furthermore, all of my pilots are extremely experienced and have supervised as either squadron authorisers, flight commanders, squadron commanders, station commanders, Group commanders, "Command" commanders and - in at least one case - RAF commanders (ie Chief of the Air Staff).
Therefore, I am confident that my AEF pilots are supervised to a more than adequate level and I am also confident that my pilots all have vast experience and expertise that is tested and proved on a regular and frequent basis.
No I am NOT complacent and we do frequently look at our procedures practices and we do make any changes that we think will improve our efficiency and safety whenever necessary.
What about improved levels of competency checks, frequency and standards?
There is a requirement for all pilots to undergo a full-blown flying ability test (FAT) every year. This includes examination of their knowledge of checks and procedures, their ability to fly steep turns, stalling (3 variants), aerobatics, fully developed spins, incipient spins, emergency drills and actions, practice forced landings, circuits (normal, flapless, glide and low level), engine failure after take-off drills and actions, and - in the case of my AEF because not all runways in all conditions and circumstances have a safe "straight ahead" option - practice turn-backs. Following the flight test, there is an essential knowledge quiz.
At the 6 month point between FATs the pilots have to fly a "competency" check ride. In fact, I fly a full FAT with all pilots every 6 months rather than one FAT and a competency check. All pilots are further checked and standardised by flying with Central Flying School examiners at a minimum interval of once every 4 years.
e.g., permitted on sortie, not permitted on sortie, sign for a specific briefing by duty Auth ?
All pilots have to sign authorisation sheets that they understand exactly what they are required to do on each sortie. In the vast majority of cases, I am the one that authorises their sorties. If I am away on leave, detachment, or on a course, then one of my deputies will authorise the pilots on my behalf. All of my deputies are vastly experienced and have been authorisers/supervisors in their past RAF careers. Furthermore, all of my pilots are extremely experienced and have supervised as either squadron authorisers, flight commanders, squadron commanders, station commanders, Group commanders, "Command" commanders and - in at least one case - RAF commanders (ie Chief of the Air Staff).
Therefore, I am confident that my AEF pilots are supervised to a more than adequate level and I am also confident that my pilots all have vast experience and expertise that is tested and proved on a regular and frequent basis.
No I am NOT complacent and we do frequently look at our procedures practices and we do make any changes that we think will improve our efficiency and safety whenever necessary.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot to mention that if any pilot goes out of currency (31 days) then he has to fly a currency check with an instructor before he is permitted to fly solo or with cadets.
If he goes outside the 90 day currency for any essential basic training requirement (BTR) then he has to fly that (or those) BTR(s) with an instructor.
If he goes outside the 90 day currency for any essential basic training requirement (BTR) then he has to fly that (or those) BTR(s) with an instructor.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well said wholigan. i'm certain there is exceptions to every rule but I'd much rather be in a tutor with a qsp than in a vigilant with a cgi when the proverbial hits the fan. simply put, if a person has earnt service wings then they have demonstrated an adequate (by military aviation) standard.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I visited the VGS at Abingdon this weekend and it was obvious that as far as this accident was concerned they considered it was a case of, ‘there but for the grace of god’. It was all too close to home and involved people they knew
Abingdon is NOTAM’d as an active gliding site and as the VGS operates motor gliders the low overcast of Saturday wouldn’t and didn’t stop them from operating. It is therefore not surprising that the staff were more than a little put out by the poor airmanship displayed by a helicopter and two warbirds who crossed the airfield without the courtesy of a radio call. The warbirds were above circuit height but not by much, certainly lower than any Vigilant rejoining. On the other hand the helicopter was below circuit height. The track of all three aircraft also took them through an adjacent NOTAM’d temporary no-fly area. Presumably these professional pilots had checked the NOTAMS before their flight? Obviously not.
I also learnt that on the same day as the mid-air a small passenger jet made an approach to Abingdon whilst it was being used as a motor race circuit, they obviously thought they were approaching Oxford Kidlington. I was informed that this sort of thing happens more often than it should.
This little corner of England is a congested bit of airspace and throwing even more rules at won’t help if aviators don’t abide by them.
I’ve been vague on purpose in the descriptions of the aircraft involved but if you are one of the pilots involved you’ll recognise yourself, hopefully.
Abingdon is NOTAM’d as an active gliding site and as the VGS operates motor gliders the low overcast of Saturday wouldn’t and didn’t stop them from operating. It is therefore not surprising that the staff were more than a little put out by the poor airmanship displayed by a helicopter and two warbirds who crossed the airfield without the courtesy of a radio call. The warbirds were above circuit height but not by much, certainly lower than any Vigilant rejoining. On the other hand the helicopter was below circuit height. The track of all three aircraft also took them through an adjacent NOTAM’d temporary no-fly area. Presumably these professional pilots had checked the NOTAMS before their flight? Obviously not.
I also learnt that on the same day as the mid-air a small passenger jet made an approach to Abingdon whilst it was being used as a motor race circuit, they obviously thought they were approaching Oxford Kidlington. I was informed that this sort of thing happens more often than it should.
This little corner of England is a congested bit of airspace and throwing even more rules at won’t help if aviators don’t abide by them.
I’ve been vague on purpose in the descriptions of the aircraft involved but if you are one of the pilots involved you’ll recognise yourself, hopefully.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholigan, you always get one, don't you?
I suspect you-know-who has probably amassed 150 hours in a Cessna 150 and considers himself a first class very experienced pilot; certainly on a par with anyone flying with the Red Arrows. So naturally, he considers his analysis of the AIG [ie, between the lines] is quite correct. So there.
It has been a few years since I did AEF [Chipmunks] and remember well the plethera of checks one had to go through each year. But it was worth it. Blokes like him are not worth bothering about, although sadly, his twisted view of military professionals he will spread to whoever will buy him a pint and lend an ear for a few minutes...
FJJP
I suspect you-know-who has probably amassed 150 hours in a Cessna 150 and considers himself a first class very experienced pilot; certainly on a par with anyone flying with the Red Arrows. So naturally, he considers his analysis of the AIG [ie, between the lines] is quite correct. So there.
It has been a few years since I did AEF [Chipmunks] and remember well the plethera of checks one had to go through each year. But it was worth it. Blokes like him are not worth bothering about, although sadly, his twisted view of military professionals he will spread to whoever will buy him a pint and lend an ear for a few minutes...
FJJP
I can quite understand professionals taking umbrage at the tone of EnigmAviation's post, I thought it at least in bad taste.
It did, however, express clearly the disgust at the utter uselessness of whoever produced an AIC which says that aviation takes place by a relatively small number of aircraft in a large part of UK airspace.
One of the tragic incidents took place between two AEF aircraft from the same base, who undoubtedly didn't need the information in the AIC.
I am sure that thorough reviews of procedures are taking place at the operational level, so that appropriate lessons are learnt and useful changes made if identified. I also happen to know that other measures are being considered to make a historically safe activity even safer if possible.
I first committed aviation as a 13 year old ATC cadet, and spent as many hours in the air as I could wangle over the next four years until I joined the RAF. I would consider it an even greater tragedy than the unfortunate incidents if these activities did not carry on.
It did, however, express clearly the disgust at the utter uselessness of whoever produced an AIC which says that aviation takes place by a relatively small number of aircraft in a large part of UK airspace.
One of the tragic incidents took place between two AEF aircraft from the same base, who undoubtedly didn't need the information in the AIC.
I am sure that thorough reviews of procedures are taking place at the operational level, so that appropriate lessons are learnt and useful changes made if identified. I also happen to know that other measures are being considered to make a historically safe activity even safer if possible.
I first committed aviation as a 13 year old ATC cadet, and spent as many hours in the air as I could wangle over the next four years until I joined the RAF. I would consider it an even greater tragedy than the unfortunate incidents if these activities did not carry on.