Lightning Down At FAOB

[tucumseh]

Waddo

Thanks.

There is no conflict between "not to establish legal liability" and a BoI noting "organisational fault". I infer from your post that you believe a BoI would be pronouncing on legal liability if it mentioned such a fault. I don't think that is the case, although I also believe there are many examples when BoIs, and especially ROs, have been extremely careless with their words and not considered the consequences. Arrogance of power causes this; the belief they will never be called to account for their accusations. MoK is a classic example - which is why it is brought up so frequently. It is not to generate "yet another MoK thread", it is because it reveals all that is wrong with the "organisation" - far more so than the Nimrod case.


However, clearly, legal action COULD arise from such a fault, particularly if problems arose from, for example, the issuing of illegal orders (Chinook, Nimrod, Sea King etc). But an organsiational fault can also be something as "simple" as a breakdown in communications.

My point is that in every case discussed here, organsiational fault is demonstrably at the root, yet is never mentioned. One must ask why.

[Waddo Plumber]

I think you may be assuming military BoI procedures would read across into the civil field. From what I've gleaned from posts here, the TC investigation was working under rules which prevented them from buiding a case against the legal entitly, so could only catalogue facts about the organisation. Either that, or the investigation didn't go as far as it should under the SA CAA rules. As it stands, the organisation part is a dog's breakfast, and TC are saying they've been the subjects of emotive arm waving, with no solid accusation they could refute.

As I said in my first post, I wasn't impressed by the report.

[Lightning Mate]

If the canopy does not release, the seats can't fire

That is correct, although it did not occur in RAF service.

Maintenance?????

[Tableview]

According to my understanding of the report, the gas canisters that fire the ejection seat had not been inspected or replaced for 8 years, so even if the canopy had released, the seat would not have ejected.

[walbut]

Tableview,
Your understanding is not quite correct. Seat cartridges are qualification tested to ensure they meet the specified Installed and Total lives (Total life being the Shelf life plus Installed life). Provided the cartridges are used within these time limits there is a very high probability that they will operate correctly (but nothing is absolutely certain). If these lives are exceeded there is an increasing risk that the cartridges will not operate correctly and fail to give the required gas pressure to operate the seat mechanism concerned. In the worst case they may not ignite at all.

The cleared lives are usually conservative to account for all the possible variations in environmental conditions, explosive mix and other tolerances. For the escape system to operate correctly a number of cartridges have to operate in sequence and the older they are, the greater the risk that one will fail and interrupt the sequence. However they don't stop working completely as soon as the cleared life has expired.

Another interesting point in the report is that the cartridges were not supplied by Martin Baker so were the units fitted properly qualification tested by an approved supplier, or was this another example of irresponsible corner cutting by the operator.

[Al R]

Another interesting point in the report is that the cartridges were not supplied by Martin Baker so were the units fitted properly qualification tested by an approved supplier, or was this another example of irresponsible corner cutting by the operator.

Christ. If I had a Ferarri, I'd go to Halfords for oh, an air freshener for it. Everything else required.. OEM all the way.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by LM

That is correct, although it did not occur in RAF service.

- was there not a fatality where a jammed canopy forced a crash landing and the a/c dropped into a ditch which loosened the canopy and.....................?

[Scruffy Fanny]

Previous Accident

XR721 -1965/6 January
Sadly as you say BOAC with Fatal result - Canopy Interlock not connected
SF

[Audax]

As said above, XR 721 crashed on 5 Jan 1966 with sadly fatal results, I quote from the IAM report:-

'The cockpit canopy jettison system had fired when the pilot initiated ejection but one lock or shoot bolt had failed so that the canopy could not lift from the front and it had remained held by that shoot bolt. The ground impact was sufficient to shake the canopy off and thus remove the interdictor.'

The report then says that the pilot would have had to pull the handle again to set the seat off or possibly the seat was forced up by the presumably very rough landing to start the sequence again. Whatever, a very sad ending after the almost impossibilty of deadsticking a Lightning.

[Lightning Mate]

was there not a fatality where a jammed canopy forced a crash landing and the
a/c dropped into a ditch which loosened the canopy and.....................?

Ah so BOAC - you obviously have more memory cells than my six!

[Tableview]

walbut: Thank you for that clarification. However, it is perhaps (and I only say perhaps!) a reasonable assumption that those cartridges would not have worked if they were so far beyond their 'best before date'.

[Halton Brat]

I seem to recall that the seat cartridges were obtained from a non-MB source, even 'locally manufactured'?

I would not knowingly risk my life in such a seat - would these cartridges have even worked properly when brand new?

HB

[Waddo Plumber]

Local Manufacture yes, but by an internationally recognised company. Pretoria Metal Pressing division of Denel, have been making military cartridges and ammunition since 1938. The carts were made to MB and (where appropriate) MiLSpec.

The cartridges which ejected the canopy fired. However, the pipework failed.

[Halton Brat]

Thanks WP - any slur retracted.

HB

[bvcu]

Interesting report , dont think it just applies to an ex-military a/c . What was documented meant it wasnt airworthy whatever type it was. And thats just the documentary evidence , could have been the best maintained jet in the world but the paperwork shows the mindset which is scary whatever the type. Recall doing the blow-off checks using compressed air/nitrogen on the canopy release on the lightning and the hunter. Being guided by guys with years of experience on both types . But did any of these guys have relevant experience , those of us that have worked these types know that the manuals are just a basic description , without the amount of info provided on more modern types. These older types are a minefield to operate without the relevant experience , which is hard to locate these days.

[squib66]

What amazes me is that Shell Aircraft were involved in sponsoring this outfit!