Tutor Mid-air report.
The terminology used in Mary Meagher's post suggests that she/he is in some way involved in aviation, which makes the naivety of some of her/his comments quite astonishing. Thanks Anonystude and Wholigan for putting her and Korrol right on some of their points, something they could have done for themselves had they read the reports correctly, eg mixing up a formation takeoff with one timed at one minute intervals.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholigan has it absolutely spot on.
Having been to a number of AEF's regularly as both a cadet and as VR(T) staff, I can say that there is a very high standard and degree of consistency between all of them with regards to safety briefing - be it on the aircraft, or on the parachute. All cadets are shown how to use the parachute on fitting.
Knowing how many cadets turn up for an AEF detail is irrelevant, however cadets from one or many units may turn up for an AEF detail. Certainly where I have attended, around 30 cadets will be detailed to fly in a session. In choosing which order to fly cadets in, it is most likely from my experience that those who have not flown will fly first, and those who have flown most will fly last (or possibly not at all in the case of any delays or weather issues), followed possibly by staff. The fact that these 2 girls were related is likely to be tragic but not unlikely coincidence, as neither had flown, being cousins they were likely to have attended together, therefore their 3822 record of service books may have been together in the pile, and having not flown therefore were likely to be at the top of the pile.
AEF flights for cadets are not a rare uncommon event - the Tutor is detailed, and was partly purchased to provide these flights. They happen week in, week out at all the AEF's around the country. it is an experienced and professional operation.
Having been to a number of AEF's regularly as both a cadet and as VR(T) staff, I can say that there is a very high standard and degree of consistency between all of them with regards to safety briefing - be it on the aircraft, or on the parachute. All cadets are shown how to use the parachute on fitting.
Knowing how many cadets turn up for an AEF detail is irrelevant, however cadets from one or many units may turn up for an AEF detail. Certainly where I have attended, around 30 cadets will be detailed to fly in a session. In choosing which order to fly cadets in, it is most likely from my experience that those who have not flown will fly first, and those who have flown most will fly last (or possibly not at all in the case of any delays or weather issues), followed possibly by staff. The fact that these 2 girls were related is likely to be tragic but not unlikely coincidence, as neither had flown, being cousins they were likely to have attended together, therefore their 3822 record of service books may have been together in the pile, and having not flown therefore were likely to be at the top of the pile.
AEF flights for cadets are not a rare uncommon event - the Tutor is detailed, and was partly purchased to provide these flights. They happen week in, week out at all the AEF's around the country. it is an experienced and professional operation.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorough report
Overall a very well considered Serivice Inquiry into a tragic event.
It confirms that "See and be Seen" is all very well if (a) the pilot can see out of the cockpit and (b) the other a/c is obvious to the Mk1 eyeball.
The current Tutor canopy design leaves much to be desired when compared to the old Bulldog or Firefly - especially in turns steeper than 30 degrees when having to look past the central spine.
The advice for a "go forward"/harness is laudable as the current design pins the shoulders back.
Conspicuity/Colour is another factor cited - the report has much to say on contrast and suggests slightly darker airframe colours (than background for daylight ops) are better with the advantages of fluorescent paint schemes debatable.
TCAS is recommended but there is no comment on the false indications these devices can give during high G / Aerobatic or pitching manoeuvres.
It remains to be seen what can be implemented to improve matters.
It confirms that "See and be Seen" is all very well if (a) the pilot can see out of the cockpit and (b) the other a/c is obvious to the Mk1 eyeball.
The current Tutor canopy design leaves much to be desired when compared to the old Bulldog or Firefly - especially in turns steeper than 30 degrees when having to look past the central spine.
The advice for a "go forward"/harness is laudable as the current design pins the shoulders back.
Conspicuity/Colour is another factor cited - the report has much to say on contrast and suggests slightly darker airframe colours (than background for daylight ops) are better with the advantages of fluorescent paint schemes debatable.
TCAS is recommended but there is no comment on the false indications these devices can give during high G / Aerobatic or pitching manoeuvres.
It remains to be seen what can be implemented to improve matters.
That cr*ppy pdf
I don't think that it's a legal requirement; that would be covered by the existence of the paper document, if necessary.
No, it's the appalling and inconsistent state of the MOD's (not just the RAF's) IT kit. Not many people have a way of making pdf files and they are probably unaware that it would come out much smaller and neater if it were straight from the original file – electronically.
If only the MOD had continued with Macs ...
No, it's the appalling and inconsistent state of the MOD's (not just the RAF's) IT kit. Not many people have a way of making pdf files and they are probably unaware that it would come out much smaller and neater if it were straight from the original file – electronically.
If only the MOD had continued with Macs ...
Minor addition about the varifocals. Missus Fairy (a dispensing optician of some years standing) tells me that varifocals DO interfere with peripheral vision and that you need to look with your nose to cover the gap.
Whether any of the crew were wearing varifocals I don't know, and I don't know if it was a factor in the accident but I wanted to pass this snippet on.
Whether any of the crew were wearing varifocals I don't know, and I don't know if it was a factor in the accident but I wanted to pass this snippet on.
Metman - The number of cadets at St Athan is usually substantially lower than 30, and it was not uncommon to have single figures turn up. Thus as you say, it is actually reasonably likely that 2 relations could be randomly selected to fly at the same time (especially with 3 a/c operating AEF).
To all those that seem to have an agenda(or think the RAF/AEF does) - remember, a lot of people involved in the AEF (both regular, VR and VR(T)) give up their time (both paid and unpaid) to make sure these kids have a great time and get something out of it. They're not there to show off how great they are, but to try and give the kids an experience they don't get anywhere else. That frequently involves doing things like aerobatics, which are not done for the purpose of showing off, but can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zone.
It's a fantastic system, that is the envy of many youth organisations the world over. It's tragic, but sometimes accidents do indeed happen, in all walks of life, not just aviation.
Fly safe everyone
To all those that seem to have an agenda(or think the RAF/AEF does) - remember, a lot of people involved in the AEF (both regular, VR and VR(T)) give up their time (both paid and unpaid) to make sure these kids have a great time and get something out of it. They're not there to show off how great they are, but to try and give the kids an experience they don't get anywhere else. That frequently involves doing things like aerobatics, which are not done for the purpose of showing off, but can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zone.
It's a fantastic system, that is the envy of many youth organisations the world over. It's tragic, but sometimes accidents do indeed happen, in all walks of life, not just aviation.
Fly safe everyone
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Anonystrude: Thank you for answering my points, and correcting any misinformation. Yes, I do still fly, and have more than 3,000 hours, though never in or near the military, and I am not a piscatorial journalist.
Nevertheless perhaps some of my points could prove useful. Trying to prevent anything like the Tutor Mid-air from happening again......hopefully the organisation will look respectfully at suggestions from another discipline; I have flown over the years as an instructor on more than 3,400 flights, with all ages.
1. We must have a different understanding of the term wingover.
2. You agree the canopy structure can possibly obscure the view of other aircraft.
3. Post 27 concurrs with my warning about varifocal lenses.
4. Nope, never wore a bonedome, except once in a microlite. I can only imagine its effect on your scan. Can you turn your head enough to look back over your shoulder while wearing it?
5. If finding the canopy handle in the Tutor is difficult, perhaps this requires a mod? Has an actual jettison ever been practiced to your knowlege? Not much use wearing a parachute if you can't get rid of the canopy.
6. As for those takeoffs, Tankertrash nav finds my ignorance astonishing. Quite true, I have no experience at all of either formation takeoffs or those timed at l minute intervals.
NEVERTHELESS, the report says, in part 1.3, item 1, that the Tutors took off at 1037 and 1038, and maintained approx. l minute separation during a standard VFR departure to the West. The actual collision took place at l046, approximately 8 minutes later.
Why are you then so scornful of my suggestion that " at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be planned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned, and the plan followed"?
And as for pba target's idea that aeros "can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zones", inflicting aeros on beginners, in my experience, puts most of them off for life.
Nevertheless perhaps some of my points could prove useful. Trying to prevent anything like the Tutor Mid-air from happening again......hopefully the organisation will look respectfully at suggestions from another discipline; I have flown over the years as an instructor on more than 3,400 flights, with all ages.
1. We must have a different understanding of the term wingover.
2. You agree the canopy structure can possibly obscure the view of other aircraft.
3. Post 27 concurrs with my warning about varifocal lenses.
4. Nope, never wore a bonedome, except once in a microlite. I can only imagine its effect on your scan. Can you turn your head enough to look back over your shoulder while wearing it?
5. If finding the canopy handle in the Tutor is difficult, perhaps this requires a mod? Has an actual jettison ever been practiced to your knowlege? Not much use wearing a parachute if you can't get rid of the canopy.
6. As for those takeoffs, Tankertrash nav finds my ignorance astonishing. Quite true, I have no experience at all of either formation takeoffs or those timed at l minute intervals.
NEVERTHELESS, the report says, in part 1.3, item 1, that the Tutors took off at 1037 and 1038, and maintained approx. l minute separation during a standard VFR departure to the West. The actual collision took place at l046, approximately 8 minutes later.
Why are you then so scornful of my suggestion that " at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be planned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned, and the plan followed"?
And as for pba target's idea that aeros "can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zones", inflicting aeros on beginners, in my experience, puts most of them off for life.
4. Nope, never wore a bonedome, except once in a microlite. I can only imagine its effect on your scan. Can you turn your head enough to look back over your shoulder while wearing it?
As noted in the report, the absence of a go-forward facility on the Tutor's shoulder straps is a minor hindrance to rear-sector lookout; some wizened old UAS QFIs of my acquaintance advocate slightly loosening the shoulder straps once airborne to achieve the same effect.
Why are you then so scornful of my suggestion that " at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be planned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned, and the plan followed"?
My own main observation from this accident concerns the use of ATC services during medium-level general handling by us military fliers. For years, the culture was to get rid of ATC ASAP - "squawking 7000, enroute". It seems that was in operation on this fateful day at St Athan. My own corner of the RAF is moving away from this, probably as a result of years of medium-level operations in Iraq (where it was the norm to have some sort of ATC service at all times). Now, more and more crews are getting a Traffic Service whilst conducting medium-level training - with the general reduction in military traffic, it's usually possible to get a quiet frequency, and the gain in situational awareness is huge. Sometimes you get ATC talking when you're trying to deal with a JTAC on the other radio, but hey, that happens on ops as well! So kids, get a radar service (unless you're at low level - but then you've only got half the sky to search
)
1. We must have a different understanding of the term wingover.
Why are you then so scornful of my suggestion that " at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be planned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned, and the plan followed"?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Easy Street, for your considered reply. I am relieved to learn that the RAF is willing to accept assistance from controllers for situational awareness. Those of us forced to share some of the narrow VFR corridors remaining with medium level fast jet traffic (spotted one, where is the other guy?!*&@!) will be much happier. We are also grateful to the military radar services, particularly Brize.
Still hoping for an answer to my other question; has anybody actually practiced an emergency jettison of the Tutor canopy?
Best regards
Still hoping for an answer to my other question; has anybody actually practiced an emergency jettison of the Tutor canopy?
Best regards
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ulster
Age: 64
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for pba target's idea that aeros "can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zones", inflicting aeros on beginners, in my experience, puts most of them off for life.
The pilots at the AEFs are some of the most professional and experianced people I have ever met and none of them need to show off as most have been there and bought the t-shirt,you would not believe the former ranks and background of some of them .I would trust any of them with my life and have done,even more I have trusted them with both my sons lives and would not hesitate in doing so again.
Mary, to address a few of your points:
I'm with 5 Forward 6 Back
I agree. Although having said that, The view from a Tutor is much better than that of a C150/152 which have aerobatic versions, and generally better than most other SEP aircraft too.
I don't wear glasses, so Haven't a clue!
As Easy Street said, it doesn't affect your scan. I've sustained 6G (which is also the Tutor limit) in a bone dome, looking behind the aircraft. I,e, checking my 6 o'clock. Good lookout is absolutely fundamental to military flying.
If you lift your left hand up, you'll find the jettison handle. It's also red. I don't personally think it's hard to find. But then again, I wasn't involved in a mid air collision, and suddenly found myself with a damaged aircraft, out of control, out of my comfort zone, getting closer to the ground. quickly. With the well-being of a young cadet as my responsibility, probably in a state of panic, and then finding myself having to recall the necessary drill in the very limited time available. I can't possibly say what my reaction would have been.
However, it has always been SOP to practice the abandon drill at least once a month. It's a currency, so if it hasn't been practiced, you don't fly until you have. This drill included a TOUCH drill of the jettison handle i,e, the canopy isn't actually jettisoned. Since the accident, the base I was at not too long ago (with an EFT sqn and AEF) started regular demonstrations of actually jettisoning the canopy. Not sure if this is a fleet-wide implementation though.
6. Has already been answered.
I don't think a 10 minute interval would help, as 10 minutes later, you'd be in the same airspace anyway. All AEF's and EFT Sqns (as far as im aware) have now "sectorised" their airspace. Prior to take off, they mark down what sector they're planning on operating in on a board in ops. e,g, if someone will be operating in the north sector, then the next pilot will operate in the east/west/south sector for example. Personally I think TCAS would be an excellent addition. When I flew the Tucano (which has TCAS) I was amazed at how many aircraft were out there!!
Aero's aren't "pushed" onto a cadets if they don't want to do them. Often the first flight doesn't include Aero's. However, if a cadet is particularly keen, then the pilot will happily oblige. If a cadet feels unwell, then Aero's are discontinued.
I still remember my first AEF flight with very fond memories. It included Aero's and I loved every second of it. 10 years later, and I'm in the RAF doing the best job in the world.
1. We must have a different understanding of the term wingover.
2. You agree the canopy structure can possibly obscure the view of other aircraft.
3. Post 27 concurrs with my warning about varifocal lenses.
4. Nope, never wore a bonedome, except once in a microlite. I can only imagine its effect on your scan. Can you turn your head enough to look back over your shoulder while wearing it?
5. If finding the canopy handle in the Tutor is difficult, perhaps this requires a mod? Has an actual jettison ever been practiced to your knowlege? Not much use wearing a parachute if you can't get rid of the canopy.
However, it has always been SOP to practice the abandon drill at least once a month. It's a currency, so if it hasn't been practiced, you don't fly until you have. This drill included a TOUCH drill of the jettison handle i,e, the canopy isn't actually jettisoned. Since the accident, the base I was at not too long ago (with an EFT sqn and AEF) started regular demonstrations of actually jettisoning the canopy. Not sure if this is a fleet-wide implementation though.
6. Has already been answered.
I don't think a 10 minute interval would help, as 10 minutes later, you'd be in the same airspace anyway. All AEF's and EFT Sqns (as far as im aware) have now "sectorised" their airspace. Prior to take off, they mark down what sector they're planning on operating in on a board in ops. e,g, if someone will be operating in the north sector, then the next pilot will operate in the east/west/south sector for example. Personally I think TCAS would be an excellent addition. When I flew the Tucano (which has TCAS) I was amazed at how many aircraft were out there!!
And as for pba target's idea that aeros "can be fantastic for building confidence in sometimes quite timid teenagers who are out of their comfort zones", inflicting aeros on beginners, in my experience, puts most of them off for life.
I still remember my first AEF flight with very fond memories. It included Aero's and I loved every second of it. 10 years later, and I'm in the RAF doing the best job in the world.
To reinforce some of the stuff above:
Helmets are fine. AEF pilots are all current or ex mil who have loads of experience and training wearing these things. They do not inhibit lookout which is taught from minute one of day one. From my Grob RHS I can see the fin if I wish (and I do).
Wingovers (gentle or less so) are an ideal way to clear a massive area of sky prior to aeros.
In my experience, introducing beginners to aeros is a fantastic way to generate the biggest grins you ever see. Very rarely do cadets ask not to and then there's plenty of other things to do.
AEF flying is astonishingly rewarding. Having been introduced to flying in the back of a chippy 30+ yrs ago, it is now a pleasure to do the same for others.
DH
Helmets are fine. AEF pilots are all current or ex mil who have loads of experience and training wearing these things. They do not inhibit lookout which is taught from minute one of day one. From my Grob RHS I can see the fin if I wish (and I do).
Wingovers (gentle or less so) are an ideal way to clear a massive area of sky prior to aeros.
In my experience, introducing beginners to aeros is a fantastic way to generate the biggest grins you ever see. Very rarely do cadets ask not to and then there's plenty of other things to do.
AEF flying is astonishingly rewarding. Having been introduced to flying in the back of a chippy 30+ yrs ago, it is now a pleasure to do the same for others.
DH
Mary - Aeros would never be "inflicted" on someone... but it's fairly easy to build up to them in a short space of time without scaring/making sick the person involved.
As for the "getting rid of ATC and squawking 7000" as soon as possible, my memory may be failing me, but did Cardiff ATC not change from providing a service to the AEF to asking them to go en-route where possible due to increased workload? I didn't read any mention of it in the report, and I may have the wrong end of the stick.
Mary - I've popped the canopy on the ground, but not all the way off, because, as I understand it, doing so would bear no resemblance to popping it it in flight, as in flight the principle is you pop it, push the leading edge up and back, then let the airflow do the rest of the work. Not sure if that's what you are referring to?
As for the "getting rid of ATC and squawking 7000" as soon as possible, my memory may be failing me, but did Cardiff ATC not change from providing a service to the AEF to asking them to go en-route where possible due to increased workload? I didn't read any mention of it in the report, and I may have the wrong end of the stick.
Mary - I've popped the canopy on the ground, but not all the way off, because, as I understand it, doing so would bear no resemblance to popping it it in flight, as in flight the principle is you pop it, push the leading edge up and back, then let the airflow do the rest of the work. Not sure if that's what you are referring to?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
There are always lessons to be learned after an accident (or a close shave, which we have all had).
Here we had two white coloured aircraft, the colour that most pilots agree is the most difficult to see in the air. Undoubtedly a failure of the "see and be seen" principle occurred.
Most of the discussion seems to be patronisation / thinly veiled criticism of the AEF organistation, some of it based on ignorance. What lessons might be learned by the gliding fraternity?
Here we had two white coloured aircraft, the colour that most pilots agree is the most difficult to see in the air. Undoubtedly a failure of the "see and be seen" principle occurred.
Most of the discussion seems to be patronisation / thinly veiled criticism of the AEF organistation, some of it based on ignorance. What lessons might be learned by the gliding fraternity?
Canopy jettisons and egress trials were something done in the past at A&AEE Boscombe Down, but only in a 1 g environment. Aircraft (or just sections of them) were placed in front of the blower tunnel and 4 RR Merlins provided an airflow upto 500+ Knots. Canopies could be jettisoned, ejector seats fired and even crew abandonments carried out (catch nets provided).
To my knowledge the last unassisted abandonments conducted were on the Shackleton AEW (could the crew clear the radome when using the under nose escape hatch?) that means the Tutor as well as the Viking and Vigilant gliders haven't been tested even after fatal mid-air betwen two Vikings at RAF Sealand where the failure to jettison the canopy properly was identified by the investigation.
Could canopy jettisons and crew abondonments be conducted? Yes, the Blower tunnel is still at Boscombe Down. Will trials be conducted? No, they cost too much
To my knowledge the last unassisted abandonments conducted were on the Shackleton AEW (could the crew clear the radome when using the under nose escape hatch?) that means the Tutor as well as the Viking and Vigilant gliders haven't been tested even after fatal mid-air betwen two Vikings at RAF Sealand where the failure to jettison the canopy properly was identified by the investigation.
Could canopy jettisons and crew abondonments be conducted? Yes, the Blower tunnel is still at Boscombe Down. Will trials be conducted? No, they cost too much
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street: good points on the whole. However:
"the absence of a go-forward facility on the Tutor's shoulder straps is a minor hindrance to rear-sector lookout; some wizened old UAS QFIs of my acquaintance advocate slightly loosening the shoulder straps once airborne to achieve the same effect."
It is not a minor hindrance - loosening them is against SOP and HASELL checks. The straps are there for a reason and the shoulder straps back up the negative g strap (which is too long at shortest setting for most) during aeros. Other a/c have a a mid torso fixing behind the seat with go-fwd setting. The Tutor has individual fixings for each shoulder meaning no flex to rotate the torso.
"Now, more and more crews are getting a Traffic Service whilst conducting medium-level training - with the general reduction in military traffic, it's usually possible to get a quiet frequency, and the gain in situational awareness is huge."
Tutors operate mostly below 5000 feet due to low climb rate. For EFT work a Traffic Service has proven unworkable due to a shortage of controllers and busy teaching environment. It may work for AEF. Quiet frequencies have been used for decades for teaching but are now under threat as this report suggests - increasing Mental Air Picture by using the radio more often.
Professor Plum: "The view from a Tutor is much better than that of a C150/152 which have aerobatic versions, and generally better than most other SEP aircraft too."
The view sideways and straight ahead is very good in the Tutor. The problem arises when you want to carry out turns steeper than 30 deg AoB or aerobatic pitching manouevres. Previous trainers such as the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Firefly were far better in this respect.
Most Civilian SEP are used for A to B PPL flights not aerobatics. There are very few C150 Aerobats flying cf almost 100 Tutors and for lookout below a Cessna has an advantage. Almost all those Civilian a/c used for aerobatic training have superb Field of view eg: Extra 300, CAP10, Yak52, etc...
Canopy Ejection:
The proceedure is more complicated than described by posters. It does not pop open. Indeed when the canopy is flown in the vent position (speed below 100KIAS) it will tend to move forward and try to close itself unless locked.
The red emergency pull handle does NOT release the canopy - it unlocks it. The larger handle must then be rotated through almost 180 deg. Then the INSIDE arm has to be used to push the canopy frame backwards and upwards. The proceedure takes a good few seconds to complete.
As far as I am aware only one Tutor has lost a canopy airborne - In 2004 a canopy detached due to vibration after a propellor blade detached in flight.
"Since the accident, the base I was at not too long ago (with an EFT sqn and AEF) started regular demonstrations of actually jettisoning the canopy. Not sure if this is a fleet-wide implementation though."
First I have heard of it and sounds very expensive.
"the absence of a go-forward facility on the Tutor's shoulder straps is a minor hindrance to rear-sector lookout; some wizened old UAS QFIs of my acquaintance advocate slightly loosening the shoulder straps once airborne to achieve the same effect."
It is not a minor hindrance - loosening them is against SOP and HASELL checks. The straps are there for a reason and the shoulder straps back up the negative g strap (which is too long at shortest setting for most) during aeros. Other a/c have a a mid torso fixing behind the seat with go-fwd setting. The Tutor has individual fixings for each shoulder meaning no flex to rotate the torso.
"Now, more and more crews are getting a Traffic Service whilst conducting medium-level training - with the general reduction in military traffic, it's usually possible to get a quiet frequency, and the gain in situational awareness is huge."
Tutors operate mostly below 5000 feet due to low climb rate. For EFT work a Traffic Service has proven unworkable due to a shortage of controllers and busy teaching environment. It may work for AEF. Quiet frequencies have been used for decades for teaching but are now under threat as this report suggests - increasing Mental Air Picture by using the radio more often.
Professor Plum: "The view from a Tutor is much better than that of a C150/152 which have aerobatic versions, and generally better than most other SEP aircraft too."
The view sideways and straight ahead is very good in the Tutor. The problem arises when you want to carry out turns steeper than 30 deg AoB or aerobatic pitching manouevres. Previous trainers such as the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Firefly were far better in this respect.
Most Civilian SEP are used for A to B PPL flights not aerobatics. There are very few C150 Aerobats flying cf almost 100 Tutors and for lookout below a Cessna has an advantage. Almost all those Civilian a/c used for aerobatic training have superb Field of view eg: Extra 300, CAP10, Yak52, etc...
Canopy Ejection:
The proceedure is more complicated than described by posters. It does not pop open. Indeed when the canopy is flown in the vent position (speed below 100KIAS) it will tend to move forward and try to close itself unless locked.
The red emergency pull handle does NOT release the canopy - it unlocks it. The larger handle must then be rotated through almost 180 deg. Then the INSIDE arm has to be used to push the canopy frame backwards and upwards. The proceedure takes a good few seconds to complete.
As far as I am aware only one Tutor has lost a canopy airborne - In 2004 a canopy detached due to vibration after a propellor blade detached in flight.
"Since the accident, the base I was at not too long ago (with an EFT sqn and AEF) started regular demonstrations of actually jettisoning the canopy. Not sure if this is a fleet-wide implementation though."
First I have heard of it and sounds very expensive.
ShyTorque asks
I am mildly baffled what lessons could be learned in the gliding world from this report other than keep a good lookout, already emphasised and reinforced everywhere I have flown gliders.
Possibly he is confusing this incident with the other tragedy later last year, when a glider flying straight (according to its flight recorder) was in collision with an AEF Tutor in an area where, minutes before, a professional ATPL (flying a glider) has reported to Brize an airmiss with an AEF Tutor performing aerobatics. NATS tapes show an extremely high level of GA aircraft, particularly gliders, in this 'choke point' of airspace.
It is not known how many of the gliders were carrying appropriate anti-collision systems (certainly mine was). The systems carried are much more appropriate than TCAS, which is optimised for warning against aircraft in low density airspace, which in such a situation would be saturated and useless if all aircraft carried one; whereas FLARM warns only against close converging targets and highlights those with an actual collision risk.
No doubt the report on this tragic accident will analyse the causes and make appropriate recommendations, and I am content to wait for the conclusions of those with all the information, and the responsibilty of trying to prevent a repetition.
Most of the discussion seems to be patronisation / thinly veiled criticism of the AEF organistation, some of it based on ignorance. What lessons might be learned by the gliding fraternity?
Possibly he is confusing this incident with the other tragedy later last year, when a glider flying straight (according to its flight recorder) was in collision with an AEF Tutor in an area where, minutes before, a professional ATPL (flying a glider) has reported to Brize an airmiss with an AEF Tutor performing aerobatics. NATS tapes show an extremely high level of GA aircraft, particularly gliders, in this 'choke point' of airspace.
It is not known how many of the gliders were carrying appropriate anti-collision systems (certainly mine was). The systems carried are much more appropriate than TCAS, which is optimised for warning against aircraft in low density airspace, which in such a situation would be saturated and useless if all aircraft carried one; whereas FLARM warns only against close converging targets and highlights those with an actual collision risk.
No doubt the report on this tragic accident will analyse the causes and make appropriate recommendations, and I am content to wait for the conclusions of those with all the information, and the responsibilty of trying to prevent a repetition.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting someone has mentioned airspace because, although I haven't read the report, there has been no mention of this and it reminded me of something I was party to many years ago about this particular piece of airspace.
The airspace around St Athan is not plentiful. Cardiff has a large Class D zone which it doesn't like people flying through, even if you could to the East is the city of Cardiff and above this is an airway used heavily for inbounds to BRS, to the south is mostly sea and to the north is mostly mountains. This leaves a very small tight strip of flat, ruralish area for GH flying by St Athan and local GA (not much of that any more I grant you).
I was lucky enough to spend three very happy years at St Athan flying the Bulldog. At the time I was there CWL had no western class D stub. Not ideal for IFR airline traffic. So there was a big push to get this airspace reclassified.
I remember clearly the UWAS Squadron Boss telling the ATC bods that if this Class D airspace became totally unavailable for Military GH (as it apparently has despite CWL being a virtual ghost town) there would eventually be a light aircraft incident in the very small remaining piece of airspace. Unfortunately it turns out he was spot on.
The airspace around St Athan is not plentiful. Cardiff has a large Class D zone which it doesn't like people flying through, even if you could to the East is the city of Cardiff and above this is an airway used heavily for inbounds to BRS, to the south is mostly sea and to the north is mostly mountains. This leaves a very small tight strip of flat, ruralish area for GH flying by St Athan and local GA (not much of that any more I grant you).
I was lucky enough to spend three very happy years at St Athan flying the Bulldog. At the time I was there CWL had no western class D stub. Not ideal for IFR airline traffic. So there was a big push to get this airspace reclassified.
I remember clearly the UWAS Squadron Boss telling the ATC bods that if this Class D airspace became totally unavailable for Military GH (as it apparently has despite CWL being a virtual ghost town) there would eventually be a light aircraft incident in the very small remaining piece of airspace. Unfortunately it turns out he was spot on.