Tutor Mid-air report.
Wholigan - am completely with you. I have already made the decision that unless the a/c is uncontrollable or blazing fiercely I will not tell a cadet to jump. I trust myself and my training to land in a field more than I believe that a cadet would safely abandon.
DH
DH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fife
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said!
Well said, Wholigan. These were precisely my own thoughts before this tragic accident occurred. Furthermore, I have discussed this issue (and others!) at length with other AEF pilots since the accidents last year, and - as you doubtless already know from speaking to your pilots on 3 AEF - there is broad consensus on this.
The limb you are out on is pretty thick, mate.
The limb you are out on is pretty thick, mate.
DH/Whols - I concur, the other one to add to that (particularly at St Athan) was ditching, which there was always much crewroom debate over.
The debate as to whether a cadet could find/pull their handle once out of the aircraft was also a big one. Static lines have been suggested, seems not unreasonable (but probably costly)
The debate as to whether a cadet could find/pull their handle once out of the aircraft was also a big one. Static lines have been suggested, seems not unreasonable (but probably costly)
Well said indeed!
As an ex-cadet and current PPL I totally agree with Wholigan. I also very much doubt that many cadets would happily leap from a plane that was capable of landing. God knows it would take an awful lot to get me to jump.
Also to add that I remember having to pull on a strain gauge to prove I had the strength the pull the rip cord, so the system is certainly not above these types of test.
Also to add that I remember having to pull on a strain gauge to prove I had the strength the pull the rip cord, so the system is certainly not above these types of test.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Wholigan - how many jumps were made from Bulldogs and Chipmunks in total, do you think? I know of one, on RNEFTS in 1979. The stude and his dark blue beefer (it was a joint RN/RAF QFI team) jumped after losing control under a huge Cb, and both landed safely. The beefer landed in a slurry pit...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So do these previous posts indicate that a lot of the recent extra restrictions on cadet flying are actually to enable the "lowrarchy" or "mediumarchy"" to report to the hierarchy and the ministers "look at all the things we have done to make cadet flying safer" but they are in fact just papering over the cracks, rather than addressing the 2 main issues of conspicuity and situational awareness.
Let's look at some of them.
Minimum cloudbase raised from 1000 ft to 1500 ft and cadets not to be flown below 1000 ft above ground level. This actually has some merit as it may bring an extra field or 2 into play, as opposed to flying clear of cloud below a 1000 ft cloudbase. It certainly won't affect abandonment prospects, as the minimum height for abandonment under "controlled" conditions is 1500 ft.
Minimum height to fly cadets if cloudbase permits is to be 2000 ft above ground level, in order to increase the likelihood of a successful abandonment by a cadet. See posts above. It does still have some merit, but only in as far as the "bringing more fields into play" is concerned. However, it drastically reduces the number of days when cadets can be flown. Look at the stats!
Raising of aerobatics height from 3000 ft above ground to 4000 ft. No aerobatics to be flown that may lead to the loss of control of the aircraft. Sounds laudable eh? The same reasoning about the likelihood of successful cadet abandonment applies to the raising of the height. You could raise it to 9000 ft and nothing would change as far as cadet safety is concerned. In fact, the higher you go, the less responsive is the aircraft, obviously! Therefore, the more likely you are to get into a regime where you have to be more careful how you fly the aircraft.
In fact though, the Tutor is just the most benign aircraft you could imagine. It is so benign that it is actually quite difficult to teach stalling as the aircraft is loath to stall (as pilots of other aircraft understand stalling). It is so benign that you can actually "stall" the aircraft, keep the stick fully back and turn the aircraft, using rudder, under compete control!
As far as "flying aerobatics that may lead to the loss of control of the aircraft" is concerned, see the bit about how benign it is above. You would have to be a complete imbecile, with no motor skills whatsoever, and a death wish, to fly the aircraft in such a way that you lost control. Furthermore, even if you were so useless, all you would have to do if the aircraft complained about what you were doing is to centralise the controls and you immediately have a fully "in control" aircraft again.
I fully support the aims of increasing the safety of flights with cadets, but some of the new restrictions have more to do with "look what we've done to make it safer Mr Minister (with no knowledge of aviation so we can fool you)", than actually improving safety.
Let's look at some of them.
Minimum cloudbase raised from 1000 ft to 1500 ft and cadets not to be flown below 1000 ft above ground level. This actually has some merit as it may bring an extra field or 2 into play, as opposed to flying clear of cloud below a 1000 ft cloudbase. It certainly won't affect abandonment prospects, as the minimum height for abandonment under "controlled" conditions is 1500 ft.
Minimum height to fly cadets if cloudbase permits is to be 2000 ft above ground level, in order to increase the likelihood of a successful abandonment by a cadet. See posts above. It does still have some merit, but only in as far as the "bringing more fields into play" is concerned. However, it drastically reduces the number of days when cadets can be flown. Look at the stats!
Raising of aerobatics height from 3000 ft above ground to 4000 ft. No aerobatics to be flown that may lead to the loss of control of the aircraft. Sounds laudable eh? The same reasoning about the likelihood of successful cadet abandonment applies to the raising of the height. You could raise it to 9000 ft and nothing would change as far as cadet safety is concerned. In fact, the higher you go, the less responsive is the aircraft, obviously! Therefore, the more likely you are to get into a regime where you have to be more careful how you fly the aircraft.
In fact though, the Tutor is just the most benign aircraft you could imagine. It is so benign that it is actually quite difficult to teach stalling as the aircraft is loath to stall (as pilots of other aircraft understand stalling). It is so benign that you can actually "stall" the aircraft, keep the stick fully back and turn the aircraft, using rudder, under compete control!
As far as "flying aerobatics that may lead to the loss of control of the aircraft" is concerned, see the bit about how benign it is above. You would have to be a complete imbecile, with no motor skills whatsoever, and a death wish, to fly the aircraft in such a way that you lost control. Furthermore, even if you were so useless, all you would have to do if the aircraft complained about what you were doing is to centralise the controls and you immediately have a fully "in control" aircraft again.
I fully support the aims of increasing the safety of flights with cadets, but some of the new restrictions have more to do with "look what we've done to make it safer Mr Minister (with no knowledge of aviation so we can fool you)", than actually improving safety.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of one, on RNEFTS in 1979. The stude and his dark blue beefer (it was a joint RN/RAF QFI team) jumped after losing control under a huge Cb, and both landed safely.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Wholi - agreed - I was more interested to know how many jumps had been made from RAF/RN/AAC single-engined trainers, full stop. There can't be much info/experience on the real-life issues of doing so. Factor in the issues of 13 y/o and you are in a very dark area, I'm sure.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree a cadet of 13 will probably (but not always!) be light and relatively weak, suspect most of them are exceedingly agile though.
How does a Tutor compare for ease of emergency egress to a glider? I was thinking about the K21 struck by lighting about 10 years ago, and both instructor and P2 jumped safely, as did the pilot in the glider (Cirrus?) involved in a middair with another Tutor in June 2009. I also know someone else who has successfully jumped (a Kestrel I believe) following a middair in the mid 90s.
How does a Tutor compare for ease of emergency egress to a glider? I was thinking about the K21 struck by lighting about 10 years ago, and both instructor and P2 jumped safely, as did the pilot in the glider (Cirrus?) involved in a middair with another Tutor in June 2009. I also know someone else who has successfully jumped (a Kestrel I believe) following a middair in the mid 90s.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS the way forward?
I think that Cows getting Bigger may havehit the nail on the head here:
I also agree with Wholigans view that an outlanding would be safer than emergency egress in virtually all cases; so with that in mind, surely a last chance BRS system is more appropriate than parachutes for the statistically low mid-air collision scenario?
There are no guarantees in life but there is at least a fair chance these 4 people would have lived to tell the tale had BRS been fitted. Someone else can analyse the stats, but it is indisputable that there have been over 200 lives saved in Cirrus aircraft alone by BRS deployment.
microlightgary - serving RAF engineer/enthusiastic microlight/GA pilot and very grateful 'blagger' of AEF rides on more than one occasion...
"All this talk of parachutes. I wonder whether the BOI even considered a BRS type retrofit? At very least, maybe the RAF want to consider such equipment for their next AEF/UAS aircraft".
I also agree with Wholigans view that an outlanding would be safer than emergency egress in virtually all cases; so with that in mind, surely a last chance BRS system is more appropriate than parachutes for the statistically low mid-air collision scenario?
There are no guarantees in life but there is at least a fair chance these 4 people would have lived to tell the tale had BRS been fitted. Someone else can analyse the stats, but it is indisputable that there have been over 200 lives saved in Cirrus aircraft alone by BRS deployment.
microlightgary - serving RAF engineer/enthusiastic microlight/GA pilot and very grateful 'blagger' of AEF rides on more than one occasion...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of jumping out etc, and I haven't read the BOI report ony read through the thread, leads me to surmise that perhaps the 2 AEF pilots didn't jump because they were waiting for the cadet to go first, or, struggling to help them get out.
I don't know of any QFI, AEF pilot, who would abandon the aircraft before he made certain that his stude / cadet was out.
Tour as Bulldog QFI
I don't know of any QFI, AEF pilot, who would abandon the aircraft before he made certain that his stude / cadet was out.
Tour as Bulldog QFI
I was more interested to know how many jumps had been made from RAF/RN/AAC single-engined trainers, full stop.
12 Sep 67 Chipmunks WP838 and WK610 Bristol UAS 4 x abandon
22 Jul 76 Bulldog XX618 YUAS 2 x abandon
16 Nov 79 Bulldog XX542 RNEFTS 2 x abandon
20 Feb 82 Bulldog XX662 ELUAS 2 x abandon
25 Mar 85 Bulldog XX660 OUAS 1 x abandon (1 x unsuccessful)
25 Apr 89 Bulldog XX517 RNEFTS 1 x abandon
13 Jul 95 Slingsby T67M G-BUUH JEFTS 2 x abandon
Last edited by mr ripley; 13th Jan 2010 at 08:34. Reason: Including Firefly accident
There was also a LUAS student that bailed out in the early 1980s during an unrecoverable spin, which subsequently became recoverable and the instructor landed back at Woodvale!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 48
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Parachutes Just Placebos?
No one wants a mid-air collision - and certainly everything possible should be done to avoid such an eventuality. But they do happen.
......So to whom would you rather entrust your daughter?
As MR RIPLEY has established there are at least 12 people alive today because they did decide to - or were ordered to - jump. Surely the preflight parachute instruction and the parachute fitting has to be more than a meaningless charade - a placebo to calm nervous cadets before they fly. It must provide cadets with a realistic means of saving their own lives.
......So to whom would you rather entrust your daughter?
- An instructor who actually would order her to abandon the aircraft after a mid-air colllision and parachute to safety?
- An instructor who wouldn't give the order because he had already decided that no cadet is physically capable of making a jump in such circumstances?.
As MR RIPLEY has established there are at least 12 people alive today because they did decide to - or were ordered to - jump. Surely the preflight parachute instruction and the parachute fitting has to be more than a meaningless charade - a placebo to calm nervous cadets before they fly. It must provide cadets with a realistic means of saving their own lives.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
korrol - you really don't read anything carefully do you? Or is it just that you are determined to push whatever agenda you have on this matter, regardless of what others say?
Nowhere has anybody said that they would not order a cadet to abandon the aircraft via the parachute. What has been said is that, after a collision, the aircraft is "highly likely to be uncontrollable and doing its own - probably very violent - manouevres that would probably preclude successful abandonment".
Naturally, if this is not the case, and the aircraft is under some sort of control, albeit not full control, and the cadet is deemed to be sufficiently strong to be able to exit the aircraft and pull the parachute rip cord, then it may be that it would be safer to get the cadet to abandon the aircraft rather than attempt a forced landing with some controls malfunctioning.
Also, nobody has said that "no cadet is physically capable of making a jump in such circumstances". Some cadets will not be capable of making a jump under any circumstances. And there could well be some circumstances where nobody would be capable of successfully abandoning the aircraft, cadet or pilot.
That's what we have been trained to do ... weigh the circumstances and make the correct decision.
Nowhere has anybody said that they would not order a cadet to abandon the aircraft via the parachute. What has been said is that, after a collision, the aircraft is "highly likely to be uncontrollable and doing its own - probably very violent - manouevres that would probably preclude successful abandonment".
Naturally, if this is not the case, and the aircraft is under some sort of control, albeit not full control, and the cadet is deemed to be sufficiently strong to be able to exit the aircraft and pull the parachute rip cord, then it may be that it would be safer to get the cadet to abandon the aircraft rather than attempt a forced landing with some controls malfunctioning.
Also, nobody has said that "no cadet is physically capable of making a jump in such circumstances". Some cadets will not be capable of making a jump under any circumstances. And there could well be some circumstances where nobody would be capable of successfully abandoning the aircraft, cadet or pilot.
That's what we have been trained to do ... weigh the circumstances and make the correct decision.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as slight reality check over the likelihood/ability to abandon the aircraft issue, as a ATC Sqn Cdr, I am far mor concerned about driving them down the motorway in a minibus to get to the AEF, than whether they will be injured as a result of a flying incident.
Cadets have been injured in car crashes too, but we don't invent new safety systems specifically for them. It seems the high profile nature of this case is clouding the judgement of some on here in the decision of what is reasonably practicable in this environment.
Flying has a risk factor, it cannot be removed completely and all eventualities cannot be covered.
Cadets have been injured in car crashes too, but we don't invent new safety systems specifically for them. It seems the high profile nature of this case is clouding the judgement of some on here in the decision of what is reasonably practicable in this environment.
Flying has a risk factor, it cannot be removed completely and all eventualities cannot be covered.
I agree with RB887, the risks driving to/from AEF are far greater than those associated with flying. In my Wing, their airships have decided that individual units will drive their cadets to the local AEF, presumably for budget reasons. So we shift from a regime of professional, regimented drivers to something different. I'd like to see the risk assessment on that one.
Second, the visibility issue. Surely most civilian aircraft are white, yet there seem to be few collisions reported. On my AEF the usual sortie is around 20 minutes. Back in the Bulldog days it was 40. By reducing sortie length don't you concentrate the traffic, as it can't go as far?
Finally, the discussion on do you/don't you send the cadet over the side. I've been in the ATC since 1966. In my part of the world I know of no cadet who's had to do this. When you add up the number of sorties each year, that must run into a couple of million?
Last year was a very sad time for everyone, both in the Service and the Air Cadet family. Despite this, the kids on my unit still clamour for the flying slots we have. We always have more volunteers than spaces, so what does that tell you?
On a personal note, I've been fortunate enough to frequently bag empty spaces on AEF's over that time. What impresses me the most is the enthusiasm and professionalism of the pilots I've had the privilege to fly with. I have complete and absolute trust in them. If he says go, I'll go, likewise if he stays stay. I've only got a VFR PPL, and about 200 or so hours. I'll defer to the man (or lady) in the driving seat as their training, skills and experience far outweighs mine.
Thank you to all of you on the AEF's. I've seen the faces and heard all the chatter when the kids come back after their first ever trip in a proper aircraft. I just wish I could bottle and sell it!
Second, the visibility issue. Surely most civilian aircraft are white, yet there seem to be few collisions reported. On my AEF the usual sortie is around 20 minutes. Back in the Bulldog days it was 40. By reducing sortie length don't you concentrate the traffic, as it can't go as far?
Finally, the discussion on do you/don't you send the cadet over the side. I've been in the ATC since 1966. In my part of the world I know of no cadet who's had to do this. When you add up the number of sorties each year, that must run into a couple of million?
Last year was a very sad time for everyone, both in the Service and the Air Cadet family. Despite this, the kids on my unit still clamour for the flying slots we have. We always have more volunteers than spaces, so what does that tell you?
On a personal note, I've been fortunate enough to frequently bag empty spaces on AEF's over that time. What impresses me the most is the enthusiasm and professionalism of the pilots I've had the privilege to fly with. I have complete and absolute trust in them. If he says go, I'll go, likewise if he stays stay. I've only got a VFR PPL, and about 200 or so hours. I'll defer to the man (or lady) in the driving seat as their training, skills and experience far outweighs mine.
Thank you to all of you on the AEF's. I've seen the faces and heard all the chatter when the kids come back after their first ever trip in a proper aircraft. I just wish I could bottle and sell it!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are occasions when the forced landing option is hardly available. I recall learning to fly the Bulldog at Scampton and that area of Lincolnshire is one huge emergency landing ground with a few hedges in it and that was good. Compare and contrast with the terrain around Woodvale, where I flew for 2 years and for 4 months of the year many available fields were waterlogged bogs and a forced landing would have resulted in a rapid halt and a forward somersault! I reacall that OC of the UAS in Northern Ireland was killed by hitting a dry stone wall during a forced landing. My own view is that the forced landing should be considered and is probably the better option than abandonment, but there are other factors re availibilty of somewhere to land.
We used to send a very few students solo around North Wales coast @500 ft on Navexes and we were lucky that there were no engine failures on these sorties
We used to send a very few students solo around North Wales coast @500 ft on Navexes and we were lucky that there were no engine failures on these sorties