Tutor Mid-air report.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probable contributory factors
3. Conspicuity. The white colour scheme of the tutor, presenting very little contrast with a bright background of cloud, was a probable contributory factor.
3. Conspicuity. The white colour scheme of the tutor, presenting very little contrast with a bright background of cloud, was a probable contributory factor.
Couldn't agree more. We have been complaining about this at Yeovilton for the past 2 years. You cannot see the Grob when it is in the circuit and if they don't paint it another colour soon then this tragic accident is likely to happen again.
This is so sad that one simple thing could have prevented this
WRT to the factors involved, Conspicuity was only listed as a "Probable Contributrary Factor". The Board's finding on the causes is considerably more lengthy.
YS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having flown the G115 civil version, I've always wondered about wearing a bone dome. Same for Bulldogs. I have flown wearing the type I think is similar and it felt very unnatural in a light a/c and beingunused to it limited my head movements.
Did the enquiry look into this aspect?
Sir George Cayley
Did the enquiry look into this aspect?
Sir George Cayley
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Not wishing to be too tangential over a tragic event such as this, but given it is now 2010, does the MoD really think a gash scan of a massive paper document that now becomes a brazillion Megabyte PDF is really someone's idea of being "electronically available"? Just asking.
Sir George,
WRT helmets in the Grob, it's not really an issue. I've flown both with and without helmet (mil and civvy G-115) and to be honest I actually prefer it with a helmet, it certainly doesn't restrict lookout.
From the findings, and the reconstructions used, it looks like an unfortunate case of "same way, same day, under a wing/nose to each other" with the addition of airspace considerations bottling people into a specific area.
Unfortunately those factors led to the loss of two really nice blokes and two young ladies who I'm sure would have gone on to bigger and greater things.
Two's in - This is the MOD, it still takes me half an hour to check my email (which I can only do from work)
WRT helmets in the Grob, it's not really an issue. I've flown both with and without helmet (mil and civvy G-115) and to be honest I actually prefer it with a helmet, it certainly doesn't restrict lookout.
From the findings, and the reconstructions used, it looks like an unfortunate case of "same way, same day, under a wing/nose to each other" with the addition of airspace considerations bottling people into a specific area.
Unfortunately those factors led to the loss of two really nice blokes and two young ladies who I'm sure would have gone on to bigger and greater things.
Two's in - This is the MOD, it still takes me half an hour to check my email (which I can only do from work)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midair collision happens because neither pilot saw the other in time to take
evasive action. There are a lot of contributing factors involved here, not just the white colour of the Tutor.
1) Some witnesses mention that one of the aircraft performed a wingover shortly before the collision. Does this imply showing off? with insufficient lookout before performing maneuvers?
2) The structure of the Tutor canopy certainly offers an obstruction to the view. This requires an even more careful scan, many aircraft suffer from airframe blocking the view.
3) One of the pilots was wearing corrective lenses. I don't see mentioned if these were varifocals or not, varifocals screw up your peripheral vision.
4) I cannot imagine that wearing a bonedome improves your field of view or makes it easier to look around.
5) Should it not be part of the PIC's training to practice actually jettisoning a canopy -preferably on soft grass.
6) Taking off together in close formation is a very military sort of thing to do, is the usual thing to carry on then flying near each other? Without a plan, or a qualified observer in radio contact with the other aircraft, this was asking for trouble. Formation flying, or ariel photography require special care. Flying kids around requires even greater care.
I suggest that if the military are responsible for flying kids around, that they do not takeoff together, that at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be plannned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned and the plan followed.
evasive action. There are a lot of contributing factors involved here, not just the white colour of the Tutor.
1) Some witnesses mention that one of the aircraft performed a wingover shortly before the collision. Does this imply showing off? with insufficient lookout before performing maneuvers?
2) The structure of the Tutor canopy certainly offers an obstruction to the view. This requires an even more careful scan, many aircraft suffer from airframe blocking the view.
3) One of the pilots was wearing corrective lenses. I don't see mentioned if these were varifocals or not, varifocals screw up your peripheral vision.
4) I cannot imagine that wearing a bonedome improves your field of view or makes it easier to look around.
5) Should it not be part of the PIC's training to practice actually jettisoning a canopy -preferably on soft grass.
6) Taking off together in close formation is a very military sort of thing to do, is the usual thing to carry on then flying near each other? Without a plan, or a qualified observer in radio contact with the other aircraft, this was asking for trouble. Formation flying, or ariel photography require special care. Flying kids around requires even greater care.
I suggest that if the military are responsible for flying kids around, that they do not takeoff together, that at least 10 minutes should space their departures, that the sortie be plannned to be separate, to different areas, the flights to be planned and the plan followed.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary,
I appreciate you might not be fully informed, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than assume you're some journo out fishing...
A properly performed wingover is a lookout manoeuver, not an aerobatic one. Not showing off in the slightest, it allows the best possible view into the area you're planning to perform aerobatics, particularly under wings and things like that. In other words, no - not showing off in the slightest, merely trying (unsuccessfully) to clear the airspace.
Yes, it does. That's why lookout is in the assessment criteria for every EFT syllabus trip, why it'a drilled into student and experienced pilots alike -- not just for safety but also because we're training these studes to be military operators of aircraft where seeing the bad guy first may be the difference between a war sortie completed and getting shot down. The EFT lookout scan as taught was pretty well validated by the report, furthermore there was evidence that it was being carried out as laid down according to the inquiry.
Don't know on this one, someone else may have to comment, tho' I suspect aircrew corrective flying specs (administered by a Medical Officer, and checked annually) may well not be varifocals.
Trust me, it has no impact whatsoever. You can't see any part of the helmet when you're wearing it, and it doesn't restrict movement in cockpit.
The motor memory part of locating the canopy emergency jettison handle had to be practiced monthly (IIRC) as part of the abandon drill when I last flew the Tutor. I doubt actually pushing the canopy off the rails would be of any use whatsoever; as the report suggests the hard part is finding the canopy handle in the first place.
They took off a minute apart -- in no way whatsoever is that 'close formation'. Close formation takeoffs are done in echelon (or similar), even a stream take off (one behind the other) is done at no more than five seconds separation in the Tutor from what I remember. At climb speed, a minute's separation would put the aircraft over a mile apart in the climb.
To suggest, as I think you do, that these two pilots operated with anything other than the utmost care is, in my mind, pretty poor form.
I appreciate you might not be fully informed, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than assume you're some journo out fishing...
1) Some witnesses mention that one of the aircraft performed a wingover shortly before the collision. Does this imply showing off? with insufficient lookout before performing maneuvers?
2) The structure of the Tutor canopy certainly offers an obstruction to the view. This requires an even more careful scan, many aircraft suffer from airframe blocking the view.
3) One of the pilots was wearing corrective lenses. I don't see mentioned if these were varifocals or not, varifocals screw up your peripheral vision.
4) I cannot imagine that wearing a bonedome improves your field of view or makes it easier to look around.
5) Should it not be part of the PIC's training to practice actually jettisoning a canopy -preferably on soft grass.
6) Taking off together in close formation is a very military sort of thing to do, is the usual thing to carry on then flying near each other? Without a plan, or a qualified observer in radio contact with the other aircraft, this was asking for trouble. Formation flying, or ariel photography require special care. Flying kids around requires even greater care.
To suggest, as I think you do, that these two pilots operated with anything other than the utmost care is, in my mind, pretty poor form.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCR would turn the scan into text fairly easily... Those of us with Windows 7 can also use the Snipping Tool to do the same with small image files (I have no idea if it's in Vista), and there are 3rd party bits of software that will do the same for earlier versions of Windows.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 48
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The missing details
This report seems to have plenty of detailed technical information but very little information on the action and intentions of those involved
We're not told, for examp[le, how many cadets turned up at UWAS for these flights - but that two were randomly selected. The odds of randomly selecting two cousins must be pretty long.
Both girls were issued with parachutes - but did they know, or were they told, how to use them?
The two girls aged 13 and 14 had never flown in the Tutor - or indeed any - aircraft before. However both were put in the left hand seat. Was this with a view that they should handle the controls at some point? If so, was one - or perhaps both - of them actually flying their respective aircraft at the time of impact.?
If one or other was flying - was their instructor's attention focussed on them rather than watching where the aircraft was going?
The RAF Inquiry should have interviewed other cadets who have been taken up on similar flights to ascertain how these air-experience flights are actually conducted in practice.
We're not told, for examp[le, how many cadets turned up at UWAS for these flights - but that two were randomly selected. The odds of randomly selecting two cousins must be pretty long.
Both girls were issued with parachutes - but did they know, or were they told, how to use them?
The two girls aged 13 and 14 had never flown in the Tutor - or indeed any - aircraft before. However both were put in the left hand seat. Was this with a view that they should handle the controls at some point? If so, was one - or perhaps both - of them actually flying their respective aircraft at the time of impact.?
If one or other was flying - was their instructor's attention focussed on them rather than watching where the aircraft was going?
The RAF Inquiry should have interviewed other cadets who have been taken up on similar flights to ascertain how these air-experience flights are actually conducted in practice.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by some of this speculation some people have too much time on their hands...........oh hang on a minute, do you think the position of the stars might have had some effect?
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF Inquiry should have interviewed other cadets who have been taken up on similar flights to ascertain how these air-experience flights are actually conducted in practice.
60-odd years, the Service knows how they are conducted in practice. What could the cadets tell them that is not already well known? Or are you inferring something was going on that should not have been?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korrol, in the Tutor the LHS is the 'passenger' seat, the captain of the aircraft sits on the right. All the instrumentation is laid out in front of the RH occupant. This is so trainee pilots get used to the layout of stick in right hand, throttles in left. For the cadets to be in the LHS is normal. Try Google for an image of the Tutor cockpit and you'll see what I mean.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korrol - your points:
The "actions and intentions of those involved" were exactly that same as the actions and intentions of the pilots in any AEF flight; namely to pass on their knowledge of, and their enthusiasm for, flying to the air cadets.
Why do you need to know how many turned up at UWAS. You obviously have no idea how the AEF system works. Flying slots are allocated to ATC Wing HQs. The Wing HQs detail squadrons to attend for flying. The squadrons bring the allocated number of cadets to the AEF, where they are briefed and prepared for their flights. The AEF programmes all of the cadets to fly and flies them. They are not "randomly selected" from a cast of thousands, but if an ATC squadron happens to have cadets related to each other (highly likely and pretty common) the odds of them coming flying on the same day are pretty good. A fair few of our squadrons have sets of brothers and/or sisters, and they pretty much always come flying on the same day.
The cadets are shown a safety film and they are also briefed on the use of the parachute. Incidentally, they are not "issued with" the parachutes, they are correctly fitted with them.
The topic of the left hand seat occupation is covered above. It is the passenger seat and all passengers occupy the left hand seat. Nobody knows or will ever know if the cadets were flying the aircraft at the time.
I don't know about you and your own particular level of skills, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can monitor the cadet's actions and still manage to keep a good and thorough look out for other aircraft, maybe even a better look out than when I am actually demonstrating and teaching a particular point to a cadet.
There are 12 AEFs in the country, each of which is staffed by experienced and highly professional pilots. These AEFs have been operating safely and successfully for a VERY long time and, as has been said, the "system" knows EXACTLY how each AEF flight is actually conducted in practice.
I have no idea what your agenda is with these questions, but you obviously think that AEFs are operated by gash people in a gash manner with no regard for the safety of the cadets. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know precisely what our responsibilities are for looking after the cadets whose parents entrust them into our care, and we do our level best to ensure that safety.
I don't know just how long you have been involved with aviation, but everybody who has been in the aviation world for more than 5 minutes knows that accidents happen and that a lot of these accidents are indeed just random events that are immensely difficult to prevent. The fact is that the Tutor is very difficult to see. We know that and are, therefore, particularly diligent about looking for the "other aircraft" that may not see us.
This report seems to have plenty of detailed technical information but very little information on the action and intentions of those involved.
The "actions and intentions of those involved" were exactly that same as the actions and intentions of the pilots in any AEF flight; namely to pass on their knowledge of, and their enthusiasm for, flying to the air cadets.
We're not told, for examp[le, how many cadets turned up at UWAS for these flights - but that two were randomly selected. The odds of randomly selecting two cousins must be pretty long.
Why do you need to know how many turned up at UWAS. You obviously have no idea how the AEF system works. Flying slots are allocated to ATC Wing HQs. The Wing HQs detail squadrons to attend for flying. The squadrons bring the allocated number of cadets to the AEF, where they are briefed and prepared for their flights. The AEF programmes all of the cadets to fly and flies them. They are not "randomly selected" from a cast of thousands, but if an ATC squadron happens to have cadets related to each other (highly likely and pretty common) the odds of them coming flying on the same day are pretty good. A fair few of our squadrons have sets of brothers and/or sisters, and they pretty much always come flying on the same day.
Both girls were issued with parachutes - but did they know, or were they told, how to use them?
The cadets are shown a safety film and they are also briefed on the use of the parachute. Incidentally, they are not "issued with" the parachutes, they are correctly fitted with them.
The two girls aged 13 and 14 had never flown in the Tutor - or indeed any - aircraft before. However both were put in the left hand seat. Was this with a view that they should handle the controls at some point? If so, was one - or perhaps both - of them actually flying their respective aircraft at the time of impact.?
If one or other was flying - was their instructor's attention focussed on them rather than watching where the aircraft was going?
I don't know about you and your own particular level of skills, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can monitor the cadet's actions and still manage to keep a good and thorough look out for other aircraft, maybe even a better look out than when I am actually demonstrating and teaching a particular point to a cadet.
The RAF Inquiry should have interviewed other cadets who have been taken up on similar flights to ascertain how these air-experience flights are actually conducted in practice.
There are 12 AEFs in the country, each of which is staffed by experienced and highly professional pilots. These AEFs have been operating safely and successfully for a VERY long time and, as has been said, the "system" knows EXACTLY how each AEF flight is actually conducted in practice.
I have no idea what your agenda is with these questions, but you obviously think that AEFs are operated by gash people in a gash manner with no regard for the safety of the cadets. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know precisely what our responsibilities are for looking after the cadets whose parents entrust them into our care, and we do our level best to ensure that safety.
I don't know just how long you have been involved with aviation, but everybody who has been in the aviation world for more than 5 minutes knows that accidents happen and that a lot of these accidents are indeed just random events that are immensely difficult to prevent. The fact is that the Tutor is very difficult to see. We know that and are, therefore, particularly diligent about looking for the "other aircraft" that may not see us.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts