'No blame' Over RAF Tornado Crash

[Jackonicko]

Mike,

Your modesty is typical but entirely wrong. To my certain knowledge your career as a driver was both long-ish and distinguished-ish (the latter -ish is a sop to that modesty) and on two types which demanded the very best. And as a painter - that garage door you did was first rate......

I take your point about the quality of the Swedes, though interestingly they now fly FAR more than that, and FAR more than our chaps do, by the sound of it, talking to serving Gripen drivers.

And I take your point as to the relative value of hours amassed on different types of flying - the tragedy is that - in my very humble opinion - the F3 needs more than ten hours per month even if those hours are VERY carefully planned and structured, and I suspect that they are not.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

quality versus quantity.

Back in the stone age, 45 Sqn Canberras ( RAF Tengah) had a boss who totally embraced the above statement. The problem in those days was trying to achieve the hours set by Command, failure often led to the Boss getting a bo***king. However he did not believe a four hour high level beacon crawl twice round Malaya was good use of assets so he said a dusk low level 4-ship with co-ord simulated target attack en route to weapons range for night bombing, high level return to carry out all the night currency stats was a far better use of two hours. He wrote routinely explaining to Command that he had again underachieved his monthly hours but had far surpassed the tactical/ weapon stats and all currency checks. He did make Air Staff.
However, back to the thread, lack of hours is only part of the story and my heart bleeds for all you guys placed in such a terrible position.
Of course the Government is to blame - it's where the buck stops- but the senior ranks have a lot to answer for. If only there were more like the Canberra Boss above.

[30mRad]

I knew Nige very well, and had a huge amount of respect for him and his professional experience in all aviation fields. I did not know the crew in BS2 or Kenny.

The crux of the issue is definitely currency and competency in that environment and fit. Compare the Mach Loop in Wales and the valley they flew down. I have flown the loop in a GR4 in small and big jugs and it is do-able but with care and not how you fly it in a Hawk. Looking at the 50k of the Tarbet valley into Glen Kinglas, I would not have attempted that 100 deg left turn in big tanks, and would prob have erred on turning early (pulling up to do so) in small tanks. That comes from being comfortable and experienced in the fits my aircraft flies in, and in the environment I routinely operate.

Have less than 10 hrs a month, come back from a theatre where the aircraft fit and performance is different (temperature plays a sizeable role here) and not routinely flying low-level valley bashing and you have the makings for a problem. Add in the break down in supervisory monitoring of pilot handling skills and it gets worse.

Surely this just adds weight to the need to maintain core flying skills, and ensure that suitable checks are in place to measure them and re-train if required.

I think we were very lucky not to lose 2 aircraft in the same place at the same time for the same reason.

RIP guys, and I hope the lessons are learnt not just given a cursory glance.

[kokpit]

I have a feeling we all have am element of blame to shoulder here….

Ever since SDR, and possibly before, we have continuously coped. Be it aircrew, groundcrew or associated manpower, we have always managed to make do with whatever drama has befallen us.

Manpower cuts, increase in tempo, lack of spares and equipment, lack of time, we always seem to succeed. No matter what they throw at us we seem to overcome.

We are probably our own worst enemies, but as long as the task gets done, those above will just let it ride. It’s a service mentality I think, possibly the same mentality that made us want to join up in the first place, and our lords and masters must marvel at how we cope.

We bitch and moan, and a few may PVR, but by and large the majority will still provide what is asked of them.

I honestly believe this will only change when tasks aren’t completed on time, repeatedly, and finally someone will have the gumption to realise that things have gone too far. People won’t speak out (other than amongst themselves), it’s not in the nature of the military man (woman).

I don’t profess to have the answer, I was one of those that had to walk after 25 years, there’s a limit to how many walls one can bang the head against.

[Chugalug2]

30mRad:

The crux of the issue is definitely currency and competency in that environment and fit.

I was never FJ (unless the JP4 counts? ), but it sure seems that way to me, so I'll take your word for it, 30mR. If that be so then the crux of this matter is, yes you've guessed, Airworthiness! It is not just a matter of nuts and bolts, as someone has previously correctly stated. Training, checking, currency, etc, are all part of the "A" word's world. So may we expect strenuous efforts by the "Independent within the MOD" MAA to deal with the chronic problems described both in the report and within this thread? No doubt this post will be condemned as yet another attempt at thread high-jack. I'm afraid that the real high-jack has been going on for decades, ie that of RAF Flight Safety by the bean-counters, aka its own Air Marshals!

[Wwyvern]

Just picked up on this thread and the lamentably low monthly hours allocated to FJ pilots. In the early sixties on a DFGA Hunter Squadron, as a first tourist I averaged just under 16 hours per month. The only simulator we had was the occasional trip to Chivenor for HSE (Hunter Simulator and Emergency) training. I seem to remember the dinghy drill, helicopter rescue and rum when back on the RAF Launch.

A bit off-thread - one pilot on one of my courses and the HSE Staff received a "Good Show" award for achieving the record for time elapsed between hitting the water and getting into the dinghy of 12 seconds. Some said he hadn't time to get wet.

The record holder subsequently ejected twice over water, but only his LSJ was found after the second one.

[Safeware]

Having read the report, I see how lucky Blacksmith 2 were. However, it left me with a question... Given that if a) they hadn't seen the fireball and b) had left their recovery more than a second later, they would also have crashed, how many of the contributing factors would also have applied to them?

RIP guys - Gloria Finis

sw

[Trim Stab]

This plan has gone by the board, and as a result, there are now just three AD units - two Typhoon squadrons and a single, under-strength F3 unit. Is the latter needed? Yes, it is. And then some. Two Typhoon units are insufficient to maintain Southern QRA, the Falklands commitment, and to maintain currency in the A-G role, let alone taking over Northern QRA as well.

QRA against who? The only credible airborne threat against the UK currently is from terrorist pilots. The QRA Typhoons are no deterrent or defence against them. All a terrorist would need to do is file a flight plan to overfly London to one of the satellite airfields and in the time taken to divert from the flight plan and hit the target, the QRA Typhoons would not even be at the end of their take-off run.

If Russia wanted to attack us (why on earth would they want to?) they are probably not even capable of launching a conventional sustainable aerial attack against us. Even if they did establish air superiority, what could they do next? They don't have anything like enough airborne or amphibious troops to actually invade and hold the ground, nor enough assets to enforce a trade blockade. RAF air defence thinking is still mired in WW2 mindset.

As for Argentina attacking the Malvinas - in '82 they had a military junta that was not accountable to the population and which had the tacit support of a superpower (USA) - they are now a democracy with international obligations and responsibility to their electorate. There would not be public support for an invasion, and Argentina would become a pariah nation.

The A-G role for the Typhoon? Maybe in the distant future, if it gets deployed to Afghanistan, then maybe the RAF should start to build that capability. But there are currently far, far higher priorities - especially ground troops who are currently training for deployment to Herrick XIV. I will be going (as a TA Officer) and we don't even get enough ammunition to carry out realistic live-firing training. So why are we wasting money maintaining Typhoon A-G capability when there are no current plans to use it?

As you guessed, my "other job" is in aviation - as pilot and TRI on a bizjet.

[soddim]

Judged purely from the content of your last post, Trim Stab, if I were you, I would not give up my 'other job' but I wish you well in Herrick XIV.

[Jackonicko]

God save us. Another Lewis Page manqué.

I'm astonished that any aviator could be quite so lacking in understanding of 'air' as you are, Trim Stab.

You shouldn't need to be told that UK AD, including QRA is part of the core military role of defending the homeland.

You should be aware of the levels of activity that NATO QRA and UK Adana generates.

Your remarks on Typhoon show you to be on an intellectual par with Page and all of the other infanteer subalterns who regularly spew forth this sort of pernicious bol.locks. It's self evidently worthless drivel, and that's why I'll waste no more time countering it.

I'm also astonished that you, as a self-proclaimed Terrier, should show quite such witless insensitivity to those who died in 1982 by referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas. Poor show.

[LOAgent]

Trim Stab, whereas Jacko can no longer stand to counter your ill-informed drivel I feel it necessary to step out of the shadows to do just that.

The ignorance that you show in your posts with regard to UK QRA is reprehensible. I find it difficult to criticise one such as yourself who volunteers as you do, but in this case I must do as I am trained to and level 'constructive' criticism where it is due. You fail to understand the importance of the mission that is undertaken by the Typhoons and the remaining F3s. As an Officer in any branch of the military there is a requirement to understand strategic fundamentals of other branches of the armed forces. The sovereignty of UK airspace is by no means a given and is one of the most important military tasks undertaken by our armed forces. The Typhoons and the F3s are the 'trigger' men of a much larger political and military machine. It is an extremely specialised task that takes an awful lot of training to become proficient at to the levels that the British public requires and deserves. The 2 guys that died, and I knew both of them very well, did so training for a role that is by no means easy. Your flippant comments about UK QRA diminish what they were doing, something that I take personally, whilst also demonstrating an unforgivable lack in your knowledge of the UK Defence mission. I have the utmost respect for the mission that is going on in Herrick, however I do not allow that pride and respect to cloud sound military judgement with respect to the bigger picture.

[Jackonicko]

There are too many targets that would be too quick for a Hawk to get to, surely? Quite apart from the lack of weapons options, radar, etc.

[Trim Stab]

I am not arguing to abandon completely QRA. Merely that there is too much mantra about the need to defend UK against air attack, largely to "justify" having so many Typhoons. Other Euopean countries get by just fine without spending enormous slices of their defence budget on air defence fighters.

There are just far bigger defence priorities at the moment than air defence.

And I notice that in all the smug posts telling me that my views are naive that nobody has bothered to anwer my simple point that the most dangerous airborne threat we currently face is from a terrorist pilot. What use are the Typhoons against that threat? We spend a fortune developing defence systems against an alleged threat which is vanishingly small, but leave ourselves wide open to attack by a distinctly real threat. But then I am sure you will just dismiss me as naive - because that threat doesn't fit into your justification for QRA...

[Trim Stab]

Finland - 61 FA/18, Sweden 141 Gripen (plus a few trainers), Norway 57 F-16.

If you really want to claim that Russia is still a threat to us, then those three countries face a far greater threat, not least because Russia would (possibly) still be able to invade and hold the land. Yet those three countries get by with far fewer QRA resources.

Our procurement of 232 Typhoons had more to do with job protection than any real need for such a large fleet. Job protection is a worthy objective, and one that I would wholly support. But don't pretend that we really need so many aircraft for air-defence - especially as they are completely useless against the only real airborne threat that we face.

To go back to the original thread, if FJ crews are not getting enough hours to stay current, then reduce the numbers of FJ crews. Better to train enough crew to fly 100 Typhoons safely than half-train crew to fly 232 Typhoons badly.

The Northern QRA launched a few months back to assist an airliner which had dropped a wheel on the runway without the crew being aware. Maybe if it was Trim Stab in his BizJet he'd feel differently about the money spent on QRA

I've been trying to find details of that incident as I am intrigued as to what possible assistance the QRA could have been to the airline crew. On the one occasion that I have been intercepted (by French Mirages) they just caused distress for my pax.

[glad rag]

I think it's a shame that this thread has become a fastjet bashing exercise when the guys were doing their best to maintain currency under difficult circumstances

Well said.

[soddim]

There seem to be a few on this thread with almost Ostrich-like efforts to totally ignore the most important reason why we pay good money (although not enough) to maintain military forces in this country. It is certainly not so that Blair/Brown can wave their willys on the world stage by supporting whatever foreign venture attracts America's eye.

The first and foremost role of our military is defence of UK. Without a credible air defence force that can in peacetime ensure the integrity of our airspace and in war protect us from air attack we might as well surrender at the first emergence of a threat.

Just in case someone wants to bang on some more about there being no threat, just remember that intentions can change overnight, a credible force takes years to assemble if you have none.

Our present air defence force is barely credible for defence and none too big to maintain integrity of the airspace. Whilst we all accept the difficulty of dealing effectively with a determined airborne suicide bomber, the ability to identify whether the aircraft in question is likely to be a real threat or is simply not doing what it should, is a good start in that process. A less capable aircraft such as the Hawk is simply not up to the task.

[Jackonicko]

Trim Stab,

'So many Typhoons.......'

Currently we have two squadrons, plus an OCU and four aircraft with an OEU.

Add to that 12 Tornado F3s.

That's insufficient to adequately do the UK AD mission, plus Q, plus the Falklands, for which it was judged that a force of five dedicated AD squadrons would be needed.

And if you want to be able to do deployed AD, or to deploy Typhoon in the A-G role, then obviously you need more.

The original buy of 232 Typhoons was intended to sustain a frontline force of 137, seven squadrons, an OEU and an OCU, plus attrition and a maintenance reserve to allow a long service life.

THAT WAS NEVER AN UNREASONABLE OR UNREALISTIC ASPIRATION.

We're now getting 160. That won't sustain a big force for long, but you can do the math.

But the idea that we're somehow awash with Fast Jets is uninformed tripe.

Bilge of the type I'd expect from a 14 year old Army Cadet.

As to hijacked airliners representing the only threat........



That may be true if you limit your 'look ahead' to a week next wednesday. But if we are to set our defence budget and force structure entirely to meet the current threat we can certainly save more money, more easily, than by trimming UK AD. Carriers, Trident, tanks, all ceremonial troops, horses and silverware, all NBC, we can bin the lot.

And I confidently expect you to campaign actively and vigorously for the British Army and the Royal Navy to be reduced immediately to the force levels of Finland and Norway.

As to the utility of QRA against a terrorist threat, I'd suggest the fact that there may be some scenarios where interceptors could not make a difference does not alter the fact that there are plenty of others where they could, saving thousands of lives in the process, and providing valuable deterrent effect.

airpolice,

If you're going to do QRA, then you need the tools for the job. Missile armed, radar-equipped, all-weather and supersonic are the minimum requirements. There might be a case for a dedicated force of four squadrons of Gripens or F-16s, but the Hawk (even with its 30-mm cannon) simply won't cut it. And if you know it's a false alarm, you don't scramble.

[ShyTorque]

IIRC, In the 1980s the Belgian air force announced they would limit their crews to 12 hours/month and this was an issue because this was below the minimum NATO requirement.

Another case of knowing the price but not the value.

[The B Word]

2 points to make:

1. The Hawks we have are not AAR capable. So pretty useless for QRA.

2. QRA is not just about defending airspace. Many of the Bear aircraft come over to hoover up our signals and also to look for signs of our nuclear deterent. Furthermore, they do not have Western transponders and, although they fly 'due regard', they will not show up on TCAS (including that of our resident idiot TA bizjet driver) or on Air Traffic's radar as a secondary radar return. That is why they need shepherding, in order to keep an eye on them and ensure that other air users are not endangered.

Having spent some time in the Q shed myself (a few times with poor old Nige), I thought it was time to put the record straight!

The B Word

[Jimmy Macintosh]

I'm a little surprised at the suggestions that using the lighter aircraft for currency training would be good. One reason they report hours and hours on type, is surely to show that currency on type is important.

Personally I wouldn't like to train for a Grand Prix in a Peugeot 106 diesel then on race day step into a F1 car.

I'll leave the other discussions to those who have vast amounts of knowledge and experience way beyond myself.