Another Red Arrows mishap? (merged)
MoD lifts Tornado flights suspension
From the BBC 17/11/2011
A ban on non-essential flying in Tornado attack jets, implemented after the death of Red Arrows pilot, has been lifted, the Ministry of Defence says.
Flt Lt Sean Cunningham, 35, was killed after being ejected from his plane while on the ground at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire on 8 November.
The RAF is still reviewing evidence regarding Hawk T1, Hawk T2 and Tucano planes so the suspension of flights in those aircraft remains.
Flt Lt Sean Cunningham, 35, was killed after being ejected from his plane while on the ground at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire on 8 November.
The RAF is still reviewing evidence regarding Hawk T1, Hawk T2 and Tucano planes so the suspension of flights in those aircraft remains.
CSDE Amourer (oh, I miss Swanton, lovely stn!),
On the limits of my knowledge here, but isn't the 'wedge' shape of the Top Latch Plunger specifically made such that as the INNER piston moves up, it pushes the TLP sideways against its spring and this does 'unlock' it from the top latch window. If the rocket pack had fired then the seat as a whole would have experienced an upward force but the inner piston would not have extended and there would have been no 'unlocking' of the TLP, thus only if the window fractured would the seat have been free to move? (and, of course, we wouldn't have seen the ejection piston fully extended?)
On the limits of my knowledge here, but isn't the 'wedge' shape of the Top Latch Plunger specifically made such that as the INNER piston moves up, it pushes the TLP sideways against its spring and this does 'unlock' it from the top latch window. If the rocket pack had fired then the seat as a whole would have experienced an upward force but the inner piston would not have extended and there would have been no 'unlocking' of the TLP, thus only if the window fractured would the seat have been free to move? (and, of course, we wouldn't have seen the ejection piston fully extended?)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here, there, everywhere
Age: 47
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency MPD 2011-008-E: Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Limited: Inspection of Ejection Seat Drogue Shackle Connection to Scissor Shackle | Publications | CAA
Any bearing on the incident? Although it still does not explain why the seat went bang in the first place.
Any bearing on the incident? Although it still does not explain why the seat went bang in the first place.
Mk 10s in UK Tornados were modified and fitted with gas shackles in the 90s. Hence the clearance to fly?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry:
Me too, mate. CSDE "Walkabouts", getting a new SWO shouting at you for walking on the grass! Happy days - then the Brown Jobbies go planting trees on the airfield!! Eejitts.
Pushing my memory here also. I don't believe the force require to overcome the Top Latch has to come from the pressure build up in the Main Gun "tube". This is sort of related to the 10A Tornado requirement - documented, I believe in Marham incident thread - of trying to lift the fitted seat - handwheel removed - up the rails to determine whether or not the Top Latch is correctly engaged. I understand your use of "unlock" in this context - the M-B site and the description provided earlier in this thread - just before the schematic posted by B Word - uses "releasing" which I don't believe is correct -
Post 188 by Cpl Clott
- as the Top Latch re-engages with the Inner Piston once through the "Gate". On one of the Ejection Seats that came out of the JP5A out of Cranditz that crashed at Swinderby - 81? - the Inner Piston was still in situ between the Main Beams, held in place by the Top Latch, when I disarmed the Guillotine Assembly prior to getting the remains of the Seat back to the Control Point.
However, if the Ejection Seat in the Hawk had a feature similar to the "Bottom Latch" feature of the Type 3, and earlier seats, then yes, there would have had to be Primary Cartridge initiation as the expanding gases in the Gun Tube did "release" that Bottom Latch.
I don't know if this answers your question - as others have noted here, we will all have to wait for the investigation specialists to do their stuff and for the reports to be released. BTW, are/were you an Armourer? Just interested...
oh, I miss Swanton, lovely stn!
isn't the 'wedge' shape of the Top Latch Plunger specifically made such that as the INNER piston moves up, it pushes the TLP sideways against its spring and this does 'unlock' it from the top latch window
Post 188 by Cpl Clott
Primary cartridge fired causing inner and intermediate pistons to rise, releasing top latch
However, if the Ejection Seat in the Hawk had a feature similar to the "Bottom Latch" feature of the Type 3, and earlier seats, then yes, there would have had to be Primary Cartridge initiation as the expanding gases in the Gun Tube did "release" that Bottom Latch.
I don't know if this answers your question - as others have noted here, we will all have to wait for the investigation specialists to do their stuff and for the reports to be released. BTW, are/were you an Armourer? Just interested...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,937 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Guys let the BOI do it's job, all this speculation about why it didn't work still does not explain the ejection in the first place......
I don't think it does any real harm discussing such issues NutLoose. After all, this forum is full of examples where the BoI/SI has been lacking to say the least, only for the underlying problems to be revealed here. Chinook, C130, Nimrod are good examples. I suspect the MoD keep a quiet eye on pprune for any help they can get. There is almost certainly more collective knowledge among the retired guys on here than MoD employs these days!
Nutloose,
Take your point, but we have this issue on pprune every time there's an accident, and particularly a fatality. It's human nature to speculate and this is a rumour network. Let's not kid ourselves, this discussion is taking place in crew rooms up and down the country.
Of course, pprune is far more open than a crewroom and we need to bear that in mind, but having a debate about how the seat works and what COULD go wrong (as opposed to what did) increases flight safety awareness and I think that serves a worthwhile purpose.
Journos will write rubbish whatever we say, so I don't think that self-censorship here will make any difference.
Take your point, but we have this issue on pprune every time there's an accident, and particularly a fatality. It's human nature to speculate and this is a rumour network. Let's not kid ourselves, this discussion is taking place in crew rooms up and down the country.
Of course, pprune is far more open than a crewroom and we need to bear that in mind, but having a debate about how the seat works and what COULD go wrong (as opposed to what did) increases flight safety awareness and I think that serves a worthwhile purpose.
Journos will write rubbish whatever we say, so I don't think that self-censorship here will make any difference.
Good points, chaps.
Well made. (both Dervish & RLE).
Well made. (both Dervish & RLE).
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right! What's point of a discussion forum if we don't discuss things?
What this thread really does illustrate is just how much real knowledge members bring to the table. Readers are quite entitled to decide what is idle speculation and what is well-considered, fact-based opinion. Personally, I enjoy the speculation too.
Well done all. Keep posting!!!
What this thread really does illustrate is just how much real knowledge members bring to the table. Readers are quite entitled to decide what is idle speculation and what is well-considered, fact-based opinion. Personally, I enjoy the speculation too.
Well done all. Keep posting!!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion there are too many thread police who reach the edge of their comfort zone then 'encourage' the rest of us to stop dicussing the subject.
Poke off - it's a rumour network like it says in the forum name.
Don't like it?
Leave . . . Simples
Poke off - it's a rumour network like it says in the forum name.
Don't like it?
Leave . . . Simples
In contrast to the Microsoft Flight Sim warriors and other know-alls who infest other PPRuNe forums, discussion by knowledgable folk on this sad event has been very considered. No-one has posted wild-ar$ed guesses or claimed to know what actually happened; it has been refreshing to see such a mature approach on PPRuNE.
So, in this particular case, yes, the thread 'police' should indeed combine sex and travel!
So, in this particular case, yes, the thread 'police' should indeed combine sex and travel!
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Offshore
Age: 73
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points being made here.
FWIW and IMHO, there must be hundreds of us old-timers with hands-on experience and clear(ish) memories of mil-kit. Following incidents and accidents we tend to follow discussions with interest and only contribute when we have something constructive to bring to the table. It would be a crying shame if over-vigilant censorship resulted from the "don't speculate" crowd. You folks still taking the Queen's shilling seem to be doing a fine job despite widely publicised cutbacks. Well done and thank you to you all. TP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,937 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
What I was trying to say is the BOI will establish the chain of events, as to why the drogue appears to have failed to deploy is secondary to the main issue, true it has a bearing on a successful outcome, which this sadly wasn't, but the main concern surely must be as to why the seat and rocket (If it did) fired in the first place, you can speculate all you like but please remember members of the families involved may also be reading this thread.
And far from being a "thread Police" I simply prior to this linked the thread to the Condolence book out of a mark of respect to the poor guy.
And far from being a "thread Police" I simply prior to this linked the thread to the Condolence book out of a mark of respect to the poor guy.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Nutloose says, the facts that seem to have arisen that the CAA's Permit Directive (that most propably, and and that is my opinion) is a parallel pathway to the UTI raised against the RAF Mk 10 (and varient) seats. Fairly clear then why the accident ended the way it did, but the top and tail of this tragic tale will definately have to wait until the BOI issues its report. That could be some time I think, because other investigations will be occuring IMHO.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Of course the BOI will establish the cause (we hope so, they don't always).
However, will a quietly reasoned discussion about the details of how the seat works (by folks with some professional knowledge) really upset the family any further? Because of the circumstances of this particular accident, I doubt it. The bereaved family might even take some solace over the fact that the accident is under discussion. They will understand that we're all very concerned about their tragic loss and that many of us share their grief. I attended a seminar last week where we held a short period of silence for the deceased.
However, sometimes, the circumstances of an accident are very different and more caution might be exercised.
In this case, the cause of the accident seems reasonably clear cut - the ejection seat appears to suffered some sort of technical problem. It obviously went off when it shouldn't have and appears not to have worked correctly afterwards, with terribly tragic consequences. All that is being discussed is why this occurred.
I once flew for a living sitting on a bang seat, now I don't. Even so, I'm still interested to read about this technical stuff.
However, will a quietly reasoned discussion about the details of how the seat works (by folks with some professional knowledge) really upset the family any further? Because of the circumstances of this particular accident, I doubt it. The bereaved family might even take some solace over the fact that the accident is under discussion. They will understand that we're all very concerned about their tragic loss and that many of us share their grief. I attended a seminar last week where we held a short period of silence for the deceased.
However, sometimes, the circumstances of an accident are very different and more caution might be exercised.
In this case, the cause of the accident seems reasonably clear cut - the ejection seat appears to suffered some sort of technical problem. It obviously went off when it shouldn't have and appears not to have worked correctly afterwards, with terribly tragic consequences. All that is being discussed is why this occurred.
I once flew for a living sitting on a bang seat, now I don't. Even so, I'm still interested to read about this technical stuff.