FIT TO FLY??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very sad tale and my condolences to all.
But,
Actually at least 2 people did step forward...the instructors at Cranwell who questioned his ability to scan properly did so....but they appear to have been overruled by their CO who passed him off with only a "minor" restriction.
All of my experience doing aeros emphasises the "full and free" movement required of the neck area, particularly in a loop!
But,
"Someone" failed to step forward.
All of my experience doing aeros emphasises the "full and free" movement required of the neck area, particularly in a loop!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davejb.
The rule about flying without being accompanied by a qualified pilot was in force in 1975. I was an RAF pilot then and, after a civilian ME missed an ECG anomoly at an annual medical, was classified at my next medical as being unfit solo pilot. My grading was "as or with a qualified co-pilot". I was told that, although there were several appointments in the RAF which would enable me to fly in a multi-crew, in order to gain promotion I needed an unrestricted medical category. I was told that in order to become the CAS, which of course was my intention, I needed to be able to fly single seat aircraft. The strong recommendation from the Air Sec's Dept was for me to leave the RAF.
The "as or with" didn't stop me pursuing a reasonably successful flying career in a major British airline, and the heart problem was corrected some years later by a microwave hit so that my flying medical became unrestricted.
But the rule about flying without being accompanied by a qualified pilot was definitely in force from at least 1975.
The rule about flying without being accompanied by a qualified pilot was in force in 1975. I was an RAF pilot then and, after a civilian ME missed an ECG anomoly at an annual medical, was classified at my next medical as being unfit solo pilot. My grading was "as or with a qualified co-pilot". I was told that, although there were several appointments in the RAF which would enable me to fly in a multi-crew, in order to gain promotion I needed an unrestricted medical category. I was told that in order to become the CAS, which of course was my intention, I needed to be able to fly single seat aircraft. The strong recommendation from the Air Sec's Dept was for me to leave the RAF.
The "as or with" didn't stop me pursuing a reasonably successful flying career in a major British airline, and the heart problem was corrected some years later by a microwave hit so that my flying medical became unrestricted.
But the rule about flying without being accompanied by a qualified pilot was definitely in force from at least 1975.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyvern,
I don't doubt it - I was just mentioning this as one possible 'off the top of my head' options that one might apply when a pilot is so badfly affected by a medical condition. Of course it would prevent somebody like Mike from flying cadets around - I am unaware of anyone who was concerned at being flown by Mike during his Nimrod days, including myself.
I don't doubt it - I was just mentioning this as one possible 'off the top of my head' options that one might apply when a pilot is so badfly affected by a medical condition. Of course it would prevent somebody like Mike from flying cadets around - I am unaware of anyone who was concerned at being flown by Mike during his Nimrod days, including myself.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my saying, but flying multi-pilot in something like a Nimrod where the ability to do a full scan lookout is not high on the list of priorities is a tad different to the circumstances of the accident.
Pardon my saying, but flying multi-pilot in something like a Nimrod where the ability to do a full scan lookout is not high on the list of priorities is a tad different to the circumstances of the accident.
YS
Former Nimrod QFI
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apolpogies in advance for thread drift.
Further to the comments made about medical conditions affecting piloting ability a colleague of mine was found to suffer from a heart condition when his intermittently stopped working for a short time (can't remember the technical term) so he was grounded. I said to him "so you have given up driving then?" which I would have thought to be a far greater accident risk than operating in a two pilot environment. Politeness pervents me from repeating his reply. How many others are on the roads today who are unable to turn their heads sufficiently? How many PSV and HGV drivers are tired before beginning their legally scheduled work?
Further to the comments made about medical conditions affecting piloting ability a colleague of mine was found to suffer from a heart condition when his intermittently stopped working for a short time (can't remember the technical term) so he was grounded. I said to him "so you have given up driving then?" which I would have thought to be a far greater accident risk than operating in a two pilot environment. Politeness pervents me from repeating his reply. How many others are on the roads today who are unable to turn their heads sufficiently? How many PSV and HGV drivers are tired before beginning their legally scheduled work?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, we need to be able to see when driving, but we don't have potential hazards coming up from below or down from above, we don't have to look there before performing a manouver, and we have mirrors which should help. And for many junctions, we are stationary and in what should be a safe place (behind a stop or give way line) when we look, so there is plenty of time compared to when flying.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The talk of look out in a Nimrod and submarines above is pure drivel. Try a MAD hunting circle at 300 feet at night. Try bouncing another aircraft - yes we did and got bounced in turn and they weren't NATO aircraft.
P N
I did my share of night MAD. Not sure why submarines/above is drivel. Did you see any up there?
That said, there was indeed a need for a good all round look out on the Nimrod, but it did not require as much vertical movement as you would for a loop, which seems to have been what MB was doing.
I did my share of night MAD. Not sure why submarines/above is drivel. Did you see any up there?
That said, there was indeed a need for a good all round look out on the Nimrod, but it did not require as much vertical movement as you would for a loop, which seems to have been what MB was doing.
Last edited by oxenos; 24th Feb 2012 at 11:12.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full and free neck and head movement
Whatever the merits of being a former Nimrod pilot, whether anyone was happy in his crew, busy Class G airspace, blah, blah blah - tragically this pilot caused a fatal accident because of his demonstrable failure to effect a series of essential checks and observations before and during aero's QED - there simply is no other cause, no excuses ! Of course, it is a fair bet that his medical condition was a contributory factor in this context ( and the guys at Cranwell who said so should be congratulated, but I guess they won't be !). Even the best make fatal errors - the recent tragedy of Al Mathie walking into a propellor a few weeks ago underlines that - and he too was a massively experienced retired Wg Cdr Jaguar man with a huge experience of prop aircraft.
I did find it rather remarkable that the RAF Reviewing Officer ACM Sir Chris Moran stated in the RAF SIP Report that " we will probably never know for certain why Tutor G-BYXR collided with Cirrus G-CKHT" - whilst the Convening authority AVM North stated that "it must be assumed that the Tutor pilot did not see the glider in time to prevent a collision" . Indeed !
Top marks to the AVM - the pilot didn't obviously see it otherwise there would have been NO accident ! As to the reason he didn't - well maybe should start off with a question to yourself "Would you be pulling up spontaneously in well populated airspace without carrying out a continuing set of observational checks ?" - Would you think it was good airmanship? These are basic questions, even leaving aside any medical issues that arose.
Good airmanship must prevail at all times, the penalty for a moment of omission or error is a very high price a we have seen.
I did find it rather remarkable that the RAF Reviewing Officer ACM Sir Chris Moran stated in the RAF SIP Report that " we will probably never know for certain why Tutor G-BYXR collided with Cirrus G-CKHT" - whilst the Convening authority AVM North stated that "it must be assumed that the Tutor pilot did not see the glider in time to prevent a collision" . Indeed !
Top marks to the AVM - the pilot didn't obviously see it otherwise there would have been NO accident ! As to the reason he didn't - well maybe should start off with a question to yourself "Would you be pulling up spontaneously in well populated airspace without carrying out a continuing set of observational checks ?" - Would you think it was good airmanship? These are basic questions, even leaving aside any medical issues that arose.
Good airmanship must prevail at all times, the penalty for a moment of omission or error is a very high price a we have seen.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
In which seat are RAF cadets flown during in AEF flights in the Grob Tutor?
Is it usual for cadets to be allowed to take along cameras and to use them during aerobatics?
What is the minimum altitude for AEF aerobatics in the Grob Tutor these days?
Is it usual for cadets to be allowed to take along cameras and to use them during aerobatics?
What is the minimum altitude for AEF aerobatics in the Grob Tutor these days?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Thankyou, Peter.
If I recall correctly, the rules I flew under when with the UAS were transition level plus the height of the ground (strange wording but I think that's how it was worded back then). So not much of a change over the years, for the majority of the UK.
If I recall correctly, the rules I flew under when with the UAS were transition level plus the height of the ground (strange wording but I think that's how it was worded back then). So not much of a change over the years, for the majority of the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pertinent Link
Many of the points raised by the St Athan 2x Tutor collision are relevant to this post see:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ir-report.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ir-report.html
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Title says it all - or does it?
Seems this thread's title sums up what has been emphasised in the press and by the SI into the tragic collision.
The AAIB investigation sees the spinal issue and medical oversight as two of many contributory factors - not the sole problem!
1. TRAFFIC DENSITY v PERFORMANCE - huge glider activity that day and no fast way for a Tutor to climb above them for a short Famil flight.
2. CANOPY DESIGN - TWO problems:
(a) LOOKOUT: Ability to lookout (large obscuration by arches as with previous collision), fixed harnesses (no go-forward straps)
(b) EGRESS: The "Jettison Handle" does not function in the sense that the AEF video claimed (and most cadets believed) at the time ie: it does not jettison the canopy! Indeed the canopy removal drill is long and complex for a student to understand without practice. Even if attempted the Grob was never tested beyond 100kts for canopy removal under LBA certification. Seasoned pilots know that during venting (for simulated fumes in the cockpit drill), the canopy is difficult to move rearwards even at 80kts.
3. CONSPICUITY:
The SI report goes as far as to categorically say Tutor conspicuity was not a factor despite the glider pilot witness stating he heard the Tutor before he saw it and then only at very close range.
In the AAIB report a little more is made of how difficult a Tutor is to see.
Although not as significant a factor as in the St Athan collision (weather, contrast with ground etc), the AEF aircraft was not seen until it was too late.
What has been done to mitigate these factors that affect all Tutor Ops?
The AAIB investigation sees the spinal issue and medical oversight as two of many contributory factors - not the sole problem!
1. TRAFFIC DENSITY v PERFORMANCE - huge glider activity that day and no fast way for a Tutor to climb above them for a short Famil flight.
2. CANOPY DESIGN - TWO problems:
(a) LOOKOUT: Ability to lookout (large obscuration by arches as with previous collision), fixed harnesses (no go-forward straps)
(b) EGRESS: The "Jettison Handle" does not function in the sense that the AEF video claimed (and most cadets believed) at the time ie: it does not jettison the canopy! Indeed the canopy removal drill is long and complex for a student to understand without practice. Even if attempted the Grob was never tested beyond 100kts for canopy removal under LBA certification. Seasoned pilots know that during venting (for simulated fumes in the cockpit drill), the canopy is difficult to move rearwards even at 80kts.
3. CONSPICUITY:
The SI report goes as far as to categorically say Tutor conspicuity was not a factor despite the glider pilot witness stating he heard the Tutor before he saw it and then only at very close range.
In the AAIB report a little more is made of how difficult a Tutor is to see.
Although not as significant a factor as in the St Athan collision (weather, contrast with ground etc), the AEF aircraft was not seen until it was too late.
What has been done to mitigate these factors that affect all Tutor Ops?
