Aircraft crashed at RAF Cranwell
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Whilst I agree with this
It is also something we shouldn't have been doing since the start of operating the aircraft! 
Like others have said, there is no telling how much damage we have done to the aircraft since service entry, let alone the props, for doing manoeuvres that the manufacturer never envisaged during the design and certification phase. I'm guessing someone owns this risk?
Furthermore, when I visited Linton recently, someone told me there were 12 pilots going through training at the moment. 12 no wonder the place was like a ghost town! Are we really keeping Linton open for 12 students when they could move to Leeming and utilise the facilities there and put Linton under care and maintenance? Or even move them to Cranwell that is also like a ghost town at present with a small scattering of officers going through IOT, engineering training going to Cosford and 55(R) long gone.
All is very definately not right in the training world - in my humble opinion of course!
CPL Clott
Also, the no flick maneuver rule is new
Like others have said, there is no telling how much damage we have done to the aircraft since service entry, let alone the props, for doing manoeuvres that the manufacturer never envisaged during the design and certification phase. I'm guessing someone owns this risk?
Furthermore, when I visited Linton recently, someone told me there were 12 pilots going through training at the moment. 12 no wonder the place was like a ghost town! Are we really keeping Linton open for 12 students when they could move to Leeming and utilise the facilities there and put Linton under care and maintenance? Or even move them to Cranwell that is also like a ghost town at present with a small scattering of officers going through IOT, engineering training going to Cosford and 55(R) long gone.
All is very definately not right in the training world - in my humble opinion of course!
CPL Clott
Last edited by Corporal Clott; 12th Jan 2013 at 08:47.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the manufacturer never envisaged during the design and certification phase.
To say that Grob never envisaged or certified it though is not true - the Grob TP told me so
The frequency of those manoeuvres though is a different issue.The only thing, as I see it, in debate is fatigue-life and its management for an ac ostensibly designed for the GA market, combined with a prop/engine combination defined post-design and a customer making such regular visits to all edges of the flight envelope. That isn't defined so well...to say the least.
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 12th Jan 2013 at 10:44.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hueymeister
I would agree with the guys at Benson on the water absorption.
As for propellor replacement my guess is that the only company that would be able to certify a prop in any reasonable time scale would be MT propellor.
We have had no trouble from their products mainly fitted to Extra 300 aircraft were the prop gets quite a hard life.
As for propellor replacement my guess is that the only company that would be able to certify a prop in any reasonable time scale would be MT propellor.
We have had no trouble from their products mainly fitted to Extra 300 aircraft were the prop gets quite a hard life.
Corporal Clott,
Any money you'd save from putting Linton under care and maintenance would be wiped out several times over by the cost of moving the whole operation somewhere else.
Moreover, the fact there's 12 pilots there right now is because the whole training system is still seeing the fallout of SDSR and the mass redundancies, and this isn't the steady state plan. Within a couple of years, Linton will be up to more than double those numbers and the 1 FTS operation will be large enough to justify its own airfield again. We can't move it one month and then move it back in a year.
You must be an Air Officer. "12 students? Just move them! Leeming's fine, it's got a runway? Crosswinds? I don't care, just move it!"
Any money you'd save from putting Linton under care and maintenance would be wiped out several times over by the cost of moving the whole operation somewhere else.
Moreover, the fact there's 12 pilots there right now is because the whole training system is still seeing the fallout of SDSR and the mass redundancies, and this isn't the steady state plan. Within a couple of years, Linton will be up to more than double those numbers and the 1 FTS operation will be large enough to justify its own airfield again. We can't move it one month and then move it back in a year.
You must be an Air Officer. "12 students? Just move them! Leeming's fine, it's got a runway? Crosswinds? I don't care, just move it!"
What's this about cross-winds at Leeming? In my time there the annoyance of the "gap-wind" was well understood and manageable with a good forecaster and authoriser or whatever?
Have they changed the runways or something? Was there not one other than 16/34 ........... or am I misremembering?
Have they changed the runways or something? Was there not one other than 16/34 ........... or am I misremembering?
Last edited by langleybaston; 12th Jan 2013 at 16:24.
There's a short cross runway, but I'm pretty sure it's too short for Tucanos. Certainly too short for Hawks. It always seemed to have a fairly steady 21/03 wind whenever I visited!
Thanks for that runway info ...... I think JPs had no problem but that might be rose-coloured specs [by the justly infamous author of "Forecasting the Gap Wind at Leeming"] !!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5F6B,
Mate - purely for my own education do you know what the steady state target actually is post SDSR? And when is 'steady state'? When I was in FT the Holy Grail for FW types was 60 IPS - which was reduced to 40 IPS (I think) when I had just left Valley.
That was when we had GR4, F3, Jaguar and Harrier 'mouths to feed' with siro 120 FE@R (although I doubt we called it FE@R then!).
If I had to take a wild stab (based on GR4 draw down, no F-35 yet and Typhoon numbers not exactly rocketing) I would assume the RAF needed no more than 20 ab-initio FW pilots a year for the foreseeable future.
Am I far off the mark? (Wouldn't be the first time!
)
Mate - purely for my own education do you know what the steady state target actually is post SDSR? And when is 'steady state'? When I was in FT the Holy Grail for FW types was 60 IPS - which was reduced to 40 IPS (I think) when I had just left Valley.
That was when we had GR4, F3, Jaguar and Harrier 'mouths to feed' with siro 120 FE@R (although I doubt we called it FE@R then!).
If I had to take a wild stab (based on GR4 draw down, no F-35 yet and Typhoon numbers not exactly rocketing) I would assume the RAF needed no more than 20 ab-initio FW pilots a year for the foreseeable future.
Am I far off the mark? (Wouldn't be the first time!
)
You're not far off the mark; I'll grab some exact numbers, but I think we're looking at 24 for the forseeable. I have no idea if JSF even factors in numbers, yet, but the other 2 still need new people for a while.
Considering when IPS was 40 we had 4-5 courses of around a dozen at Linton, I think we'll soon find it busier again.
Considering when IPS was 40 we had 4-5 courses of around a dozen at Linton, I think we'll soon find it busier again.
Are we really keeping Linton open in the hope that we might be able to train 24 pilots on a basic training course a year? With that kind of waste, can I have my Child Benefit back please, Mr Cameron? 
Put the Tucanos into Cranwell and shut Linton - it's the best option.
LJ
Put the Tucanos into Cranwell and shut Linton - it's the best option.
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Cranwell? Surely Valley would be a better place - the Cranwell area is already maxed. Valley has the Welsh MTA and a low-level playground on its doorstep and, as discussed, a much reduced throughput.
They might fly a fair few more than 24; 24 IPS means you need to put more in.
As far as basing goes, I don't fancy flying Tucanos at Valley without an immersion suit, and it's not cleared for them (or at least wasn't when I last flew one). Cranwell, sure; but with the messes traditionally full, accommodation across Lincolnshire full (Waddington appears to be overflowing everywhere) and no new facilities to base a squadron of Tucanos from, where would you put them?
And, thinking like an Air Officer, would sorting those problems be cheaper than just running Linton for a few more years until it's your successor's problem...?
As far as basing goes, I don't fancy flying Tucanos at Valley without an immersion suit, and it's not cleared for them (or at least wasn't when I last flew one). Cranwell, sure; but with the messes traditionally full, accommodation across Lincolnshire full (Waddington appears to be overflowing everywhere) and no new facilities to base a squadron of Tucanos from, where would you put them?
And, thinking like an Air Officer, would sorting those problems be cheaper than just running Linton for a few more years until it's your successor's problem...?
The messes are virtually empty at Cranwell and the airspace is pretty empty as well - no more Harriers at Wittering and Cottesmore, Barkston run back from norms, the Dominies gone at Cranwell and little going on at Wyton apart from EFT/UAS/AEF. The likes of Waddington and Coningsby are running at the traditional rates, but their working heights are higher and often North or East.
Take it from me, Cranwell has stacks of capacity to absorb 24IPS (and some), both for flying and domestic support, plus plenty of airspace. Either Cranwell needs to shut or Linton - guess which?
I agree about Valley, and that is another option. How difficult is it to clear an internal immersion suit for Tucano? Surely, not that hard?
Whatever happens, with a reduced fleet to feed pilots to, and a fleet of Grobs that are starting to show their fragility, it is time to start thinking radically. It must be time to renegotiate with Ascent for MFTS and come up with a system that will deliver at 24IPS - not one that can hardly deliver efficiently at half that.
LJ
Take it from me, Cranwell has stacks of capacity to absorb 24IPS (and some), both for flying and domestic support, plus plenty of airspace. Either Cranwell needs to shut or Linton - guess which?
I agree about Valley, and that is another option. How difficult is it to clear an internal immersion suit for Tucano? Surely, not that hard?
Whatever happens, with a reduced fleet to feed pilots to, and a fleet of Grobs that are starting to show their fragility, it is time to start thinking radically. It must be time to renegotiate with Ascent for MFTS and come up with a system that will deliver at 24IPS - not one that can hardly deliver efficiently at half that.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 13th Jan 2013 at 08:43.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
As usual you are commenting 'with authority' on something which you clearly have no idea about!
If you were anywhere in the food chain you would know that Cranwell will not be in a position to take Tucano when the planned Eft restructure goes ahead. Valley? Clearing a new piece of AEA for a specific type is not simples.
I have nothing against free speech, but having seen many ill informed posts by you on subjects such as the Nimrod and Tutor I think you should do a little research before posting so that you don't look silly when people who really know what's going on read this forum.
Btw. Many of your posts are good. Don't spoil your credibility by posting tosh.
As usual you are commenting 'with authority' on something which you clearly have no idea about!
If you were anywhere in the food chain you would know that Cranwell will not be in a position to take Tucano when the planned Eft restructure goes ahead. Valley? Clearing a new piece of AEA for a specific type is not simples.
I have nothing against free speech, but having seen many ill informed posts by you on subjects such as the Nimrod and Tutor I think you should do a little research before posting so that you don't look silly when people who really know what's going on read this forum.
Btw. Many of your posts are good. Don't spoil your credibility by posting tosh.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK - sometimes
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of airspace in Lincolnshire, perhaps.
Plenty of capacity in the Cranwell circuit? Don't think so.
Lots of (all in the future?) EFT at Cranwell - lots of slow circuits.
ME trg at Cranwell. Some possibility of exporting ccts to... 1 Gp airfields who ( rightly) prioritise their own traffic.
Why would you want to add a third type into a busy circuit full of the least experienced pilots we have? (I mean students not QFIs
)
And the fact that Dominies have left doesn't really alter the price of fish, 6-10 movements a day and very little circuit work does not relate to the number of circuits that BFJT would need.
Plenty of capacity in the Cranwell circuit? Don't think so.
Lots of (all in the future?) EFT at Cranwell - lots of slow circuits.
ME trg at Cranwell. Some possibility of exporting ccts to... 1 Gp airfields who ( rightly) prioritise their own traffic.
Why would you want to add a third type into a busy circuit full of the least experienced pilots we have? (I mean students not QFIs
)And the fact that Dominies have left doesn't really alter the price of fish, 6-10 movements a day and very little circuit work does not relate to the number of circuits that BFJT would need.
Back to the current problem with the Tutors.
Is it coincidence that both the recent prop incidents happened at Cranwell?
I don't know.
Does anyone know, in both cases, which RW, tarmac or grass, was used for take off? May not be relevant but it could be a consequence of considerable flying off the grass.
Is the Boscombe prop incident relevent? They also operate off the grass sometimes.
How about the crankshaft extension that the prop is mounted on. Am I correct that this is longer than in the A model? CFS or was it Boscombe had it lengthened to modify, (improve?) the spin behaviour?
Is it a combination of vibration from rough surfaces magnified by the extended prop shaft?
Are take-offs at Cranwell more likely to be at max weight than at AEFs or UASs?
I'm a very interested and concerned AEF, since Chipmunks, over 65 auth.
No I don't want the Chipmunk back for AEF flying and I doubt many of the cadets do either.
Looking forward to any thoughts!
1066
Is it coincidence that both the recent prop incidents happened at Cranwell?
I don't know.
Does anyone know, in both cases, which RW, tarmac or grass, was used for take off? May not be relevant but it could be a consequence of considerable flying off the grass.
Is the Boscombe prop incident relevent? They also operate off the grass sometimes.
How about the crankshaft extension that the prop is mounted on. Am I correct that this is longer than in the A model? CFS or was it Boscombe had it lengthened to modify, (improve?) the spin behaviour?
Is it a combination of vibration from rough surfaces magnified by the extended prop shaft?
Are take-offs at Cranwell more likely to be at max weight than at AEFs or UASs?
I'm a very interested and concerned AEF, since Chipmunks, over 65 auth.
No I don't want the Chipmunk back for AEF flying and I doubt many of the cadets do either.
Looking forward to any thoughts!
1066
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1066
The AC involved in this incident had not been at Cranwell long so I doubt the grass runway frequency is a factor.
Weight limits are in force across Tutor operations and I believe most units use max weight as often as Cranwell.
As an aside I think we're lucky both recent incidents were at Cranwell, from that particular runway. Lots of usable fields. Other units are not as well placed.
The AC involved in this incident had not been at Cranwell long so I doubt the grass runway frequency is a factor.
Weight limits are in force across Tutor operations and I believe most units use max weight as often as Cranwell.
As an aside I think we're lucky both recent incidents were at Cranwell, from that particular runway. Lots of usable fields. Other units are not as well placed.