Whats changed -build quality or maintenance?
Thread Starter
Whats changed -build quality or maintenance?
Back when I was young in the 70's it seemed barely a month would pass without a military aircraft accident.Thankfully these days its much rarer.For example we haven't lost a Typhoon yet.The Tornado fleet wasn't so blessed at the same stage of its existence.
Any thoughts why ?Less low flying,better build quality,better maintenance or just less flying ?
Any thoughts why ?Less low flying,better build quality,better maintenance or just less flying ?
Last edited by phil9560; 18th Mar 2013 at 00:10.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not as Many Aircraft= Not as much Flying time = not as many accidents
There! Oh and better design and engineering practices no doubt
Just my over-simplistic take on things. I'm sure someone will be along to poo-poo my theory and tell you some other bullsh1t
There! Oh and better design and engineering practices no doubt
Just my over-simplistic take on things. I'm sure someone will be along to poo-poo my theory and tell you some other bullsh1t
Althenick and C Mil give good answers I think. For "Build" quality I'd add "design". In very simple terms, there isn't so much trial and error these days due to more advanced design tools.
MoD traditionally keeps this simple and looks at flying rate when predicting attrition. I think you're right about timescale; for example, I remember the Lynx attrition rate dropping from approx 30,000 hours to 40,000 hours in the mid-80s, which meant a planned attrition buy was scrubbed (at around the time of the "Westland crisis").
There are slightly more complex factors, often trends which are resolved. There were a few SHARs lost due to outriggers hitting the new ramps. Absolutely nothing to do with design quality or maintenance. In such cases the attrition would be deemed non-recurring (in the long term) and engineering judgement used to adjust the stats.
MoD traditionally keeps this simple and looks at flying rate when predicting attrition. I think you're right about timescale; for example, I remember the Lynx attrition rate dropping from approx 30,000 hours to 40,000 hours in the mid-80s, which meant a planned attrition buy was scrubbed (at around the time of the "Westland crisis").
There are slightly more complex factors, often trends which are resolved. There were a few SHARs lost due to outriggers hitting the new ramps. Absolutely nothing to do with design quality or maintenance. In such cases the attrition would be deemed non-recurring (in the long term) and engineering judgement used to adjust the stats.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Less jet crashes these days certainly, mainly as we have only a fraction of the fleet operated 2 decades ago.
More C130 losses though, as a result of enemy action (3 ac) & landing accidents (2 ac) in the last 10 years, which is an indicator of the changed nature of their operations.
More C130 losses though, as a result of enemy action (3 ac) & landing accidents (2 ac) in the last 10 years, which is an indicator of the changed nature of their operations.
In my opinion, the main reasons are:
- Far, far fewer aircraft.
- Very little low flying.
- Virtually no flying training.
- Far less student solo flying (if they ever get the chance to become students!).
Although Das Teutor, that abysmal rented plastic coffin used for EFT, UAS and AEF flying, seems to have killed a far greater proportion of cadets per flying hour than either the Chipmunk or Bulldog ever did.
- Far, far fewer aircraft.
- Very little low flying.
- Virtually no flying training.
- Far less student solo flying (if they ever get the chance to become students!).
Although Das Teutor, that abysmal rented plastic coffin used for EFT, UAS and AEF flying, seems to have killed a far greater proportion of cadets per flying hour than either the Chipmunk or Bulldog ever did.
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Mar 2013 at 09:10.
It has a lot to do with fleet size I would imagine. Back in the 80s, theTornado GR1 fleet was probably bigger than the total active fast jet fleet today - and you had Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom and Buccaneer on top of that!
I don't know of the % accident rate is any different, but the perception would be that it is.
I think the OP is a little wrong regarding not losing a Typhoon yet - just not perhaps in a fatal crash/low level accident sort of a way.
ZJ943 at China Lake for example:
FGR4 ZJ943 DK | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
China Lake Typhoon ZJ943 on a rope • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
And there was a T that scraped it's nose along the runway at Conningsby.
I don't know of the % accident rate is any different, but the perception would be that it is.
I think the OP is a little wrong regarding not losing a Typhoon yet - just not perhaps in a fatal crash/low level accident sort of a way.
ZJ943 at China Lake for example:
FGR4 ZJ943 DK | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
China Lake Typhoon ZJ943 on a rope • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
And there was a T that scraped it's nose along the runway at Conningsby.
The T that scraped it's nose was Typhoon T.1, ZJ810/BI. It was repaired after the emergency landing in 2006.
More images at following link.
Target Lock: Eurofighter Typhoon : Squadron Service : UK
Some images of ZJ810 post repair.
Photo Search Results | Airliners.net
More images at following link.
Target Lock: Eurofighter Typhoon : Squadron Service : UK
Some images of ZJ810 post repair.
Photo Search Results | Airliners.net
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a hole with an owl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two factors stand out for me when it comes to front-line losses:
1. INAS/GPS and decent nav kit in general. Trying to navigate at 250' and 450kts in iffy weather and at the same time, keeping a good look out and operating the aircraft, all while avoiding bumping into the ground/masts/the Shobdon magnet etc used up an awful lot of a young chap's capacity - sometimes all of it. Taking the "where the heck (or similar) are we/am I?" out of the equation must've freed up enough spare capacity to save a few lives over the years.
2. Aircraft are getting easier to fly. Firstly, this is a good thing. Secondly, this isn't a "we were real pilots in my day" rant from a silly old duffer. Aircraft like the Jaguar, F-4, early marks of Harrier, and many others, had a limited tolerance for mishandling, which could and did kill crews. Modern jets, with their incidence-limiting systems and carefree handling FBW fits are less likely to bite.
That said, to quote the Tiger Club, "All aircraft bite fools." Some things never change.
1. INAS/GPS and decent nav kit in general. Trying to navigate at 250' and 450kts in iffy weather and at the same time, keeping a good look out and operating the aircraft, all while avoiding bumping into the ground/masts/the Shobdon magnet etc used up an awful lot of a young chap's capacity - sometimes all of it. Taking the "where the heck (or similar) are we/am I?" out of the equation must've freed up enough spare capacity to save a few lives over the years.
2. Aircraft are getting easier to fly. Firstly, this is a good thing. Secondly, this isn't a "we were real pilots in my day" rant from a silly old duffer. Aircraft like the Jaguar, F-4, early marks of Harrier, and many others, had a limited tolerance for mishandling, which could and did kill crews. Modern jets, with their incidence-limiting systems and carefree handling FBW fits are less likely to bite.
That said, to quote the Tiger Club, "All aircraft bite fools." Some things never change.
All of the above indeed!
I expect this would be better shown as a loss per flyinghours equation. Fleet size alone doesn't give the full picture - type, role, generation even all play a part.
You can talk about the loss rate in the '70's or 80's but in the 50's it was frankly mindboggling. There's a thread lurking around on the Meteor stats somewhere, I'm surprised anyone got life insurance.
Somethings really are better these days.
I expect this would be better shown as a loss per flyinghours equation. Fleet size alone doesn't give the full picture - type, role, generation even all play a part.
You can talk about the loss rate in the '70's or 80's but in the 50's it was frankly mindboggling. There's a thread lurking around on the Meteor stats somewhere, I'm surprised anyone got life insurance.
Somethings really are better these days.
There are two other Typhoon losses one was a Spanish prototype in 2002 and there has, unfortunately, been one loss of life in another Spanish aircraft that crashed in 2010 on take off.
A chat about the history of (civil aviation) Human Factors and CRM today went thus:
In the beginning .... most accidents were put down to mechanical errors or failures and designers were challenged to improve the aircraft and make them more reliable and safer but, when they did and mechanical errors and failures could be disproved, pilot errors then came to into majority and became the main safety focus.
Being unable to redesign pilots, their behaviours and environments were looked at and the early ideas of HF and CRM were born.
Born, but not yet buried.
In the beginning .... most accidents were put down to mechanical errors or failures and designers were challenged to improve the aircraft and make them more reliable and safer but, when they did and mechanical errors and failures could be disproved, pilot errors then came to into majority and became the main safety focus.
Being unable to redesign pilots, their behaviours and environments were looked at and the early ideas of HF and CRM were born.
Born, but not yet buried.
