RAF EFT

[NutLoose]

Suprised they never went for something like the SF260, can even be armed, metal aircraft fully aerobatic, used by lots of Airforces

SF-260

They also do a turboprop version that goes like hot snot

http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/...s/SF-260TP.pdf

[Lima Juliet]

Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E. Therefore, EASA has yet to determine that an unsafe condition exists. This continues to suggest to me that the issue is one of MOD duty of care and that the contractor will not be liable for the costs.

How's your German?

http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/lta/2004-352R2.pdf

[Lima Juliet]

I found an English version:

http://www.caa.si/fileadmin/user_upl...2004-352R2.pdf

[BEagle]

The SF260 was looked at as a Chipmunk replacement back in about 1970....

Unfortunately, it wasn't selected. CFS were concerned about the retractable landing gear, if I recall correctly. But even though selected for political reasons, the Bulldog was a very reasonable alternative - far more suitable for UAS/AEF work than Das Teutor.

[NutLoose]

Leon that AD was superceeded, as a licenced engineer I know where to look...

See

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool

Search Hoffman and you get

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a...AD_2006-0110_1


..

[Lima Juliet]

Fair dos, me old. But at least I know how to post the link!

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a...AD_2006-0110_1

EDIT - Bugger, you beat me to it!

[NutLoose]

....

[Wander00]

See lots of SF 260s over here, usually low flying. My stupid dog tries to chase them down the garden!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Some mates in the US let me have a go at their mock Air Combat in SF260s. It was nice to fly and seemed pretty idiot-proof - I'm quite sought-after as a Test Idiot you know

[greenedgejet]

Other options?

Not easy to find 100+ servicable machines in a hurry but for a much delayed MFTS perhaps a mix of:

PAC CT-4 Airtrainer Trainer Aircraft - Airforce Technology

and

Extra 300L Aircraft

or

Air Force Academy Buying 25 Cirrus SR20 Trainers | Flying Magazine

and

SF-260

Now with glass cockpit: http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/...ckpit_8750.jpg



And for MELIN/45SQN proceedural work pre B200:

Why Buy DA42 | Diamond Aircraft

Quite a few were owned by the now defunct Cabair Group.

Then there's the Tucano replacement...........

Cheaper than PC21 (nice tho that is!):

IAF inducts PC-7 Mk-II turbo trainer aircraft | The Hindu


or fanjetaviation.com: About Us



Sadly the following are long gone to other airforces and Test Pilot schools (maybe a few left at Leicester):

Slingsby T67 Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mandator]

Hi LJ: As you see, still nothing from EASA on Hoffmann propeller blade failures. So, is there an unsafe condition? Not in the eyes of EASA, it seems. If I were the contractor, I think I would be standing behind that as my defence.

Don't forget that even wholly military aircraft types can also hit the buffers for a fleet-wide airworthiness problem (eg, the Red Flag Buccaneer, and there are many more instances), so the military procurement chain in itself is not complete protection from this situation.

[Qfeye]

Gents, whether or not EASA decide the prop is an airworthiness problem, when flown under the military LAFT2 contract the DH can ground the fleet. DH is held personally accountable for the safety of the air platforms in their AOR. Haddon Cave and the MAA saw to that. 2 similar prop failures in 6 months. Would you sign it off?
Work for a solution is ongoing and near conclusion.

[Lima Juliet]

QFeye

Well said. It looks like a history going back to 2004 with these ADs, so the DDH/ODH have done the right thing with the 2 recent events. The AAIB will probably make their full reccomendations soon as well.

LJ

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

LJ,

Other than the fact that they resulted in blade failures, I don't think that the 2004 incident is related to the current problem.

Duncs

[Mandator]

Qfeye: You are quite right, but it is the therefore the operator which has 'grounded' aircraft and not the regulator.

As LJ says, the AAIB will soon report (the sooner the better really). If the AAIB makes any Safety Recommendations, these must be considered by EASA and the propeller manufacturer, Hoffmann. This might result in Hoffmann issuing a Service Bulletin which might then be mandated by an Airworthiness Directive issued by EASA. It will then be up to the contractor to comply with the terms of any new Service Bulletin and the associated Airworthiness Directive. That is the regulatory process, but it might not be quick enough for the DH.

[Thomas coupling]

If you buy a ford Ka and then rallye it without modding it....what do you expect.
Babcock went in cheap and now there is egg all over their face. Let's see how they worm their way out of this.

Flap62 has it in one.

[Mandator]

The CAA General Aviation Report - Occurrences, published on 6 June gives the following insight to the problems:

"RPM decay during display practice.

A progressive level of RPM decay was experienced during the course of the sequence and was unacceptable towards the end of the flight. During the penultimate stall turn, an RPM decay to 1700 was experienced with associated oil pressure drop to 30psi. Tech Log entry made. Engineers report states that following installation of the MT propeller on this a/c type, several confirmed reports of RPM decay have been reported during certain aerobatic manoeuvres especially in vertical or near zero G conditions. The inverted oil system is suspected as being a contributory factor and the manufacturers and maintenance organisations are in consultation. All company owned a/c have been temporarily removed from operation until advice from the OEM has been provided."

[Rigga]

I would think that any mandatory action effecting an international grounding of the type/fleet would let the supplier off the hook.
It's not necessarliy the suppliers fault and the failures may yet be attributed to doing Aero's? (I don't know which operators ac failed) which might put the cost back to the operator again.

Even so; It only takes money to start flying again - and when you pay you can take you pick on what to fly in.

[just another jocky]

Guys, you have about 2% of what is going on. When it's all sorted, I'm sure we can discuss it 'til the cows come home, but until then, in the immortal words....

.....if you know, you ain't saying sh1t, if you don't know, you don't need to.

Sorry, but all this speculation, whilst heartening that you are all concerned, is not achieving anything.

Standing by for incoming.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

.....if you know, you ain't saying sh1t, if you don't know, you don't need to.

I remember OC Ops saying that once when the Staish suddenly disappeared from sight.