Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Wing Commander Spry

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Wing Commander Spry

Old 26th Jan 2014, 07:12
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,432
It's all gone rather quiet on the Wg Cdr Spry front on here...

Has he gone to the sandpit? Or did tucumseh scare him away with a few home truths?
BEagle is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2014, 09:44
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
And another thing ... When you do come back Wg Cdr Spry ... The use of "sticky tape" when constructing a paper aeroplane ... The very idea of it



MAA Certification Process

1) A paper aeroplane should be made from just one piece of A4 paper. Paper aeroplane designs should not incorporate any additional material. No tape, no glue, no staples, no paper clips.

2) The paper should not be cut or torn to achieve a certain wing or fuselage shape, or shift the centre of gravity.

3) Paper aeroplane designs should be capable of approximately straight, level flight when calibrated correctly.
#JustJoshin

Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 26th Jan 2014 at 11:40.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2014, 09:54
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,140
Wg Cdr Spry, may I draw your attention to discussion on another thread which, unlike this one, concerns Flight Safety? As the Royal Air Force representative of what was once a world leader in espousing the constant need to remind everybody that 'Flight Safety Concerns You!', should you not be pushing that very same message here, instead of leaving it to wander through a nostalgic journey of past publication?


The thread I speak of is that concerning the tragic fatal accident involving Flt Lt Sean Cunningham of the Red Arrows, here:-
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...nquest-33.html


You will notice that attention has turned away from the SI criticism of RAFAT to criticism of the MAA itself, of its failure to tackle the Systemic Failures that permeate Airworthiness Provision and Air Accident Investigation throughout UK Military Aviation. I can't think of a greater threat to Flight Safety than that those charged with enforcing it cannot do so because of failure by the Regulator to ensure Air Safety. Can you?


The MAA appears to be the problem, not the solution. Is RAF Flight Safety part of the problem too?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2014, 10:52
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: nicolalaland
Posts: 118
SS Dinghies

My Dear Wg Cdr Spry
Thanks for letting us see the old Air Clues. Flt Lt Marsh (letter Sep 58 issue) was right: having got into your SS dinghy in the open sea baling it out really was impossible. Did anyone in DFS pursue his idea for a combined bale-out/top-up pump, and did anything ever come of it?
binbrook is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 13:01
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 166
I thinks he's gone

I dont think the good Wg Cdr is allowed to talk to us on here anymore, is it about time to make this thread 'unsticky' as its of no value without his direct input !

Last edited by Blue Bottle; 10th Apr 2014 at 10:38.
Blue Bottle is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 13:43
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Surely any thread on flight safety is better off without the input of RAF Flight Safety or the MAA?
dervish is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 14:58
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: nicolalaland
Posts: 118
SS Dinghies

Thanks Blue Bottle - I only arsked! And it would be nice to know. Certainly I don't remember any change in my time.
binbrook is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 16:09
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Binbrook

FWIW, I think you're entitled to expect an answer. The Flight Safety people presumably asked PPRuNe mods to make this a sticky as they wanted feedback. It now appears they only want feedback that aligns with their own distorted view of flight safety.
dervish is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 22:52
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 97
Whilst I applauded Wg Cdr Spry for his intentions in starting this thread, it is slightly depressing that it didn't last very long. For a short while, it appeared that a thread like this on PPRuNe might be part of an organised and considered communications strategy. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have expected to have a few pointed questions raised regarding some traditional areas of discussion on military aviation safety and considered how to deal with it. Instead, it looks like a half arsed, ill thought out flash in the pan. Which is a shame, I'd have killed for the hierarchy to have allowed such a thing in years gone by. Come on Wg Cdr Spry, its time for a bit of gumption and considered engagement on Flight Safety matters instead of the sporadic efforts like an Air Clues whenever you get chance. I'm normally a great supporter of the system, but the silence is becoming a tad disappointing.

Last edited by thefodfather; 18th Mar 2014 at 23:23.
thefodfather is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2014, 17:14
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 107
Erratums

Wg Cdr Spry,

On a point of order, p46 of the last (I think) Air Clues is dedicated to 'Erratums'

Should that not be 'Errata'?
passpartout is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2014, 17:41
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
On a point of order, p46 of the last (I think) Air Clues is dedicated to 'Erratums'

Should that not be 'Errata'?

Would you like this correction instead of getting the definition of safety correct, or as well as? One is just a little bit more important.
dervish is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2014, 21:43
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 107
dervish,

Yes you're right, partially.

To me, there's a matter of credibility. If you can't be convincing in your use of English (Latin), particularly on a page about editorial mistakes, then why should I pay any attention to your flight safety messages?
passpartout is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2014, 07:19
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Or to put it another way, RAF Flight Safety should try understanding English before attempting another language! I was referring to tuc's post in which he pointed out their definition of "functional safety" comes nowhere near that used by everyone else in MoD. As you say, lacking in credibility.
dervish is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 12:12
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: nicolalaland
Posts: 118
Erratums

My Cassell's Compact Latin Dictionary tells me that the plural of 'erratum' is 'errati'. Any classicists out there who can explain?
binbrook is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 16:24
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: temporarily unsure ...
Posts: 53
Latin dictionaries commonly offer you a clue to the declension by indicating secondly the genitive singular ending, not the nominative plural ... as you will no doubt now recall! FWIW, the Dons concur with the plural errata in English usage (and Spry will no doubt blame the hapless Prune for the gaffe, 'twas ever thus).

Agree with others' sentiments, poor cred - safety is surely that field, above all others, where judicious nitpicking and impeccable communication make the difference.

Last edited by dogle; 24th Mar 2014 at 16:56.
dogle is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2014, 10:56
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: nicolalaland
Posts: 118
Erratums

Thank you dogle. Ah yes, I remember it well! When I did the Long GW Course (anything but the V-force) navs and pilots with degrees were in Set 1 and the remaining pilots were in Set 2 - I was in Set 2. Pity Spry has gone to earth somewhere.
binbrook is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 11:01
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,140
binbrook, I'm sorry that your perfectly reasonable question remains unanswered. I suppose that Sea Survival is as much a preoccupation these days as it was in ours and would hope that the seaworthiness of the Single Seat Dinghy can be relied upon accordingly.

The problem is that these days the airworthiness of the aircraft, and in particular their escape systems, is of even greater concern. It seems that the Hawk's Mk10 ejection system never possessed a Safety Case, an absolute prerequisite for airworthiness, and hence it must be unairworthy. If that is so then the aircraft itself is unairworthy, and yet it still flies. That is a matter of very great concern.

Like you I would expect RAF Flight Safety, in the guise of Wg Cdr Spry, to address these concerns on this very thread, a sticky dedicated presumably to Flight Safety. Instead he is conspicuous by his absence and our concerns go unanswered, though in fairness it is more likely due to direction from on high.

A very different regime these days it would seem compared to that which you and I were lucky enough to inhabit. We need to ask ourselves why that should be.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 17:42
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: nicolalaland
Posts: 118
SS Dinghies

Sorry to keep on about this, but it is over 55 years since Marsh made his eminently sensible suggestion in Air Clues, and it is 48 years since Wg Cdr Spry's grandfather was sent (through the proper channels of course) an example, made just as Marsh described, which actually WORKED! The SS liferaft on the RFD website doesn't appear greatly different from what we sat in in the 70s, and I just wondered whether the shocked and shivering user now has the means to pump out the 3 gallons of seawater in there with him/her, or still has to use body heat to warm it all up. If Spry won't/can't tell me, does anyone know?

Chugalug2, I fear nothing changes. The mod programme to bring the Mk1 seat up to its final standard -was it GL/90Kt? - proceeded at glacial pace until there was another unnecessary fatal, in an unmodified aircraft, and only a little earlier a BoI into a fatal could be found recommending that formal instruction in shallow-dive marking using Canberras (at night naturally) should be introduced. How long did it take to get rid of the infamous 3-needle altimeter?
binbrook is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 19:41
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,140
The progress may well have been slow, binbrook, but every step along that road of improving the Mk1 seat would have been recorded, confirmed to be in accordance with the regulations, and could have been used to pin point any subsequent shortcomings. All that changed in the late 80s/early 90s when RAF VSOs made short term savings by issuing orders that regulatory work be suspended but signed off as complied with. Those who would not comply (usually fully trained and experienced airworthiness engineers) were sacked and replaced by untrained and inexperienced non engineers who would do as they were told, if for no other reason that they knew no better.
The Mk10 seat that killed Sean Cunningham was the result, as is the system that cannot even find the SIL that Martin Baker sent all of its customers operating that seat. Hence the overtightened shackle bolt, hence the non deployment of the parachute, hence the tragic and needless death of Flt Lt Cunningham.
The direct results of the sabotage of UK Military Air Safety during Haddon Cave's 'Golden Period' feature in all the Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accident threads on this forum that account for 63 deaths (shortly to become 65?). The MAA that resulted from Haddon-Cave's Report still knows no better and is anyway constrained by the Star Chamber's cover up of illegal orders by its retired members.
Finally never apologise for trying to further Flight Safety, rather keep on demanding an answer. You never know, you might eventually get an answer if only to shut you up! That's my philosophy anyway, annoying though it be.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 12:33
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 54
binbrook
- the SSMK15 dinghies have an integral baler in the floor with a flapper valve. Doesn't shift a whole lot of water but it does work well. Our advice to aircrew was to do the initial large bale out using their helmet first, then close up the canopy and finish the job with the built in one.
chute packer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.