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

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

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.

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

Old 14th Dec 2013, 16:49
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Outbound
Posts: 578
So it has been one near miss every two weeks for the last 15 years for Tornado
No; it's been 46 "near misses" in 15 years, as that was the number of cat A airproxes, where as per the article, there was a "risk of actual collision."

The remaining 315 airproxes could have all been cat C, where there was no risk at all but the situation warranted a report.

Yet more hyperbole.
5 Forward 6 Back is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 21:06
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Distant Voice,

I really hope you are just ignoring my point, not missing it. I thought it was simple enough. I didn't say they made up figures or any such thing. I simply pointed out that the percentages are meaningles without understanding the underlying data. And that making a comparison between Tornado (flying at low level, not under radar control, doing simulated or actual attacks, etc) and an airliner flying under radar control in controlled airspace is hardly a reasonable (or statistically sound) comparison of percentages.

Similarly, saying that Tornado accounts for X percent of airprox reports and Harrier only Y is only meaningful if you understand what their comparible flying hours are. If you really need me to explain, it there were twice as many Tornado hours it would not be surprising is they had twice as many airprox incidents.

Get it?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 08:16
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Didn't say I had one. Just saying that TCAS is what some people are driving at. You can crack on now.
Well no, you said "their agenda" which is at least consistent with your tendency to criticise others and their ideas without having any original thoughts of your own.
dervish is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 08:21
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
SNP's interpretation of the stats is irrelevant and detracts from the main point. A CWS was apparently promised, funded, then not funded and delayed for donkeys years, while all the time claiming the risk was ALARP. The Procurator Fiscal may decide that is negligence.
dervish is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 08:53
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 29
For those of you who have never been involved in the staff work associated with deciding if a risk is ALARP (and judging by some of the comments in this thread it is a fair few of you), one of the [many] things that is considered is cost. The financial cost of fitting TCAS to an operational FJ platform is not a simple as it might be when pricing fitting TCAS to a large ac....there isn't much avionoic space left on a FJ...so what gives to make way for TCAS or a CWS. Moreover, and Alfred The Great is the only one to mention it, what would be the "cost" of training [Tornado] FJ crews to operate with TCAS in peacetime only to find that it was not useable during operations against an hostile force? Would crews forego sound practices such as look out, use of current on-board systems and operational airmanship in favour of TCAS?

Let's not forget 2 things: the only way to eliminate mid-air collisions is not to fly at all (or only fly one aircraft at a time); and we train RAF FJ crews to operate in worst case operational conditions.
Scottie66 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 09:10
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Very well said, Scottie.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 09:22
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,869
Scottie, you are correct that ALARP judgements, with no explicit regulatory requirement, are extremely difficult. Cost does play a key role but in military aviation we do, on occasion, confuse cost with affordability.

In today's parsimonious times the temptation to cancel or remove programs to balance the budget is just too tempting and having been involved with this for many years I will watch, with a heavy heart, to see if it is judged that we cancelled these efforts due to cost benefit analysis (acceptable) or affordability (not acceptable).

Your argument regarding the military applicability of 'TCAS' is well made and, for the senior brass, well rehearsed. With no easy off-the-shelf solution out there your point about other on-board systems is, in my view, also correct. Most of these other systems contribute by increasing SA. For example, Link 16 is far from a collision avoidance system but it really does help if there is a good link picture available and, of course, you may be able to take this SA to war. But again, we do look weak in this regard by not fitting all operational types with this system. The argument to do something with a more military bias is relevant, but this can drift into doing nothing - for peace and war.

ALARP has to be tested in the courts; it may not be a pleasant experience for a number of us but that is how it should be. For others it has been considerably worse. Given our preponderance to call 'ALARP' even when we breach applicable regulations (perhaps not the case here) the MoD sits on particularly poor foundations.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 10:32
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Conversely, there is the simplistic school of thought which says "anything is better than nothing". A PowerFlarm cost about £1500.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 10:41
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 616
Is Link 16 ever going to be integrated on the GR4? That should surely have precedence over a TCAS.

I would assume that Patriots are on the link. If Mode 4 fails, it wouldn't matter as you would be on the link.
Deliverance is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 10:50
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 813
Well no, you said "their agenda" which is at least consistent with your tendency to criticise others and their ideas without having any original thoughts of your own.
Yes, their agenda, not mine, as I don't have one. No criticism intended, but if I hurt your feelings princess I do apologise.
downsizer is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 11:27
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Is Link 16 ever going to be integrated on the GR4? That should surely have precedence over a TCAS.
Yes, and….yes! Not fleet wide though due to cost and upgrade cycle for jets.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 11:49
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,027
How typical, to spend the money and put all the nice gadgets on a jet, just as it starts to go out of service.

Not convinced about TCAS on a FJ, but I guess it will depend upon how/when it is used.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 19:32
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,629
BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

As was discussed a couple of pages ago, there are very few here who have flown with TCAS on a FJ. I have and I can tell you that as a bog standard civvy grade TCAS it is not really up to the task. It is useful in a few scenarios, such as IFR flight in and around busy airports and non tactical sorties, but actually quite annoying in others. This means that a better, more advanced system should be designed and procured. This is, of course an expensive process. Or we could just buy an off the shelf product simply to please the media and ignore the wishes of crews and the real problem, which is that currently available systems are not well suited to FJ operations.
Of course some of you will disagree, as is your right, but please ensure you speak from a position of authority rather than just based on something you read in the Daily Mail.
BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 19:45
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,629
BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

Having just reread my post I'm not sure I made my actual point very clear. I agree that we should have an effective collision warning system in all FJs. I'm just not convinced that TCAS in its current form is the solution.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.
BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 20:03
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
BV,

It made sense to me the first time around.....
Biggus is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 20:18
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
I think someone needs to decide what you want. Do you want a conflict resolution system (aka TCAS) or a traffic information system (FLARM etc)? One is far easier to integrate than the other.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 14:30
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Typhoon to trial a CWS?

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I am sure the Secretary of State is concerned, as are many people, about the new statistics on near air misses involving fast jets. The Ministry of Defence committed in 1998 to installing collision warning systems on Tornado aircraft, but it has not yet done so. Does the Secretary of State regret that? Will he also confirm that the Typhoon does not have a collision warning system installed? Are there plans to do so and when will that happen?

16 Dec 2013 : Column 474

Mr Philip Hammond: First, a collision warning system on the Typhoon is currently under test and if that test is successful, we would expect to roll it out. The Typhoon is a platform with a very long life ahead of it. There is also now a plan to install collision warning equipment on Tornados. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the House before in relation to the very regrettable Tornado accident in his constituency in July 2012, and I have, in consequence, looked at whether, if the original procurement had gone ahead, we would have expected that equipment to have been installed on Tornados by the time that accident occurred. The answer is that we would not have expected it to be installed by that stage.

Growbag is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 15:22
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
So, if I've got that right, Hammond is saying the 1998 requirement, if it had proceeded on time, would not have been fitted 14 years later? We're building carriers quicker than that. Or are we?

If it is only under test now, how long before it is procured and fitted?

Keep digging Angus!
dervish is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 15:54
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Burnley
Posts: 38
BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

The crew member involved spent some time recovering from his serious injuries. He has recovered enough to get back on his feet, and continues to get better every day.
The_Observer is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 16:27
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 835
Dervish,

Hammond is working from a 2008 start date as indicated in a written answer to Angus on 3rd Dec. He gives no explanation for ten years of inactivity between 1998 to 2008, which is what Angus was looking for.

"A commercial off the shelf traffic collision avoidance system was identified as a potential solution to the Department's requirement for a collision warning system on the Tornado GR4 fast jet fleet by the Deep Target Attack Capability Sponsor as part of the Department's 2008 annual planning process"

Even taking 2008 as the start date his statement is nonsense. He is claiming that an off the shelf piece of equipment could not be fitted in four years, and yet according to another written answer an "under development" piece of equipment can be fitted in two years. (Oct 2012 to end of 2014). This will be MoD's answer to the families, "Even if we had gone ahead with the fit it would not have been ready at the time of the collision, so we can not be blamed". You start to get a feel for what is in the SI report. I only hope that the Procurator Fiscal sees through it.

At least Des Browne had the balls to stand up in Parliament on the day the BOI produced it's report and say, sorry we screwed up. Hammond should follow his example.

DV
Distant Voice 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.