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

Air Cadets grounded?

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.

Air Cadets grounded?

Old 11th Feb 2016, 13:26
  #1621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
tuc, your post #1618 is an indication to anyone who wishes to see beyond their only little corner that nothing here is new, but merely the latest consequence of a ball that was set rolling in 1987.

As you say, the MAA is unable to stop its inexorable progress of gathering more accidents and more lives in its path other than by grounding entire fleets, be they Nimrods or Vigilants. That is because it lacks the prime need of any Regulator, that of independence. It is instead shackled to the operator, the MOD and its subsidiary Armed Forces, that has a higher priority than Air Safety, which is to cover up illegal actions by retired VSO's.The same goes for the Investigator, the MilAAIB, which is shackled to the Regulator as well as the Operator. All three need to be separated from each other to do their work, or the ball will go on gathering yet more casualties.

If "multiple fatality crash in 2003" refers to a multiple crash as much as to multiple fatalities, I assume that to be the mid-air collision between two Sea King baggers that killed all 7 occupants. Yet another example of where pre-existing airworthiness shortcomings were not made known to the invstigation by the Regulator (aka the MOD), and which is a matter of controversy still.

Independence is not a bonus, it is essential in maintaining Air Safety!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 13:37
  #1622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Chug

Correct. The 3 contributory factors noted by the BoI had been front and centre in the Risk Register since 1996. Mitigation plans had been drawn up, approved and contracts let. They were cancelled by an official who had no authority to do so, and who then quietly employed two consultants to (separately, and unknown to each other) create a 2nd and 3rd Register which omitted these risks. This was approved by 2 Star (same as Chinook and Nimrod) and 4 Star. When revealed to investigators post-crash, the investigation was halted when they realised the ranks/grades involved. The BoI remains incomplete. The Inquest was misled.

I won't apologise for thread drift, as it's not. Work your way down from that 4 Star ruling and you will get to this current problem.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 15:48
  #1623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Longer Ron

In your post above I can't comment on items 2 & 3 but you underestimate the problems in items 1 & 4.

I would like to comment further but I think that we are nearing the point when the contract process for the support contract will start and any accurate comments made that are critical of one party or another are likely to be grasped by the company lawyers of those who who fail to win the contract and be used as evidence of unfairness in the awarding of the contract. The result of this would likely be a contract re-run and further delay in the full return to service of the fleet.

Only when the support & type certificate holder contracts have been awarded will the full truth of the matter come to light, the good news is that both of these contracts are likely to be hotly contested by some very good companies using expertise from outside the defence sector.

Despite the contract bunfight I would hope to see some cadets in the air this summer, gliders will be avalable to fly but it is for the VGS to sort out how they get the training program up and running.

If the MoD get the right people in to run the contracts I see a bright future for air cadet flying with the technical side supplying substantial number of servicable airframes by mid 2017.

This may seem a like slow progress to some but the limiting factor is the capacity of the small gliding maintenance industry to take on the large number of VGS airframes and still support its regular civil gliding commitments.

Last edited by A and C; 11th Feb 2016 at 16:02.
A and C is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 17:27
  #1624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
<snip>

This may seem a like slow progress to some but the limiting factor is the capacity of the small gliding maintenance industry to take on the large number of VGS airframes and still support its regular civil gliding commitments.
I've said the same thing. Hopefully they are doing some sort of prioritisation. I imagine quite a few of the Vikings will pass their inspections, but I hope work on the ones that need it is deferred until all have been inspected, and those that need work are done from best to worst.
cats_five is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 18:53
  #1625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cats

This is being done I am told, at the moment selection of the airframes is being done and some are being pushed to the back of the line with the aim of getting airframes returned to service as quickly as posable.

I don't share you optimism that the airframes will simply pass inspection, it seems that most of the airframes will require some work as there seems to be quite a lot of unreported minor damage and minor mechanical problems as result of basic husbandry.

As always there is the unexpected, unrecorded ( or undocumented ) repairs have been found and these have to be investigated to check compliance with approved repair data or if found to be non-compliant re-repaired.

It is the lack of reliable maintenance records that have forced the need for such detailed inspection, someone would do well to find out just how some of the aircraft records went walkabout.

Last edited by A and C; 11th Feb 2016 at 19:51.
A and C is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 19:29
  #1626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
A+C


[quote] - In your post above I can't comment on items 2 & 3 but you underestimate the problems in items 1 & 4. [quote]


I would say that I did not underestimate items 1 and 4 because almost 2 years ago I posted that I believed it would be cheaper and easier to just replace the fleet - but that would have involved planning before we got to this sorry state.
I do actually have a fair bit of experience with MAA audits and generally speaking if it is a problem with a log carded item - it is usually easier to just change the component !I have changed many serviceable components purely because of a log card anomaly and quite often the replacement item was in worse condition - but the log cards were filled in correctly.


rgds LR


still cannot get the quote facility working on this pc LOL
longer ron is online now  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 20:26
  #1627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cats_five
I've said the same thing. Hopefully they are doing some sort of prioritisation. I imagine quite a few of the Vikings will pass their inspections, but I hope work on the ones that need it is deferred until all have been inspected, and those that need work are done from best to worst.
The first off the line and to fly in December had previously snapped it's tail so maybe not just easy ones first.
Tingger is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2016, 20:50
  #1628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tingger

The problem with this sort of project is finding out what you don't know, even a major repair is not a problem if the repair is fully documented and well executed.
A and C is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 07:35
  #1629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by longer ron
<snip>
almost 2 years ago I posted that I believed it would be cheaper and easier to just replace the fleet - but that would have involved planning before we got to this sorry state.
<snip>
They would have had to start planning and buying a replacement fleet more or less when the Grobs were brought.
cats_five is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 07:36
  #1630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
The problem with this sort of project is finding out what you don't know, even a major repair is not a problem if the repair is fully documented and well executed.
Indeed not. I saw a K21 having it's snapped tail boom repaired when I happened to visit Zulu Glasstek a few years back.

If the Viking mentioned by Tingger was well documented and the repair was done correctly then it was one of the easy ones. The hard ones are where close inspection reveals undocumented repairs, especially if they are in crucial areas. Suspect they are looking at as much of the internal surfaces as the external ones.
cats_five is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 08:01
  #1631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Longeron

Thank goodness we haven't got to fight a war under these rules...............

Oh wait a minute...............

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:45
  #1632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the Vikings are regenerated, I presume the fleet will still need to undergo either a Life Extension Programme (RA5724) or an OSD Extension Programme (RA5725) if they are to go on until 2025. Both of these are substantial pieces of work which should have been completed some time ago. Does the PT have the capacity to carry this out at the same time as the recovery, and if not will the MAA require it to be completed before the aircraft can return to service?
Sook is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 15:35
  #1633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snook

These are good questions that need answering by people who understand composite structure to get the correct answers so it is critical that the design organisation are composite experts or it will become a long and unnecessary expensive program plagued by inappropriate technical restrictions.
A and C is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 16:49
  #1634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sook
If the Vikings are regenerated, I presume the fleet will still need to undergo either a Life Extension Programme (RA5724) or an OSD Extension Programme (RA5725) if they are to go on until 2025. Both of these are substantial pieces of work which should have been completed some time ago. Does the PT have the capacity to carry this out at the same time as the recovery, and if not will the MAA require it to be completed before the aircraft can return to service?
Relifing gliders is based on hours flown rather than actual age. About how many hours do the Vikings have?
cats_five is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 18:14
  #1635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 3,704
Received 32 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by cats_five
Relifing gliders is based on hours flown rather than actual age. About how many hours do the Vikings have?
Would it not be more complex than that due to winch launching?

1 hour airtime could result from one launch, or it could come from 10. Would that not need consideration?
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 18:58
  #1636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LlamaFarmer
Would it not be more complex than that due to winch launching?

1 hour airtime could result from one launch, or it could come from 10. Would that not need consideration?
It's on hours pure and simple.

Hooks are on number of launches, though the formula for that isn't straightforward.
cats_five is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 19:41
  #1637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 3,704
Received 32 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by cats_five
It's on hours pure and simple.

Hooks are on number of launches, though the formula for that isn't straightforward.
Do they make an assumption that each frame has a high high launch/hr ratio then, as per a normal 5-launch GIC? Any lower launch/hr ratio thereby being less stress on the airframe.
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 23:26
  #1638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is nothing especially stressful about a launch for the glider if the correct weak link is used as it will break if necessary. I have no idea what a 5-launch gic is, but at a civilian club that winch launches, a 2 seat glider can easily fly twice that and more in a day. Our k21s do about 500 hours most years.
cats_five is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 23:53
  #1639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I should add that the special case for a k21 isn't launches but total hours of aerobatics. A requirement for relifeing is that it can be shown it doesn't exceed a certain amount. Don't think the odd loop is a problem, it isn't, but k21s are used for aerobatic training and lower level competition and are designed for +6.5 to -4 g.
cats_five is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 09:41
  #1640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Composite glider life hours are an arbitrary number, put in because the certification process requires it to have one. There has never been (I am willing to be corrected here) an instance of fatigue failure of a composite construction glider, and examples are flying that were built over 50 years ago with many hours airborne. The manufacturers can (and do) produce a life extension process when one reaches the certification life.

Release hooks have a number of launches before exchange and replacement or refurbishment; this is a manufacturers (TOST GmbH) figure. Since many have separate aerotow and winch releases, it is theoretically possible to have a glider which has only used one form of launch, but has to have an unused release replaced. (The one never used for launching would of course be exercised every time the other was used for launching).

Other items, such as harnesses, have a calendar life (normally 10 years before replacement or refurbishment).

It would probably be logical in a sane environment to do a life extension as part of the Viking return to service, as the inspection is all being done in any case, but this is unlikely to be in the commercial interest of anyone involved.
Fitter2 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.