Andy Hill interviewed
If aspects related to safety have been uncovered and affect other aircraft types that are currently flying, there is a duty to highlight them as soon as possible whether or not they are causal to the accident under investigation.
In any event it would seem that the report highlights one of process than material causation of an accident and from today's CAA statement seems they found some paperwork they couldn't find yesterday.... You couldn't make it up!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,625
Received 296 Likes
on
164 Posts
You couldn't make it up!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
Nothing to disagree with in that but by the same rational it would suggest that no other conclusive technical issues have been found to date.
I have no intention of getting into further conversation on this, but I will explain briefly. The special bulletins are purely vehicles for issuing recommendations arising during an investigation on issues that are relevant to current aviation activity. The investigation needs to complete enough in the area concerned to be able to draw conclusions.
It certainly does not follow that no other "conclusive technical issues" have been found to date. For example, stating that an accident occurred because the engine failed is not particularly useful if the cause(s) of the engine failure, subsequent drills and means of mitigating the same or similar failures in the future are still being identified. Determining the cause on an engine failure may require detailed forensic examination of wreckage - a particularly time-consuming and difficult activity especially after significant fire; where access to the wreckage is limited, hazardous or affected by environmental factors; where an explosion or disintegration has occurred at altitude and numerous other circumstances. The investigation does not stop just because a single cause appears to have been found. Furthermore, all contributory factors need to be subject to the same scrutiny for the same reasons.
The lack of an announcement in one area of an investigation certainly does not mean that an important line of investigation has not been identified.
APG - so when you read nothing conclusive to date, you'd agree with that? You might also agree that elements of the recent AAIB report when compared with the CAA statement that came out less than 24hrs later seems odd or was it just a very unfortunate coincidence of timing?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of date or unserviceable ?
The decision to extend the life of the ejection seat pyrotechnics is an interesting one.
The original manufactures will have considered a number of factors when setting the limitation, these are likely to be based on the harshest military operation environment with a good measure of safety and a bit of allowance for the deep pockets of the military budget. Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance.
The original manufactures will have considered a number of factors when setting the limitation, these are likely to be based on the harshest military operation environment with a good measure of safety and a bit of allowance for the deep pockets of the military budget. Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
APG - so when you read nothing conclusive to date, you'd agree with that?
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
If aspects related to safety have been uncovered and affect other aircraft types that are currently flying, there is a duty to highlight them as soon as possible whether or not they are causal to the accident under investigation.
If aspects related to safety have been uncovered and affect other aircraft types that are currently flying, there is a duty to highlight them as soon as possible whether or not they are causal to the accident under investigation.
You seem to thrive on speculation that someone did something wrong. You should write for the daily mail. You certainly should not consider a career in accident investigation.
Last edited by Mach Two; 23rd Dec 2015 at 08:17.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PittsExtra,
Let me be specific. There are other lines of developed enquiry. They will not be reported upon until necessary or until they are sufficiently mature. The CAA has not received criticism in the report. I do not agree with your supposition and I think I was clear about that in my previous post.
You may think that your opinions and suppositions are helpful, but they are not as you may find out in a few months. But I'm sure you will continue to use PPRuNe as a soapbox for your spoutings.
Let me be specific. There are other lines of developed enquiry. They will not be reported upon until necessary or until they are sufficiently mature. The CAA has not received criticism in the report. I do not agree with your supposition and I think I was clear about that in my previous post.
You may think that your opinions and suppositions are helpful, but they are not as you may find out in a few months. But I'm sure you will continue to use PPRuNe as a soapbox for your spoutings.
ATC,
It's unusual that APG responds. But you make a good point. This is a selection of PPRuNe threads that Pitts Extra has frequented this year. It's the result of an automated search so I apologise for any duplication. I think you will all form a picture. Not bad for a recreational wannabe.
AAIB Report A109E accident at Vauxhall, and Inquest Verdict
Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub: final AAIB report
Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain
Andy Hills interviewed
Hawker Hunter Loss at Shoreham Airshow
Differing reactions to accidents - Why?
Crash at Austrian Airshow, pilot killed
Light Aircraft crash at Blackbushe.
Plane crash near Basingstoke UK
Re-visiting the 1999 Hawk 200 Crash
AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
London heli crash jan 2013
Heli ditch North Sea G-REDL: NOT condolences
It's unusual that APG responds. But you make a good point. This is a selection of PPRuNe threads that Pitts Extra has frequented this year. It's the result of an automated search so I apologise for any duplication. I think you will all form a picture. Not bad for a recreational wannabe.
AAIB Report A109E accident at Vauxhall, and Inquest Verdict
Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub: final AAIB report
Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain
Andy Hills interviewed
Hawker Hunter Loss at Shoreham Airshow
Differing reactions to accidents - Why?
Crash at Austrian Airshow, pilot killed
Light Aircraft crash at Blackbushe.
Plane crash near Basingstoke UK
Re-visiting the 1999 Hawk 200 Crash
AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
London heli crash jan 2013
Heli ditch North Sea G-REDL: NOT condolences
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 23rd Dec 2015 at 22:26.
A&C said:
"Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance."
Wow! I think I'd dislike working under that ethos. For an operator to consider the Life Expiry Date as a mere guide to be varied on the heat of the building invites all sorts of rogue practices. Are you sure that's what you meant?
"Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance."
Wow! I think I'd dislike working under that ethos. For an operator to consider the Life Expiry Date as a mere guide to be varied on the heat of the building invites all sorts of rogue practices. Are you sure that's what you meant?
Riggs,
Agreed. We have two treads running on the same topic now, which means dual, overlapping posts. I recently posted on the same issue on the other thread:
http://www.pprune.org/9218673-post956.html
Where I said:
Whilst it is true that the operating conditions for the components have changed, which MAY affect installed life, you will also note that the shelf life remains a limiting factor and I doubt storage conditions are significantly different. Moreover, as there are neither data nor a proper evaluation of installed life under the new operating condition it is not possible to calculate a new installed life.
I am commenting here purely on the practicalities of component life, NOT any process that is, or has been, in place.
Agreed. We have two treads running on the same topic now, which means dual, overlapping posts. I recently posted on the same issue on the other thread:
http://www.pprune.org/9218673-post956.html
Where I said:
Whilst it is true that the operating conditions for the components have changed, which MAY affect installed life, you will also note that the shelf life remains a limiting factor and I doubt storage conditions are significantly different. Moreover, as there are neither data nor a proper evaluation of installed life under the new operating condition it is not possible to calculate a new installed life.
I am commenting here purely on the practicalities of component life, NOT any process that is, or has been, in place.
Isn't this:-
and this
Similar/same?!?
This point ignores (for example) this interim bulletin for G-SPAO
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...014_G-SPAO.pdf
I refer you to the final page under the heading "ongoing investigation".
Now of course it assumes there is some element of consistency in all of these reports and methodology (is that an unreasonable assumption?).
When you say
You don't see the words developed and maturity two different words for the same thing? I guess in any event the lines are not developed enough to have a strong opinion.
Originally Posted by APG63
The CAA has not received criticism in the report.
I didn't say that it had. My comments were merely reflecting upon the two communique within 24hrs which at best seemed uncoordinated. I'm sure you don't agree.
CM - Since when can't someone hold a view on an internet forum? You'd be surprised wouldn't you if you agree with everything everyone wrote on here, it would certainly make for very short posts.
As for the accident threads I've posted on. I'm fairly sure if you have nothing better to do that stalk others posts then a vast number of people have posts on all kinds of accident threads, after all they grab attention and unsurprisingly people will have a view. As it happens the North Sea helicopter accidents were near the bone as a good friend was affected. The London heli accident was within walking distance to my London apartment and G-LBAL seemed similar human factors.
G-SPAO is just an incredulous situation as was Blackbushe, as well as a local airfield.
I didn't comment upon the A400M accident merely posting a professional news feed I have access to and was actually trying to be helpful and the remainder related to this accident. I'm not sure what mystery that unveils.
If you take the Austrian airshow pilot accident for some reason nobody raised an eyebrow when human factors got raised, perhaps he was viewed as a recreational wannabe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
...no other conclusive technical issues have been found to date.
...no other conclusive technical issues have been found to date.
Originally Posted by APG63
The investigation needs to complete enough in the area concerned to be able to draw conclusions.
The investigation needs to complete enough in the area concerned to be able to draw conclusions.
Originally Posted by APG63
It certainly does not follow that no other "conclusive technical issues" have been found to date. For example, stating that an accident occurred because the engine failed is not particularly useful if the cause(s) of the engine failure, subsequent drills and means of mitigating the same or similar failures in the future are still being identified.
It certainly does not follow that no other "conclusive technical issues" have been found to date. For example, stating that an accident occurred because the engine failed is not particularly useful if the cause(s) of the engine failure, subsequent drills and means of mitigating the same or similar failures in the future are still being identified.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...014_G-SPAO.pdf
I refer you to the final page under the heading "ongoing investigation".
Now of course it assumes there is some element of consistency in all of these reports and methodology (is that an unreasonable assumption?).
When you say
Originally Posted by APG63
Let me be specific. There are other lines of developed enquiry. They will not be reported upon until necessary or until they are sufficiently mature.
Let me be specific. There are other lines of developed enquiry. They will not be reported upon until necessary or until they are sufficiently mature.
Originally Posted by APG63
The CAA has not received criticism in the report.
CM - Since when can't someone hold a view on an internet forum? You'd be surprised wouldn't you if you agree with everything everyone wrote on here, it would certainly make for very short posts.
As for the accident threads I've posted on. I'm fairly sure if you have nothing better to do that stalk others posts then a vast number of people have posts on all kinds of accident threads, after all they grab attention and unsurprisingly people will have a view. As it happens the North Sea helicopter accidents were near the bone as a good friend was affected. The London heli accident was within walking distance to my London apartment and G-LBAL seemed similar human factors.
G-SPAO is just an incredulous situation as was Blackbushe, as well as a local airfield.
I didn't comment upon the A400M accident merely posting a professional news feed I have access to and was actually trying to be helpful and the remainder related to this accident. I'm not sure what mystery that unveils.
If you take the Austrian airshow pilot accident for some reason nobody raised an eyebrow when human factors got raised, perhaps he was viewed as a recreational wannabe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision to extend the life of the ejection seat pyrotechnics is an interesting one.
The original manufactures will have considered a number of factors when setting the limitation, these are likely to be based on the harshest military operation environment with a good measure of safety and a bit of allowance for the deep pockets of the military budget. Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance.
The original manufactures will have considered a number of factors when setting the limitation, these are likely to be based on the harshest military operation environment with a good measure of safety and a bit of allowance for the deep pockets of the military budget. Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.
It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance.
The 6 -year total life will be a safeguard, but also a cost controller as without representative samples (which have to be withheld from sale and stored securely) you cannot authorise a further life extension.
The OEM's withdrawal of support for the ejection seat is not the stick-out here; equivalent support can be provided. The continued use of time-expired cartridges in the ejection seat is the alarm bell for me, it tells us something of the culture of the organisation operating this aircraft. They should have grounded the aircraft until new cartridges were fitted.
I raised the cultural point in the original thread - but as it had nothing to do with gate-heights, aerobatics and personal hours it was largely rebuffed.
It will be interesting to see what further risks were taken, if any, and whether this is common practice.
Given the howls of denial on this site that flying vintage aircraft could pose any greater risk than military ones, and that flying decommissioned military hardware is likely to remain popular, it would be nice to think that we could learn some valuable lessons from this unfortunate accident.
It's quite interesting AFTER THE EVENT that so many opinions are brought forward about flying old aircraft, ejector seat cartridges etc etc.
Basically, Mr Hill commenced a looping manoeuvre at too low an altitude to complete it safely.
We all know that. The problem is nothing to do with ejector seats - it's to do with airline pilots turning up at air shows expecting skills that they once had - and practiced regularly (weekly in the season) to still be there.
They aren't - and until the CAA stops this blatant abuse of the 'old boys ' network , such events will happen.
If you want to fly a Fast Jet as a display pilot - look at the requirements of a serving officer. 10 hours on type in 2 years - I don't think so.
Basically, Mr Hill commenced a looping manoeuvre at too low an altitude to complete it safely.
We all know that. The problem is nothing to do with ejector seats - it's to do with airline pilots turning up at air shows expecting skills that they once had - and practiced regularly (weekly in the season) to still be there.
They aren't - and until the CAA stops this blatant abuse of the 'old boys ' network , such events will happen.
If you want to fly a Fast Jet as a display pilot - look at the requirements of a serving officer. 10 hours on type in 2 years - I don't think so.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra,
Nice defensive rant. You clearly have firmly held beliefs about a number of accidents. Given that you had made your mind up about this one before any confirmed evidence had been presented, you'll forgive me if I don't take your suppositions too seriously. Wait for the evidence and findings from those that have access to the facts and then make considered opinion based on those facts.
I'm more inclined to value APG63's offerings here, given his role in this.
Nice defensive rant. You clearly have firmly held beliefs about a number of accidents. Given that you had made your mind up about this one before any confirmed evidence had been presented, you'll forgive me if I don't take your suppositions too seriously. Wait for the evidence and findings from those that have access to the facts and then make considered opinion based on those facts.
I'm more inclined to value APG63's offerings here, given his role in this.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Basically, Mr Hill commenced a looping manoeuvre at too low an altitude to complete it safely.
You can plan to start a vertical manoeuvre well below exit height as long as you have enough energy and that is the basis for many display aerobatics. Conversely looping manoeuvres can have an entry height higher than the exit height. It's all to do with energy management and designing displays.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious then, this being a 'rumour network' what do the great majority of SMEs on here think the root cause of this accident was then? I'm not an SME in this field but IMHO it seems pretty clear to me, why does no one want to actually discuss what caused this crash?
PS Happy Christmas PPruners one & all, safe flying in 2016!
PS Happy Christmas PPruners one & all, safe flying in 2016!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Wokkamate, basically it's down to sh*t happens, a myriad of things that can all align to create an accident.
The legislation, life ex cartridges etc, did not cause the accident nor have any relevance to it, it is simply the way the CAA / AAIB operate in the blame culture we all now live in, which hopefully will bring forth tangible and constructive changes...
Far from the blame game the above bodies play, one would hope it brings about changes where they clarify exactly the requirements, because reading that report it reads as if the organisation was attempting to get the definitive answer from the CAA, but they were lacking in clarifying them early on... Not that they would have effected the outcome one iota.
I totally agree with A&C re life of items and their environment. I do not know how much experience you all have on the Civilian side of things re lifed items etc, but they do vary.
As an example Lycoming life the 0-235 engine at 2400 hrs / 12 years before overhaul, the CAA under GR24 allow you to extend that life by 20% for commercially operated engines to 2880 Hrs, but if you operate it privately then the CAA under GR 24 then give it an unlimited life on condition.
What I am trying to put across is not all original manufacturers lives are mandatory on the civil side of things.
The likes of Warbirds etc certain companies can and do relife seals, bolts etc.. they are simply not made anymore and where I have to bin seals at their lives, be it 10, 15 or 20 years, they can reinspect them and recertify them, unless things have changed.
..
The legislation, life ex cartridges etc, did not cause the accident nor have any relevance to it, it is simply the way the CAA / AAIB operate in the blame culture we all now live in, which hopefully will bring forth tangible and constructive changes...
Far from the blame game the above bodies play, one would hope it brings about changes where they clarify exactly the requirements, because reading that report it reads as if the organisation was attempting to get the definitive answer from the CAA, but they were lacking in clarifying them early on... Not that they would have effected the outcome one iota.
I totally agree with A&C re life of items and their environment. I do not know how much experience you all have on the Civilian side of things re lifed items etc, but they do vary.
As an example Lycoming life the 0-235 engine at 2400 hrs / 12 years before overhaul, the CAA under GR24 allow you to extend that life by 20% for commercially operated engines to 2880 Hrs, but if you operate it privately then the CAA under GR 24 then give it an unlimited life on condition.
What I am trying to put across is not all original manufacturers lives are mandatory on the civil side of things.
The likes of Warbirds etc certain companies can and do relife seals, bolts etc.. they are simply not made anymore and where I have to bin seals at their lives, be it 10, 15 or 20 years, they can reinspect them and recertify them, unless things have changed.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 24th Dec 2015 at 23:46.
Unfamiliar with airshow requirements.
Pulled this form the accident report mentioned earlier:
Flying an airshow routine with only 40 hrs on type?
Is that normal/usual?
It would seem you wouldn't necessarily be fully aerobatics proficient and having intimate knowledge of the air frame after 40 hrs on type.
Pulled this form the accident report mentioned earlier:
of which 40 were on type
Is that normal/usual?
It would seem you wouldn't necessarily be fully aerobatics proficient and having intimate knowledge of the air frame after 40 hrs on type.