Andy Hill interviewed
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks EGNH Flyer
I was pretty bored with this irrelevant "out of date ejection seat pyrotechnic" nonsense, but damn, EGNH Flyer, that's a hell of a yarn! Plus, I'm a sucker for a happy ending.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money
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.
It strikes me that the fundamental underlying problem is the cost in both £/hour and remaining aircraft life of flying them. How can that be squared with the requirement for proper practice?
I can see that you might practice to fly a piston warbird by flying something similar with comparable performance, such as an Extra or Sukhoi. But how do you stay current in a vintage fast jet without flying it? I'd imagine the types serving pilots fly now are rather different and not necessarily comparable, and even so, someone still has to pay for that practice.
Opinions?
Is there not a requirement to perform a full iteration of your display routine at fixed intervals throughout a display season?
I may well be wrong but I had the feeling that In Season Practices had to be weekly/fortnightly to ensure you are 'current' for the display routine?
I'm pretty sure this applies to Military displays? The reds often talk about ISP's during their quieter times in the display season to remain current. I also believe that this years Typhoon Display pilot had to perform ISP's after the end of the UK/European display season as he had a Far East commitment late in 2015?
Does this not apply to civilian operators?
TO
I may well be wrong but I had the feeling that In Season Practices had to be weekly/fortnightly to ensure you are 'current' for the display routine?
I'm pretty sure this applies to Military displays? The reds often talk about ISP's during their quieter times in the display season to remain current. I also believe that this years Typhoon Display pilot had to perform ISP's after the end of the UK/European display season as he had a Far East commitment late in 2015?
Does this not apply to civilian operators?
TO
Mike 51
Thank you.
Is there no regulation covering this at all in the Civilian World? Surprising.
I regularly watch warbird pilots 'practice' display routines at Duxford prior to show days-or is that to obtain Display Authority in a different jurisdiction perhaps?
TO
Is there no regulation covering this at all in the Civilian World? Surprising.
I regularly watch warbird pilots 'practice' display routines at Duxford prior to show days-or is that to obtain Display Authority in a different jurisdiction perhaps?
TO
If I'm reading this right...CAP403
Then you may only need to have demonstrated 1 display sequence in Type in the 90 days preceding the display, as long as you have demonstrated 3 display sequences in total?
Although this is meant to be a minimum.
Am I right in thinking this is considerably less than would be required by a Military display pilot?
Although this is meant to be a minimum.
Am I right in thinking this is considerably less than would be required by a Military display pilot?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Within the space of only a few posts, such a contrast between what is really significant and the trivia....
S-D
CAP403 requires 3 displays or practices in the previous 90 days, at least one of which must be on type.
If I'm reading this right...CAP403
Then you may only need to have demonstrated 1 display sequence in Type in the 90 days preceding the display, as long as you have demonstrated 3 display sequences in total?
Although this is meant to be a minimum.
Am I right in thinking this is considerably less than would be required by a Military display pilot?
Then you may only need to have demonstrated 1 display sequence in Type in the 90 days preceding the display, as long as you have demonstrated 3 display sequences in total?
Although this is meant to be a minimum.
Am I right in thinking this is considerably less than would be required by a Military display pilot?
We're 6 pages in now, and the point made at Post #4 that the gentleman's name is mis-spelled in the thread title still hasn't been acted on.
From CAP403:
5.33 In addition to a valid Certificate of Test and Competence, a Display Pilot is required to meet certain recency requirements before his DA is valid. In the 90 days preceding a demonstration at a flying display for which an Article 162 Permission is required, a minimum of three full display sequences must have been flown or practised, with at least one display sequence flown or practised in the specific type of aircraft to be displayed.
5.34 A log book entry is sufficient proof that the display sequences or practices have been flown.
5.34 A log book entry is sufficient proof that the display sequences or practices have been flown.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're 6 pages in now, and the point made at Post #4 that the gentleman's name is mis-spelled in the thread title still hasn't been acted on.
It is petty obfuscation such as this that makes some of us suspect that some folk are more interested in keeping the ranks tightly closed rather than getting at what really went wrong.
S-D
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Yeovil,Somerset
Age: 52
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SES
I assume that even though MB no longer aids maintenance with older type ejection seats I believe they recommend SES.
They performed the ejection seat overhaul on Sea Vixen XP924 and their work is excellent. So I can't really see a problem moving forward.
They performed the ejection seat overhaul on Sea Vixen XP924 and their work is excellent. So I can't really see a problem moving forward.
Did SES maintain the seats in the accident aircraft Imgaylard and are they MB approved?
Edit: I understand MB pulled out of the legacy seat market so do the seat 'servicing' companies need authorisations to maintain seats from the OEM?
Edit: I understand MB pulled out of the legacy seat market so do the seat 'servicing' companies need authorisations to maintain seats from the OEM?
Last edited by Stitchbitch; 1st Jan 2016 at 09:44.
It looks like someone has fixed it BossEyed. I think we all knew whom and what the thread referred to. Perhaps we can we can now concentrate on genuine discussion related to this tragic event.
It is petty obfuscation such as this that makes some of us suspect that some folk are more interested in keeping the ranks tightly closed rather than getting at what really went wrong.
S-D
It is petty obfuscation such as this that makes some of us suspect that some folk are more interested in keeping the ranks tightly closed rather than getting at what really went wrong.
S-D
I thought the detail more about respect than petty obfuscation, so we'll have to differ on that.
Have a positive New Year, everyone - especially anyone affected by this tragedy.