INCIDENT AT VALLEY

[rlsbutler]

Might I be a lonely voice to speak for those ex-airmen who would exclude a blue aircraft from the Red display ?

The Royal Air Force has trouble paying for RAFAT and it does so to project its image as a skilled, vital, force for the defence of our nation. Dwelling on RAFAT's normally unseen workforce or (worse) perpetually memorialising just one of its unhappy and costly mistakes - that detracts from its proper role.

The Reds have lost quite a few pilots now. For them and for Corporal Baylis the right thing is to acknowledge them briefly and sincerely and then to move on. In my day we might have muttered "bound to lose a few" and heard others making harsher remarks, doubtless devised to put a brave face on private regrets.

We are an air force that lost tens of thousands of mens' lives in WWII, most of them aircrew. We have to be ready to take that sort of punishment in the future. We have no business encouraging the Royal Air Force to grow introverted and sentimental.

[Cows getting bigger]

Indeed the RAF has lost thousands of people and we choose to remember them in various ways, not least by maintaining BBMF, adopting WW2 paint schemes etc. Personally, I think a single season blue Hawk would be a fantastic gesture and not overly sentimental.

[42go]

Any news:
on the condition of David and his future?
The BoI?

[42go]

Hmm. Anyone?

[Treble one]

42go, I am not privy to Flt Lt Stark's condition, but obviously its serious enough for him to be replaced for this season by Sqn Ldr Ling.

I was under the impression that this was for a season only, and should he fully recover he will be back next season. However, I'm not sure that has been officially acknowledged anywhere.

[A340Yumyum]

Originally Posted by Treble one

42go, I am not privy to Flt Lt Stark's condition, but obviously its serious enough for him to be replaced for this season by Sqd Ldr Ling.

I was under the impression that this was for a season only, and should he fully recover he will be back next season. However, I'm not sure that has been officially acknowledged anywhere.

‘Sqn Ldr Ling’

[Treble one]

Originally Posted by A340Yumyum

‘Sqn Ldr Ling’

I do apologise. I hope he wont be mortally offended. I suspect not.

[Easy Street]

rlsbutler - I thought that was a tremendously well-written and thoughtful contribution, which has saved me the trouble of finding a sensitive way of saying the same thing. I agree with you 100%.

[Distant Voice]

As mitigation, following the Flt Lt Cunningham accident, is there any truth in the rumor that seat pins were left in for taxi and take-of?

DV

[Timelord]

DV,

I know nothing about what happened at Valley but I do know about the aftermath of fatal accidents and I do not think your last post is helpful in any way. Perhaps you should consider deleting it?

[Distant Voice]

Originally Posted by Timelord

DV,

I know nothing about what happened at Valley but I do know about the aftermath of fatal accidents and I do not think your last post is helpful in any way. Perhaps you should consider deleting it?

It has been amended

DV

[downsizer]

Originally Posted by Timelord

DV,

I know nothing about what happened at Valley but I do know about the aftermath of fatal accidents and I do not think your last post is helpful in any way. Perhaps you should consider deleting it?

I agree!!!! Very bad taste at this time.

[42go]

Whilst searching to see if there was any finding so far by the SI into the fatal Red Arrows Valley crash, and why it turned back, I happened to revisit 'Wriggles' 2008 accident report which surprisingly (to me) placed 'no blame' on either of the two crew for failing to land with the wheels down! What concerned me in particular was a quoted 'RAF source' who, according to the Scarborough News said

"An RAF source said: “Red Arrows Boards of Inquiry are not normally made public, to ensure the public do not see them in a bad light.”

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk...down-1-1463397

Gosh, we don't want that, do we?

Apparently the 'accident' was due to a switching of the gear selection from the front cockpit to the (un-named) rear seater by a qualified RAF Hawk training pilot. Any Hawk drivers to comment? Do we know who it was and why he or she was there or why the landing checks seem to have been 'missed'?

[airpolice]

Any news story that mentions co-pilot in a Hawk, can be considered suspect.

[Treble one]

Was in Air Clues?

Originally Posted by 42go

Whilst searching to see if there was any finding so far by the SI into the fatal Red Arrows Valley crash, and why it turned back, I happened to revisit 'Wriggles' 2008 accident report which surprisingly (to me) placed 'no blame' on either of the two crew for failing to land with the wheels down! What concerned me in particular was a quoted 'RAF source' who, according to the Scarborough News said

"An RAF source said: “Red Arrows Boards of Inquiry are not normally made public, to ensure the public do not see them in a bad light.”

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk...down-1-1463397

Gosh, we don't want that, do we?

Apparently the 'accident' was due to a switching of the gear selection from the front cockpit to the (un-named) rear seater by a qualified RAF Hawk training pilot. Any Hawk drivers to comment? Do we know who it was and why he or she was there or why the landing checks seem to have been 'missed'?

This one made it into Air Clues I think? 'I learned about Flying from that'. I seem to remember the chap in question received widespread praise for his honesty in his own write up.

[Cows getting bigger]

Oh this one?

[H Peacock]

The Cranwell Hawk gear-up landing was at the end of an airtest/transit. During a Hawk Full Airtest the gear has to be operated from both cockpits. The front cockpit has the usual 'Up' and 'Down' buttons, as does the rear selector, but the latter also has a 'Front' button. With the 'Front' button depressed the front cockpit has control of the gear - normal Ops. If the rear operator selects either the 'Up' or 'Down' button, the gear travels accordingly and the front cockpit selector is inhibited. Rear seat QFI has final say, but for normal ops he always had 'Front' depressed and asked the front seater to select accordingly.

So, if the rear operator does a 'Down' then 'Up' selection from the rear the gear will operate as advertised from the rear cockpit. If he forgets to reselect the 'Front' button, the guy in the front can fly his VRIAB, press his 'Down' button and try to land, but the gear stays up. If one fails to use LOI (Indication!) and check for the greens then a wheels up landing is inevitable.

It happened at least once before (Church Fenton?) and was a well known and highlighted 'gotcha' of using the rear gear selector. I'm sure it was a very early speculative post after the Cranwell accident but not one anyone could hide from post-flight, the ADR and cockpit selectors give it away.

[airpolice]

This was done to death at the time.

Like almost everything we do in aviation, this was a team effort.

The runway controller failed to react appropriately to the absence of gear as well.

[PapaDolmio]

Originally Posted by airpolice

This was done to death at the time.

Like almost everything we do in aviation, this was a team effort.

The runway controller failed to react appropriately to the absence of gear as well.

Failed to act appropriately is a bit of an understatement.

Failed to do the job they were paid and trained to do.

I believe the training programme at CWL was found lacking in some areas and caused ATC as a whole to look long and hard at ojt for runway controllers.

[H Peacock]

Like almost everything we do in aviation, this was a team effort.

The runway controller failed to react appropriately to the absence of gear as well.

Great if the caravan controller isn't confused by the Hawk nose light and spots you're gear up, but the blame for landing gear-up is very squarely with the driver! LOI is about as basic as it gets in an RAF cockpit. Not saying it doesn't happen, but please dont try to shift the blame! Furthermore, if you're doing an airtest then you must understand every aspect and potential pitfall.