First the VGSs and now the UASs?
Are there any published numbers of the costs of the University system and how many pilots etc it provides?
The midair you quote was caused because a medically unfit officer with a fused spine was allowed to fly the Tutor and he was unable to look out properly.
Remove the bonedome....let pilots and cadets fly with a soft headset and leave the parachute at home for cadet flying.
The UAS element also wear parachutes and full flying clothing because it gets potential aircrew habituated to its use, so it is less of a distraction when they start professional training. Ever watched a student get flustered because they couldn't do their chin straps up easily?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I like the idea of a parachute. It gives extra confidence when carrying out dynamic manoeuvres. Why don’t we save a bit of cash on front line jets as well? How much is a bang seat?
1. The Tutor never underwent a full Boscombe Down evaluation which would have highlighted the problem of the canopy arch.
2. The midair you quote was caused because a medically unfit officer with a fused spine was allowed to fly the Tutor and he was unable to look out properly.
3. You point out the glider pilot was able to bailout while ignoring the fact that the cadet was briefed on how to escape from the aircraft with parachute yet was unable to do so.
Remove the bonedome.....btw have you heard about the Prefect Problem....let pilots and cadets fly with a soft headset and leave the parachute at home for cadet flying. Keep the option of wearing a parachute for SCT exercises like spinning.
2. The midair you quote was caused because a medically unfit officer with a fused spine was allowed to fly the Tutor and he was unable to look out properly.
3. You point out the glider pilot was able to bailout while ignoring the fact that the cadet was briefed on how to escape from the aircraft with parachute yet was unable to do so.
Remove the bonedome.....btw have you heard about the Prefect Problem....let pilots and cadets fly with a soft headset and leave the parachute at home for cadet flying. Keep the option of wearing a parachute for SCT exercises like spinning.
Canopy arch problem? You mean you have to move your head to lookout? It wasn’t a problem in the JP...I never found it a problem in 1200 Tutor hours...
The problem ain’t the tools, it’s the system which took something good in UAS flying and messed it up in the false name of economy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AAIB report does not allocate blame? What did the RAF do after this sad accident just say "oh never mind one of those things he just did not see the glider"
Duty of care.....how many cadets have successfully parachuted from a Tutor and the bone dome we wear on the Tutor was not designed for use in a light aircraft.
As for the idiotic comment about getting rid of ejection seats above.....
Duty of care.....how many cadets have successfully parachuted from a Tutor and the bone dome we wear on the Tutor was not designed for use in a light aircraft.
As for the idiotic comment about getting rid of ejection seats above.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK what is the relevance of the JP Jet Provost? How about discussing canopy arch problems and visibility re the GR1/4 Tornado? The latter suffered several mid airs and close shaves because the arch was too wide and poorly placed re pilot lookout.
There is a reason why RAF aircraft should always undergo a Boscombe Down evaluation....the trouble is the Tutor is neither one thing or the other.
There is a reason why RAF aircraft should always undergo a Boscombe Down evaluation....the trouble is the Tutor is neither one thing or the other.
As an aside, my wife's colleague has just been given his flying course date, 19 months after holding at Cranwell. Disillusioned, you bet.
OK what is the relevance of the JP Jet Provost? How about discussing canopy arch problems and visibility re the GR1/4 Tornado? The latter suffered several mid airs and close shaves because the arch was too wide and poorly placed re pilot lookout.
There is a reason why RAF aircraft should always undergo a Boscombe Down evaluation....the trouble is the Tutor is neither one thing or the other.
There is a reason why RAF aircraft should always undergo a Boscombe Down evaluation....the trouble is the Tutor is neither one thing or the other.
There is extensive evidence that Flying Helmets WOULD save lives and reduce the seriousness of injuries if they were worn by GA pilots. They are however expensive, generally uncomfortable and probably considered "socially unacceptable" in all but the most exotic of GA machines.
Parachutes are also recomended when flying aerobatics.
If the military has the kit then they should most certainly use it.
Parachutes are also recomended when flying aerobatics.
If the military has the kit then they should most certainly use it.
Thread Starter
When
Actually there isn’t. I did a lot of investigation into this and a good 3 or even better 5 point harness is far better in GA aircraft than bothering with a lid and a parachute. All the helmet really saves you from is facial injury rather than cranial injury. Also, the majority of fatal injuries are from Aortic rupture when you look at the postmortem results which are available if you do your research properly. This is due to the fact that the body is pretty poor at withstanding lateral G. Also, when flying a Pitts very few of us wear helmets or parachutes - the 7 point harness holds you in place and you need the lightest of headsets as you don’t want a heavy bonedome on your bonce.
In fact it was only really the bang-seat that meant that hard helmets were deemed necessary. In 1948 the Air Staffs had noted that there was no requirement for a protective helmet for the RAF and it was left to the Admiralty to raise a requirement in 1951 for a protective helmet for Naval aircrew (FPRC, 1953). At this time the WW2 Type C series helmet had been replaced in some areas by the Type E – a lightweight version of the Type C - made of lightweight unlined cotton ‘Aertex’, and this was followed by the Type F. Made of open weave fabric it could be used as a general purpose helmet or as head cover under a protective helmet.
This helmet, the Protective Helmet Mk 1, was shaped to fit over the Type F inner and constructed from moulded and bonded laminations of nylon fabric. It was intended to ‘protect the head from injuries that may be caused by buffeting or a crash landing, and increases the chance of a safe ejection if the canopy release mechanism fails’
It was known as a Bonedome
There is extensive evidence that Flying Helmets WOULD save lives and reduce the seriousness of injuries if they were worn by GA pilots. They are however expensive, generally uncomfortable and probably considered "socially unacceptable" in all but the most exotic of GA machines.
Parachutes are also recomended when flying aerobatics.
If the military has the kit then they should most certainly use it.
Parachutes are also recomended when flying aerobatics.
If the military has the kit then they should most certainly use it.
In fact it was only really the bang-seat that meant that hard helmets were deemed necessary. In 1948 the Air Staffs had noted that there was no requirement for a protective helmet for the RAF and it was left to the Admiralty to raise a requirement in 1951 for a protective helmet for Naval aircrew (FPRC, 1953). At this time the WW2 Type C series helmet had been replaced in some areas by the Type E – a lightweight version of the Type C - made of lightweight unlined cotton ‘Aertex’, and this was followed by the Type F. Made of open weave fabric it could be used as a general purpose helmet or as head cover under a protective helmet.
This helmet, the Protective Helmet Mk 1, was shaped to fit over the Type F inner and constructed from moulded and bonded laminations of nylon fabric. It was intended to ‘protect the head from injuries that may be caused by buffeting or a crash landing, and increases the chance of a safe ejection if the canopy release mechanism fails’
It was known as a Bonedome
The JP had a similar arch! All training aircraft since they put canopies on them have had arches and blind spots that require you to move your head to look out.
Many front line aircraft have blind spots. Pilots must learn to move their heads to look out. There isn’t an issue with the Tutor arch. There is an issue with the UAS/AEF system (post Marston)
Many front line aircraft have blind spots. Pilots must learn to move their heads to look out. There isn’t an issue with the Tutor arch. There is an issue with the UAS/AEF system (post Marston)
LJ I’m not quite sure which helmets you’re referring to as not providing cranial protection? Modern helmets provide full head protection, Upper face by polycarbonate visors, lower face by either a mask or maxillio facial shield and cranium by the carbon fibre/ aramid shell. If fitted properly, helmets are not uncomfortable and provide a worthwhile source of head protection where they are able to be worn. Pitts and Bouchon are not helmet friendly, although I note the Red Bull pilots manage to wear helmets in their aircraft (and FR coveralls)?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your views, this is a bit off topic but gossip heard recently suggests the Prefect was ordered but they, MOD Procurement, omitted to check if two average RAF pilots would fit under the canopy wearing the beloved bone domes and apparently they do not. Anyone else heard this?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see very little to change about the way AEF/UAS is provided the debate about parachutes and head protection seems shortsighted, most people won’t get in a pushbike how without head protection so why abandon it in an aerobatic aircraft. The parachute is very much an action of last resort and had the last accident involving a Tutor panned out a little differently at least one of the crew might have escaped ( do I need to remind those who think the parachute is a bad idea that the glider pilot escaped without serious injuries)
Anyone who suggests that the Extra 300 could be used as a basic trainer clearly has never flown or maintained the aircraft, it is a fine unlimited aerobatic aircraft but it’s very unstable by nature and without this stability the student is unable to see the results of the control inputs they are making, it is very difficult to land and burns huge amounts of fuel. From a maintenance point of veiw it is fragile, if used as a military trainer the whole fleet would be grounded in weeks with cracked landing gear hoops, and weld repairs required to the mainlanding gear mounts and to the tail section around tail wheel and fin spar.
The Grob Tutor is currently the best game in town for the task it has been given, even now most ofthe airframes are only at about half life and it’s maintanence issues are well understood, some of the instrumentation is getting a bit long in the tooth and difficult to support but studies show that with an avionic upgrade costs can be reduced with more modern and reliable equipment.
The biggest cost issue is the proposal to move the Turor fleet onto the military register and so military maintenance oversight, this in my view would be a disaster in terms of cost and serviceability rates, at the moment the aircraft is maintained under EASA145 by people who have gained years of experience on the type while working with a financaly viable maintenance system. Putting the aircraft into the military maintenance system would involve giving control to a bunch of people who move on quickly, have little type experience and not the first care or idea of the financal implications of their decisions.
At the moment the RAF have the best aircraft for the task maintained as reasonable cost with good serviceability rates in short the system is working.............. as the Americans say “ If it’s not broke don’t fix it”
Anyone who suggests that the Extra 300 could be used as a basic trainer clearly has never flown or maintained the aircraft, it is a fine unlimited aerobatic aircraft but it’s very unstable by nature and without this stability the student is unable to see the results of the control inputs they are making, it is very difficult to land and burns huge amounts of fuel. From a maintenance point of veiw it is fragile, if used as a military trainer the whole fleet would be grounded in weeks with cracked landing gear hoops, and weld repairs required to the mainlanding gear mounts and to the tail section around tail wheel and fin spar.
The Grob Tutor is currently the best game in town for the task it has been given, even now most ofthe airframes are only at about half life and it’s maintanence issues are well understood, some of the instrumentation is getting a bit long in the tooth and difficult to support but studies show that with an avionic upgrade costs can be reduced with more modern and reliable equipment.
The biggest cost issue is the proposal to move the Turor fleet onto the military register and so military maintenance oversight, this in my view would be a disaster in terms of cost and serviceability rates, at the moment the aircraft is maintained under EASA145 by people who have gained years of experience on the type while working with a financaly viable maintenance system. Putting the aircraft into the military maintenance system would involve giving control to a bunch of people who move on quickly, have little type experience and not the first care or idea of the financal implications of their decisions.
At the moment the RAF have the best aircraft for the task maintained as reasonable cost with good serviceability rates in short the system is working.............. as the Americans say “ If it’s not broke don’t fix it”
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suggestion of the 300L was just that a suggestion I could just have easily suggested another type. The Extra was used at Oxford for BA Cadets to experience aeros and spins and those that I flew with enjoyed the experience. The French Air Force once used the CAP10 a fine aircraft.
As for the Tutor well it is broke, it is old, it has experienced serious airworthiness issues with the propeller, the RAF spin recovery checklist was not in alignment with Grob, we are no longer permitted to carry out flick manoeuvres, the Harness QRB failed and the width of the canopy arch makes lookout such a serious issue that the RAF fitted two collision avoidance systems.
The cost per flying hour?
Neither as yet have any crew successfully parachuted from an RAF Grob Tutor and I am not aware that the MoD or RAF ever carried out a full abandonment trial.
Tutor aerobatics are not very advanced when carrying cadets, we carry out a few basic options with a typical G loading 4G or less a bone dome is not helpful as they are heavy. As far as crashes go how many Tutor crash landings have occurred and how did the bone dome help if at all?
VFM value for money, not convinced the Tutor and the current system works well enough but funnily enough the old system with a Chipmunk did not kill any cadets while AEF flying and flew for decades under military management and engineering.
As for the Tutor well it is broke, it is old, it has experienced serious airworthiness issues with the propeller, the RAF spin recovery checklist was not in alignment with Grob, we are no longer permitted to carry out flick manoeuvres, the Harness QRB failed and the width of the canopy arch makes lookout such a serious issue that the RAF fitted two collision avoidance systems.
The cost per flying hour?
Neither as yet have any crew successfully parachuted from an RAF Grob Tutor and I am not aware that the MoD or RAF ever carried out a full abandonment trial.
Tutor aerobatics are not very advanced when carrying cadets, we carry out a few basic options with a typical G loading 4G or less a bone dome is not helpful as they are heavy. As far as crashes go how many Tutor crash landings have occurred and how did the bone dome help if at all?
VFM value for money, not convinced the Tutor and the current system works well enough but funnily enough the old system with a Chipmunk did not kill any cadets while AEF flying and flew for decades under military management and engineering.
The RAF fitted 2 collision avoidance systems because of the nature of modern ‘Safety Systems’ - the management kind, not the technical kind. Once you have identified something that ‘might’ be a safety enhancement, it is a brave sole that stands up and says you don’t need it.
Its also a light aircraft. There are a myriad of COTS replacements for any instrument that is obsolescent. Despite the best efforts of the RAF to make it difficult, it’s a simple aircraft to operate, has plenty of life and is relatively cheap to operate. I’m not sure why you seem to think otherwise BP?
You May also wish to research the airworthiness issues the Chipmunk had in its lifetime - spinning for example! Chipmunk Aeros were the same as the Tutor is now - I flew both.
Its also a light aircraft. There are a myriad of COTS replacements for any instrument that is obsolescent. Despite the best efforts of the RAF to make it difficult, it’s a simple aircraft to operate, has plenty of life and is relatively cheap to operate. I’m not sure why you seem to think otherwise BP?
You May also wish to research the airworthiness issues the Chipmunk had in its lifetime - spinning for example! Chipmunk Aeros were the same as the Tutor is now - I flew both.
Last edited by DCThumb; 31st Mar 2019 at 10:13. Reason: Added content
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants
The current propellor has not experienced any airworthiness issues, you can hardly black the aircraft because of different propellor built by another manufacturer that was not the item recommended by Grob and fitted at the RAF’s request.
I simply don’t see the aircraft as old and broke as you put it, I see a half life airframe that could use an avionics upgrade to increase reliability.
As to the cost of more military maintenance just take a look at the VGS vs civil gliding clubs. Military maintenance may be appropriate to fast jets but it is expensive overkill when applied to light aircraft.
The current propellor has not experienced any airworthiness issues, you can hardly black the aircraft because of different propellor built by another manufacturer that was not the item recommended by Grob and fitted at the RAF’s request.
I simply don’t see the aircraft as old and broke as you put it, I see a half life airframe that could use an avionics upgrade to increase reliability.
As to the cost of more military maintenance just take a look at the VGS vs civil gliding clubs. Military maintenance may be appropriate to fast jets but it is expensive overkill when applied to light aircraft.
Last edited by A and C; 31st Mar 2019 at 10:37.
I can remember an occurence back in the mid '60s ( I was an ATC cadet and had just had my first Chipmunk flight from White Waltham so it was of 'interest' to me) where, after a mid-air near Reading, the cadet in the back seat was unable to bale out of the Chipmunk and was killed.
Last edited by chevvron; 31st Mar 2019 at 11:04.
