First the VGSs and now the UASs?

[Haraka]

"Accommodate" is one thing : "accommodate comfortably " is another

[DCThumb]

Well I remember more than one guy on my Swinderby course who had to fly in the canvas 'G' Helmet as they didn't fit with the helmet as well so nothing is new!

My point re Prefect is simple. It is up to the contractor to provide suitable equipment for MFTS. If there is a problem with the Prefect and pilots unable to fit in then is is an Ascent issue, and then a contractural issue between the RAF and Ascent.

In the event of a forced landing, a bone dome will provide protection to pilots from injury. In the event of an abandonment it will protect the pilot is he or she is unfortunate enough to impact the airframe on the way out. These are indisputable facts and I wouldn't want to be at a Safety Action Group where I was asked to put my name on record as commending the removal of either item. Picture the scenario if there was a further incident whereby it was alleged that either of these would have saved a life/prevented serious injury following their withdrawal, and the subsequent hunt for those who made the decision.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Mk2 "bonedome" in the Vulcan was not the best fit !! In the T4 it was just about tolerable ! Military flying has/does always provide a certain amount of risk, surely that is the nature of the beast!!

Bill

[Lima Juliet]

Originally Posted by DCThumb

Well I remember more than one guy on my Swinderby course who had to fly in the canvas 'G' Helmet as they didn't fit with the helmet as well so nothing is new!

My point re Prefect is simple. It is up to the contractor to provide suitable equipment for MFTS. If there is a problem with the Prefect and pilots unable to fit in then is is an Ascent issue, and then a contractural issue between the RAF and Ascent.

In the event of a forced landing, a bone dome will provide protection to pilots from injury. In the event of an abandonment it will protect the pilot is he or she is unfortunate enough to impact the airframe on the way out. These are indisputable facts and I wouldn't want to be at a Safety Action Group where I was asked to put my name on record as commending the removal of either item. Picture the scenario if there was a further incident whereby it was alleged that either of these would have saved a life/prevented serious injury following their withdrawal, and the subsequent hunt for those who made the decision.

I’d sign that off if responsible. There is no significant evidence of fatal head trauma resulting from someone bailing out of a light aircraft. In fact I know of several glider pilots, who normally wear nothing more than a beany sunhat, that have bailed from their gliders without a fatal head injury - there are literaly 100s of bail outs from gliders worldwide every year. Think about it, you are travelling at the same speed of the aircraft and when you jump you are doing that same speed. Yes, drag will slow you down a bit but not enough at light aircraft speeds to cause a fatal head injury - it it was then there would be lots of dead glider pilots!!!

The real protecting a helmet gives a parachutist is during the landing phase. But then again, most glider pilots walk away from their descent to terra firma and so again there is only a slight increased risk of a bonk on the bonce if you hit something on the way down.

Now manage that risk against a heavy helmet that makes it harder to move your head during manoeuvre, degrades your performance on hot days in non-air conditioned cockpits with perspex bubble canopies and also costs a lot of time/effort to fit plus is a lot of money. Is it a risk that is being unreasonably treated under the ALARP scheme for a light aircraft when that money might be better spent on other safety features with higher risk?

[Bigpants]

Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray

Mk2 "bonedome" in the Vulcan was not the best fit !! In the T4 it was just about tolerable ! Military flying has/does always provide a certain amount of risk, surely that is the nature of the beast!!

Bill

Hi Bill, agreed in the old days that was a reasonable way forward as we were in the mob. Risk management in the RAF in the 21st century has changed a great deal because of a series of accidents and deaths including the Haddon Cave Investigation and two mid airs involving air cadets where none of the cadets or AEF pilots survived.

Personally, I see no point in trussing up air cadets in parachutes because nobody has as yet managed to bail out of Tutor and the bone domes were designed for adults flying fast jets not lightly built 13 year old cadets. Clearly views vary considerably but coming back to the original question does the UAS/AEF system represent value for money? The ACO/Taxpayer could get far better value for money if it was spent down the local flying club.

[pr00ne]

Seeing as one of the principal uses of the RAF Tutor fleet is to provide air experience flights for Air Cadets, I am amazed that some here are advocating that someone would propose and then sign off a reduction in health and safety provision for children flying in service aircraft by removing the need to wear protective head gear.

[Bigpants]

prOOne read the whole thread please to get some context here I did suggest the AEF need better equipment re Bone Dome rather than making 13 year old children wear an Alpha Helmet

My other point was that since the MoD does not appear to have carried an abandonment trial and no AEF personnel have ever managed to bailout of the Tutor even wearing the parachute seems a bit pointless? How many years in service? How many hours flown?

[pr00ne]

Bigpants,

That sounds a tad more reasonable. Despite how many hours flown and years in service though I still think that children should have the same protection as serving RAF aircrew.