First the VGSs and now the UASs?
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.
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.
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
Bill
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.