Hawk XX204 Service Inquiry
I wonder if the Bayliss family has been shown the evidence the Coroner chose not to refer to when agreeing with MoD that there were no systemic failings. In doing so, she was fully aware that she was disagreeing with other Coroners, and evidence in MoD's own hand. I wonder if the family solicitor even mentioned it?
Same old, same old! The dead hand of the MOD hovers over Coroners, Police Commissioners, QCs, MPs, Lords, Family Solicitors, as well as its own Provost Marshals, Military Air Accident Investigators, and of course the 'Independent' MAA. In particular the High Command of the Royal Air Force leads this race to the bottom, busily protecting VSOs' reputations from their illegal actions while abrogating its Duty of Care to subordinates who have suffered, along with the bereaved, from the continuing inevitable consequences of those actions. The good name of a proud Service is sullied by the moral vacuum that is the present leadership of the Royal Air Force. Does anyone of them care for anybody other than themselves?
Red Arrows Hawk - Seating arrangements
...
Thank you for the link BGN.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...n-raf-20599854
MoD barrister says in effect - 'Nothing to see here, move on please'. Of course he would.
Are the pilot and the deceased's family legally represented ? Are they having to pay for their legal representation, including a three or four day actual court hearing that might become adversarial - and expensive. Or are they trusting in the honest officers of the MoD and the Coroners Service to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Given that the article was posted on the day of the pre-inquest hearing, some glitches are perhaps understandable. Notwithstanding - One thing seems clear from the quotes in the article -
The family of Corporal Bayliss seems to be under a fundamental misunderstanding (and therefore legal disadvantage) about the seating and ejection arrangements for the Red Arrows aircraft. There is no reason to suggest the quotes were invented, so why ?
This subject must have been discussed in agonising detail with many agencies, in the three years since the crash. How is it that the family can apparently still be unaware of the simple facts of the Red Arrows Hawk Mk 1 unique seating requirements and inappropriate command ejection arrangements ?
LFH
...
Thank you for the link BGN.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...n-raf-20599854
MoD barrister says in effect - 'Nothing to see here, move on please'. Of course he would.
Are the pilot and the deceased's family legally represented ? Are they having to pay for their legal representation, including a three or four day actual court hearing that might become adversarial - and expensive. Or are they trusting in the honest officers of the MoD and the Coroners Service to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Given that the article was posted on the day of the pre-inquest hearing, some glitches are perhaps understandable. Notwithstanding - One thing seems clear from the quotes in the article -
The family of Corporal Bayliss seems to be under a fundamental misunderstanding (and therefore legal disadvantage) about the seating and ejection arrangements for the Red Arrows aircraft. There is no reason to suggest the quotes were invented, so why ?
This subject must have been discussed in agonising detail with many agencies, in the three years since the crash. How is it that the family can apparently still be unaware of the simple facts of the Red Arrows Hawk Mk 1 unique seating requirements and inappropriate command ejection arrangements ?
LFH
...
Ther Command Eject on the Hawk was set up based upon the needs of a 2 seat training aircraft, with the instructor in the rear seat able to initiate it. Its a relatively simple system with hot gas from the rear seat used to initiate the front seat via pipes.
I believe there is a need for the RAFAT to carry their engineers in the back seat when deploying away from base so it would make sense for their jets to receive a mod that allows front seat initiation of command eject. In theory of course this should be straight forward and relatively inexpensive. I suspect however that between British Aerospace, Martin Baker and the RAF the cost would escalate to the extent that it would prove cheaper to provide a support Herc for every deployed display. Oops, cost just going up a wad as it would have to be a support A400!
I believe there is a need for the RAFAT to carry their engineers in the back seat when deploying away from base so it would make sense for their jets to receive a mod that allows front seat initiation of command eject. In theory of course this should be straight forward and relatively inexpensive. I suspect however that between British Aerospace, Martin Baker and the RAF the cost would escalate to the extent that it would prove cheaper to provide a support Herc for every deployed display. Oops, cost just going up a wad as it would have to be a support A400!
ASRAAMTOO, you’re quite right about the TMk1 seat set up. The same system - which is the responsibility of MBA - is fitted to all Hawks built over the years, with the exception of the 200 series which only have the rear seat position, the front having been used for the avionics bay behind the radar, and as a single seat aircraft have no need for it.
It is not however just a simple modification. With command ejection selected, the rear seat instructor is able to operate their seat, which in turn sequences and subsequently operates the front seat. With a modified system selected to front command, the front seat occupant would pull their handle after which the system would pause the front seat while the rear seat is then signalled and operated, after which the front seat would then fire, thus preserving the need for the rear seat to leave the aircraft first. The pause in front seat sequencing and the need to prove its operation would make the qualification and certification of what would be a major modification a more challenging process than simply adding a couple of pipes and wires.
While the path to RAFAT OSD, previously 2030, is unclear after the latest announcements, a modification would be unlikely to be in place before the retirement of the rest of the TMk1 fleet, thus leaving the same passenger concerns in place for continued FAC training on 100 Sqn.
It is worth noting that the T45 Goshawk (Douglas/McDD/Boeing responsibility) does have a system selectable from either cockpit. It is however fitted with the Mk14 NACES seat, not the Mk10B used in the Hawk.
It is not however just a simple modification. With command ejection selected, the rear seat instructor is able to operate their seat, which in turn sequences and subsequently operates the front seat. With a modified system selected to front command, the front seat occupant would pull their handle after which the system would pause the front seat while the rear seat is then signalled and operated, after which the front seat would then fire, thus preserving the need for the rear seat to leave the aircraft first. The pause in front seat sequencing and the need to prove its operation would make the qualification and certification of what would be a major modification a more challenging process than simply adding a couple of pipes and wires.
While the path to RAFAT OSD, previously 2030, is unclear after the latest announcements, a modification would be unlikely to be in place before the retirement of the rest of the TMk1 fleet, thus leaving the same passenger concerns in place for continued FAC training on 100 Sqn.
It is worth noting that the T45 Goshawk (Douglas/McDD/Boeing responsibility) does have a system selectable from either cockpit. It is however fitted with the Mk14 NACES seat, not the Mk10B used in the Hawk.
MBA are the Design Authority for the seat. The design, as used in Hawk, is based on MoD's Statement of Operating Intent and Usage. MBA's Safety Case is based on this.
Does the SOIU state that an untrained member of the groundcrew will fly in the rear seat? If so, then all Safety Cases will highlight the risk should the pilot decide they need to eject. MBA would propose in mitigation the modification you describe; and no doubt have.
It would seem, from MoD reports, that the chosen ‘mitigation’ placed far too much faith in an inexperienced groundcrewman reacting properly, even if given sufficient warning – which he wasn’t.
If the SOIU does not include this concept of use, that is nothing to do with MBA, except that they would be required to point out the risk as soon as they realised MoD was violating its own regulations, and hadn’t reduced it to ALARP.
The question is: can the Duty Holder (and his many predecessors) justify acceptance of the risk in his ALARP statement? Only a court can decide this. The Coroner’s ruling effectively lets the Duty Holder off the hook, although I note she left the door slightly ajar.
And it bears repeating, if only because MoD denied it in court - the SI report repeats 12 (twelve) failures noted in the 2011 XX177 (Cunningham) report. In 2014 MoD assured the XX177 Coroner that all were being addressed.
ASRAAMTOO, you’re quite right about the TMk1 seat set up. The same system - which is the responsibility of MBA - is fitted to all Hawks built over the years, with the exception of the 200 series which only have the rear seat position, the front having been used for the avionics bay behind the radar, and as a single seat aircraft have no need for it.
It is not however just a simple modification. With command ejection selected, the rear seat instructor is able to operate their seat, which in turn sequences and subsequently operates the front seat. With a modified system selected to front command, the front seat occupant would pull their handle after which the system would pause the front seat while the rear seat is then signalled and operated, after which the front seat would then fire, thus preserving the need for the rear seat to leave the aircraft first. The pause in front seat sequencing and the need to prove its operation would make the qualification and certification of what would be a major modification a more challenging process than simply adding a couple of pipes and wires..
It is not however just a simple modification. With command ejection selected, the rear seat instructor is able to operate their seat, which in turn sequences and subsequently operates the front seat. With a modified system selected to front command, the front seat occupant would pull their handle after which the system would pause the front seat while the rear seat is then signalled and operated, after which the front seat would then fire, thus preserving the need for the rear seat to leave the aircraft first. The pause in front seat sequencing and the need to prove its operation would make the qualification and certification of what would be a major modification a more challenging process than simply adding a couple of pipes and wires..
Front seater says 'eject, eject' and pulls the handle, rear seater hears call and pulls handle. Probability is therefore that no planned sequencing exists and we are reliant on divergence to prevent seat collision..
I think its therefore safe to say that a solution that involves the front seat gasses firing the rear set WITHOUT any sequencing offers an improvement on current arrangements and is not quite as complicated. The problem with this of course is that is no longer the individuals fault if the seats collide!
I know next to nothing about ejector seats. But here on planet earth almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century, the bar for something to be described as "complicated" is set pretty high, especially in the electro-mechanical world.
As ASRAAMTOO has alluded to, the starting point is that both seats can be fired independently (and the rear can fire the front), so we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. If it is truly too hard for MOD to procure a fix, perhaps the necessary technology might be found in the airbag controller from, say, a Ford Fiesta: anything post 1998 should do it......
As ASRAAMTOO has alluded to, the starting point is that both seats can be fired independently (and the rear can fire the front), so we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. If it is truly too hard for MOD to procure a fix, perhaps the necessary technology might be found in the airbag controller from, say, a Ford Fiesta: anything post 1998 should do it......
The Pax does not normally fly in the front cockpit of a T1 - the front cockpit has all controls required for aircraft operation,the rear cockpit does not (missing is Fuel LP C0ck,Parking Brake,ECS controls and some radio controls ?).
So the rear cockpit has enough controls and switches to fly and land the aircraft but not sufficient to carry out all operations.
So the rear cockpit has enough controls and switches to fly and land the aircraft but not sufficient to carry out all operations.
