Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No Water Please

Old 10th Jul 2020, 12:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 46
No Water Please

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-...ng-over-water/
LincsFM is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 13:18
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 50
Posts: 1,134
So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 13:34
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian View Post
So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?
By not buying a solution and changing it all.

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 14:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 52
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian View Post
So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?
Under a different regulatory framework maybe?
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 14:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: York
Posts: 477
Move back into Linton, problem solved.
muppetofthenorth is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 15:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 905
Bit of an issue when operating from an airfield on an island?!

I guess the key word is Ďminimiseí, so no long transits over water but the Menai Straits are probably not an obstacle. Which explains how the one that flew over me this morning made it to the Lake District.

Not sure if following the flow arrow up Windermere would count as minimizing though?
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 15:09
  #7 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,309
Martin_the_Martian.

So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?
Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix
ORAC is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 16:48
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,746
Two Newest RAF Pilots Earned their Wings in 'Record Time' | Aero-News Network

One way round it. FFS!
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 17:33
  #9 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,434
Errr. One year JP to "wings", then (for the lucky ones) onto the Gnat, predecessor of the Hawk. I didn't go that route, but many did, and that was mid sixties. Re-inventing the wheel?
Herod is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 20:18
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 50
Posts: 1,134
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Martin_the_Martian.



Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix

Hmm. Another great aircraft procurement decision. Is it too late to take them back and swap for some PC-21s?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 06:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,910
M the M

I have two points:

1. The MOD did not procure the aircraft. They were chosen and bought by the contractor. It is just possible that they may have realised they need more than the initial purchase of 10.

2. Iíve said this countless times before but Iíll say it again. PC21 is overkill. Itís a great aircraft but not what was required for the job in hand.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 07:26
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,279
the harness on this particular aircraft could not currently be fitted with a water-activated quick-release mechanism which would be required if a pilot became incapacitated in a sea survival situation.
Perhaps the problem lies in using the aircraft in a place that freezes your knuts off. Other users live in more sensible climates.
But I think it is taking a rather extreme view in wanting this water-activated quick- release buckle. What happens when some student barfs on it? Or spills his inflight coffee?
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 09:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,478
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian View Post
Hmm. Another great aircraft procurement decision. Is it too late to take them back and swap for some PC-21s?
The choice of the aircraft doesn't help if you order it with the wrong seat/harness/life support (etc) kit.
Background Noise is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 11:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 692
Regarding PC-21, that aircraft is used by some air arms as an ab initio trainer and by some as an advanced trainer leading onto Gripen, F-18 etc. Therefore, it covers the whole spectrum of training. When the contractors (Affinity and Ascent) decided on platforms for MFTS the Hawk T2 was already well in service and the PC-21 would have had considerable overlap of capabilities with it. In fact, the PC-21 has some capabilities which I believe the Hawk T2 does not (synthetic air-to-ground radar). The PC-21 was more expensive than the T6 and so was not a sensible option, however good and capable it may have been.

I was involved with the proposal by Affinity to Ascent of the T6 as the platform for this role but my remit did not involve any aspects of AEA. Both the T6 and PC-21 are fitted with Martin-Baker Mk 16 ejection seats. Therefore, it begs the question why the UK T6s were not fitted with a version of the seat that used UK AEA. I suspect that it was a question of cost but some here may know more.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 17:55
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
The Tucano was never cleared for flight over the sea due to a number of reasons. As has already been stated, the real issue is basing the aircraft at Valley.
JTIDS is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 18:02
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 298
Well that makes instrument approaches to the southeasterly runway tricky.....
57mm is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 20:04
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 191
This must be old news as the Texans have been happily transmitting over the Irish Sea for low level work in LFA17. There were several in the Lake District last week for example.
Say Mach Number is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 07:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,852
The Tucano was never cleared for flight over the sea due to a number of reasons.
Seriously? I don't recall any similar limitation with the JP. We didn't wear immersion suits, but then again Church Fenton, Cranwell, Finningley, Leeming, Linton and Syerstonl were well inland, as were Manby and Strubby. Although Acklington was pretty close to the North Sea.

The water-activated QRB sounds interesting. Something which doesn't operate when a student is strapping in on a wet day, but operates quickly enough to release him/her quickly enough to avoid drowning must be something of a design challenge.

But I still cannot understand why the RAF didn't include the optional the M-B Mk.17 lightweight ejection seat in the user requirement for the Prefect T1.

Last edited by BEagle; 12th Jul 2020 at 16:01. Reason: Syerston, not Sywell! Thanks for pointing out the fat finger error, Herod!
BEagle is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 09:16
  #19 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,309
This must be old news as the Texans have been happily transmitting over the Irish Sea for low level work in LFA17.
You just can’t keep some people off GUARD......
ORAC is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 11:31
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 191
Orac, thought I was missing something when I read you post.... Then reread my post.....”transmitting” should have read ‘transiting’.....

Bloody predictive text....
Say Mach Number is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.