Reds Diamond Season and 60th
Not sure how much of that was down to QFI availability and how much of that was down to aircraft? The Tutor has had some pretty dreadful availability the last couple of years (prop, control surfaces, etc), and every time it comes back you immediately lose all the QFIs to refreshing AEF staff.
What's more damning is that they seem to be still carrying pax in the back seat without command eject (front ejects back)[...]
Passengers were flown in the Gnat for years before the Hawk entered service and there was never any issue - it didn't have any form of command eject system.
Lordflasheart, do you have any military fast-jet experience?
The following 3 users liked this post by Mogwi:
BEagle
What nonsense. There is NO need to modify the Hawk command ejection system. Proper passenger briefs for every trip are, however, essential.
Passengers were flown in the Gnat for years before the Hawk entered service and there was never any issue - it didn't have any form of command ejection system.
Passengers were flown in the Gnat for years before the Hawk entered service and there was never any issue - it didn't have any form of command ejection system.
The attitudes to risk in the post war era were very different from today. The early marks of Meteor had no ejection seats. Then the Air Ministry reached a point where the numerous deaths of pilots became too much to bear and technology moved on to the point where ejection seats were possible and became standard fit.
In this day and age one preventable death is seen as one too many. There’s a very high probability that Jon Bayliss would still be alive today if the command ejection system worked both ways in the Hawk T1. A modification is possible and I’m frankly amazed it hasn’t been insisted upon in order to continue passenger flying by the Red Arrows.
The fact that the Gnat didn’t have such a system is not a great reason to pretend we can’t do better in our current fleets.
Many Martin Baker equipped aircraft have selectable systems. I think it’s high time the Hawk did as well. But don’t blame the manufacturers. Blame the operators.
BV
The following 12 users liked this post by Bob Viking:
Command Eject
Dear Beagle
...
Does it matter ? I read the book ... ***
Proper pax brief didn't save Corporal Bayliss - except the SI revealed his familiarisation training was short-changed. Front to rear command eject might have given him half a chance regardless of what was ever said. A repeat could be prevented either by modifying the existing command eject (most unlikely to happen) or by prohibiting back seat pax and finding another way to transport the Circus engineers to and from their landaways. Not as if it is an occasional jolly that could be overlooked. It certainly isn't operationally necessary to regularly expose service personnel to an easily avoidable non-operational risk.
I'm sorry if this is starting to sound like ZD576 but MoD and RAF probably know what will happen if there is a further occurrence.
That risk might have been considered an acceptable part of service life in ye olden days of ye Gnatte. I don't know if the Circus travelled in the backseat then, but ISTR the Reds - usually/often/sometimes - got Transport Command to cart the backup stuff around in ye olden days.
LFH
*** A Noble Anger by David Hill.
...
Lordflasheart, do you have any military fast-jet experience?
Proper passenger briefs for every trip are, however, essential.
I'm sorry if this is starting to sound like ZD576 but MoD and RAF probably know what will happen if there is a further occurrence.
That risk might have been considered an acceptable part of service life in ye olden days of ye Gnatte. I don't know if the Circus travelled in the backseat then, but ISTR the Reds - usually/often/sometimes - got Transport Command to cart the backup stuff around in ye olden days.
LFH
*** A Noble Anger by David Hill.
Prohibiting practising simulated emergency procedures whilst carrying passengers should be the first step towards risk reduction.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
Dear Beagle
...
Does it matter ? I read the book ... ***
Proper pax brief didn't save Corporal Bayliss - except the SI revealed his familiarisation training was short-changed. Front to rear command eject might have given him half a chance regardless of what was ever said. A repeat could be prevented either by modifying the existing command eject (most unlikely to happen) or by prohibiting back seat pax and finding another way to transport the Circus engineers to and from their landaways. Not as if it is an occasional jolly that could be overlooked. It certainly isn't operationally necessary to regularly expose service personnel to an easily avoidable non-operational risk.
I'm sorry if this is starting to sound like ZD576 but MoD and RAF probably know what will happen if there is a further occurrence.
That risk might have been considered an acceptable part of service life in ye olden days of ye Gnatte. I don't know if the Circus travelled in the backseat then, but ISTR the Reds - usually/often/sometimes - got Transport Command to cart the backup stuff around in ye olden days.
LFH
*** A Noble Anger by David Hill.
...
Does it matter ? I read the book ... ***
Proper pax brief didn't save Corporal Bayliss - except the SI revealed his familiarisation training was short-changed. Front to rear command eject might have given him half a chance regardless of what was ever said. A repeat could be prevented either by modifying the existing command eject (most unlikely to happen) or by prohibiting back seat pax and finding another way to transport the Circus engineers to and from their landaways. Not as if it is an occasional jolly that could be overlooked. It certainly isn't operationally necessary to regularly expose service personnel to an easily avoidable non-operational risk.
I'm sorry if this is starting to sound like ZD576 but MoD and RAF probably know what will happen if there is a further occurrence.
That risk might have been considered an acceptable part of service life in ye olden days of ye Gnatte. I don't know if the Circus travelled in the backseat then, but ISTR the Reds - usually/often/sometimes - got Transport Command to cart the backup stuff around in ye olden days.
LFH
*** A Noble Anger by David Hill.
BEagle
I actually think it was a little strange that RAFAT needed Circus members to come with them on a regular cross-country flight such as a simulator ride. It would have made more sense to travel dual with an even number of pilot thereby minimising the number of assets used. One flight each way could have been dedicated to each pilots CT allowance. Whilst I understand the utility and requirement for Circus members on display trips I can assure you that the turnaround procedure for a Hawk T1 is a 20-30 minute job at worst and could easily have been accomplished by two pilots. It would also mean the PEFATO in which Jon Bayliss died could have been practised legitimately with another pilot present who could have spotted the impending disaster.
I should also point out that PEFATOs in the Hawk are neither especially challenging or dangerous when flown properly and within the appropriate guidelines and rules. There is ample time for a go-around decision.
None of this changes my view that the command ejection system can and should be updated if the Hawk T1 is to remain in service for a good few years yet.
I will also lay my cards on the table and comment on the main thrust of this thread by saying that I also believe the Reds have run their course. I agree with those that suggest it paints a disingenuous picture of an Air Force that is awash with spare capacity. And the recent bad publicity is not a good look.
BV
The following 10 users liked this post by Bob Viking:
As a civvy watchng airshows, the Reds seem to have lost their leading edge performances.
There's little use in "recruiting" if we can't train 'em when they do want to join the RAF...
Why use an aircraft that's no longer in production or development?
Could we replace one if lost?
It's almost a faded and jaded remnant of Empire, trying to project an image of a "fighting force" we can't live up to.
Sorry, 60 is plenty...they need to go out on a high, put those bad press reasons behind them and fade into the sunset.
What the UK military no needs are small punching above their weight hardware, be it vehicles, weaponry aircraft or ships.
The carriers seem a laughing stock and perhaps too valuable for the UK to "risk" getting anywhere near the Houthis, let alone a proper army/navy/air enemy
There's little use in "recruiting" if we can't train 'em when they do want to join the RAF...
Why use an aircraft that's no longer in production or development?
Could we replace one if lost?
It's almost a faded and jaded remnant of Empire, trying to project an image of a "fighting force" we can't live up to.
Sorry, 60 is plenty...they need to go out on a high, put those bad press reasons behind them and fade into the sunset.
What the UK military no needs are small punching above their weight hardware, be it vehicles, weaponry aircraft or ships.
The carriers seem a laughing stock and perhaps too valuable for the UK to "risk" getting anywhere near the Houthis, let alone a proper army/navy/air enemy
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
As a civvy watchng airshows, the Reds seem to have lost their leading edge performances.
There's little use in "recruiting" if we can't train 'em when they do want to join the RAF...
Why use an aircraft that's no longer in production or development?
Could we replace one if lost?
It's almost a faded and jaded remnant of Empire, trying to project an image of a "fighting force" we can't live up to.
Sorry, 60 is plenty...they need to go out on a high, put those bad press reasons behind them and fade into the sunset.
What the UK military no needs are small punching above their weight hardware, be it vehicles, weaponry aircraft or ships.
The carriers seem a laughing stock and perhaps too valuable for the UK to "risk" getting anywhere near the Houthis, let alone a proper army/navy/air enemy
There's little use in "recruiting" if we can't train 'em when they do want to join the RAF...
Why use an aircraft that's no longer in production or development?
Could we replace one if lost?
It's almost a faded and jaded remnant of Empire, trying to project an image of a "fighting force" we can't live up to.
Sorry, 60 is plenty...they need to go out on a high, put those bad press reasons behind them and fade into the sunset.
What the UK military no needs are small punching above their weight hardware, be it vehicles, weaponry aircraft or ships.
The carriers seem a laughing stock and perhaps too valuable for the UK to "risk" getting anywhere near the Houthis, let alone a proper army/navy/air enemy
However, the "public outrage ", doubtless led by certain rags, would, for a while at least, become a crescendo of noise. Hence, being British, a fudge would be called for.
How about they are reduced to a five ship, then, just like the Army / horses / 18th century regalia etc, trotted out for fly pasts on ceremonial occasions ....pretty red / white / blue smoke,, public goes "aaaw ! ", Reds"remain" albeit with a much reduced profile
Correct, and this would be the perfect year.
However, the "public outrage ", doubtless led by certain rags, would, for a while at least, become a crescendo of noise. Hence, being British, a fudge would be called for.
How about they are reduced to a five ship, then, just like the Army / horses / 18th century regalia etc, trotted out for fly pasts on ceremonial occasions ....pretty red / white / blue smoke,, public goes "aaaw ! ", Reds"remain" albeit with a much reduced profile
However, the "public outrage ", doubtless led by certain rags, would, for a while at least, become a crescendo of noise. Hence, being British, a fudge would be called for.
How about they are reduced to a five ship, then, just like the Army / horses / 18th century regalia etc, trotted out for fly pasts on ceremonial occasions ....pretty red / white / blue smoke,, public goes "aaaw ! ", Reds"remain" albeit with a much reduced profile
CG
The following 3 users liked this post by charliegolf:
As we did during my time as groundcrew on 92 (Blue Diamonds). We also held a full Fighter Command commitment and participated in all the exercises etc.Is there any real evidence to support the recruitment statements ? I do not recall being mentioned during my time on 92, but it was a long time ago.
The following 2 users liked this post by ancientaviator62:
Surely someone’s got to support them so here goes:
The Red Arrows are undeniably the pinnacle of what high performance teamwork is all about; they represent death defying precision, speed and spectacle and when out of the cockpit; inspiration, humility and honesty. It is therefore little wonder that in their British built aircraft (The BAE manufactured Hawk), they also form part of the United Kingdom’s International PR Team, helping to generate billions of pounds in overseas trade every year.
pity about the ‘out of the cockpit ‘ bit - but surely that has been ‘sorted’ !
The Red Arrows are undeniably the pinnacle of what high performance teamwork is all about; they represent death defying precision, speed and spectacle and when out of the cockpit; inspiration, humility and honesty. It is therefore little wonder that in their British built aircraft (The BAE manufactured Hawk), they also form part of the United Kingdom’s International PR Team, helping to generate billions of pounds in overseas trade every year.
pity about the ‘out of the cockpit ‘ bit - but surely that has been ‘sorted’ !
mb,
where is the evidence that they help to contribute billions to the UK economy ? I assume that when on overseas 'sales' tours they are funded for this by a sponsor
When we did a Red Arrows support to the FE via the Middle East we were told Bae were paying the bill. I assume once back in the UK mod picks up the tab.
where is the evidence that they help to contribute billions to the UK economy ? I assume that when on overseas 'sales' tours they are funded for this by a sponsor
When we did a Red Arrows support to the FE via the Middle East we were told Bae were paying the bill. I assume once back in the UK mod picks up the tab.
mb,
where is the evidence that they help to contribute billions to the UK economy ? I assume that when on overseas 'sales' tours they are funded for this by a sponsor
When we did a Red Arrows support to the FE via the Middle East we were told Bae were paying the bill. I assume once back in the UK mod picks up the tab.
where is the evidence that they help to contribute billions to the UK economy ? I assume that when on overseas 'sales' tours they are funded for this by a sponsor
When we did a Red Arrows support to the FE via the Middle East we were told Bae were paying the bill. I assume once back in the UK mod picks up the tab.
People might appreciate the Red Arrows more if they ever got to see their full display, or at least the full displays they used to give.
In the 90's (yes, that is a long time ago) watching the `Reds` at an airshow when the weather was good had a brilliant high component with high altitude formations culminating in some very beautiful formation bursts. When combined with their mid, and low level components it made for a very nice long display. More often than not these days you just seem to get the mid and low, or sometimes it appears just the low component.
Is there a reason for this or am I mistaken?
In the 90's (yes, that is a long time ago) watching the `Reds` at an airshow when the weather was good had a brilliant high component with high altitude formations culminating in some very beautiful formation bursts. When combined with their mid, and low level components it made for a very nice long display. More often than not these days you just seem to get the mid and low, or sometimes it appears just the low component.
Is there a reason for this or am I mistaken?