Eurofighter Crash Spain
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko:
I must take issue with your comment that "no-one's rushing to determine cause." You categorically tell us that the engines flamed out at 40,000ft and that they banged out at 30,000ft as a result. Well, that's case closed then, isn't it? Apparently not, as I've talked with Eurofighter this morning and they have by no means confirmed this yet as the cause of the accident.
You've also already fingered the design as being at fault for not having RAT; perhaps the crew should have tried to land and got themselves killed in the process?
And as for having a dig at smartman for not listing licences and flying experience in his profile; perhaps he is better qualified to comment than yourself - but just a tad more modest. I hadn't realised you had such extensive qualifications yourself?
And don't be dangling kiddies over any more balconies, mate!
I must take issue with your comment that "no-one's rushing to determine cause." You categorically tell us that the engines flamed out at 40,000ft and that they banged out at 30,000ft as a result. Well, that's case closed then, isn't it? Apparently not, as I've talked with Eurofighter this morning and they have by no means confirmed this yet as the cause of the accident.
You've also already fingered the design as being at fault for not having RAT; perhaps the crew should have tried to land and got themselves killed in the process?
And as for having a dig at smartman for not listing licences and flying experience in his profile; perhaps he is better qualified to comment than yourself - but just a tad more modest. I hadn't realised you had such extensive qualifications yourself?
And don't be dangling kiddies over any more balconies, mate!
Mousse,
I thought that you were intelligent enough to spot a straight report of what happened (and knowing your bosses I dare say you've already written one!). It's patently simply a news story repeated here for info, and I believe emanates from the CASA portion of EF GmbH. As journos aren't we supposed to have enquiring minds? However I should have made clear that "it has been said that:..... "
Beyond saying that the engines flamed out (and at what height) there's no attribution of cause nor of why the crew bailed. My immediate assumption was that abandonment was a 'bold face' action in the event of the failure experienced - but I'd rather know (or have an educated guess) than assume. I don't blame lack of a RAT, and certainly don't attribute such a lack as a 'design fault' but the accident has stimulated my curiosity and I do wonder engine failure in any aircraft type should, by necessity, require that aircraft to be abandoned. Pilots' opinion on this is obviously of great interest especially since my own flying experience is largely confined to aircraft which glide rather well (or, indeed, which do nothing else!) and in which practised forced landings without power are regularly simulated!
Bus 14 alone made my question worthwhile with his concise yet cogent response - I hadn't remembered the contribution to failures made by the RAT, and I'd even overlooked landing roll. BEagle's thought that windmilling engines might provide sufficient hydraulic power to glide to a bailout area (but not to land) also made me think. (A big question has to be how much electrical generation and hydraulic power remains in the event of a double flameout?) Coolhand's post was also fascinating, from Spain, he obviously knows anough to know that "the Emergency Checklist of the DA6" dictates that in the event of a "Double engine flameout 1.- If "Hyd Tot" lit or critical operation occurs" the crew should eject.
Someone with that degree of knowledge of DA6 also opines that DA6 had no RAT, and that it would have been impossible to "reach any suitable airport from their possition when the flameout happened."
Another question which may be tormenting those of us who don't routinely sit upon one of Martin-Baker's comfy chairs may be the recommended minimum altitude for ejection. While I appreciate that an engineless EF might be coming down rather rapidly, if the aircraft had not departed, and if control authority were still available (Would it have been? And for how long?) when would the sensible 'last chance' be, and what are the factors governing this with a nominally 'zero-zero' seat (I know that rate of descent is critical)?
The point of all this is that while I don't feel ready to write about the crash yet, I do at least feel that I'm thinking about it more sensibly as time goes on, and as I read more expert opinion about it, and that I am formulating the right questions to ask when I do finally speak to the lads in Munich. Moreover, unlike some, I do admit to being a journo, and have not already rushed into print on the story.
I didn't speculate on the effect on the programme, since I'm clearly less brave than some journos. Perhaps I should have categorically stated that: "The four-nation programme to develop and field the Eurofighter strike aircraft suffered a significant setback" (DA6's flying programme was, I understand virtually over, and there's now plenty of scope for its responsibilities to be taken over by an IPA) or should have speculated that "a fleet-wide grounding order is likely" (I'm told that this is most unlikely) or even that "a grounding order could well threaten its chances of delivering the programme’s first production aircraft before year-end" (you think there was ever much chance of that?)
As for experience, I have never made any secret of the modest level of my own flying exp. and qualifications (UAS/PPL), and do not go around accusing others of being spotters. By doing so himself Smartman looks arrogant enough to be a Bluntie.
Finally, I know who I'll be dangling off a balcony next time I turn North off the M25 instead of south to Gatwick....
Smartie,
Thanks for that, 'Guilty as charged' (I do go off on one with alarming ease) and you were much more polite and reasoned than you were with "Quite right - spotters belt up until more expert facts are to hand".
I thought that you were intelligent enough to spot a straight report of what happened (and knowing your bosses I dare say you've already written one!). It's patently simply a news story repeated here for info, and I believe emanates from the CASA portion of EF GmbH. As journos aren't we supposed to have enquiring minds? However I should have made clear that "it has been said that:..... "
Beyond saying that the engines flamed out (and at what height) there's no attribution of cause nor of why the crew bailed. My immediate assumption was that abandonment was a 'bold face' action in the event of the failure experienced - but I'd rather know (or have an educated guess) than assume. I don't blame lack of a RAT, and certainly don't attribute such a lack as a 'design fault' but the accident has stimulated my curiosity and I do wonder engine failure in any aircraft type should, by necessity, require that aircraft to be abandoned. Pilots' opinion on this is obviously of great interest especially since my own flying experience is largely confined to aircraft which glide rather well (or, indeed, which do nothing else!) and in which practised forced landings without power are regularly simulated!
Bus 14 alone made my question worthwhile with his concise yet cogent response - I hadn't remembered the contribution to failures made by the RAT, and I'd even overlooked landing roll. BEagle's thought that windmilling engines might provide sufficient hydraulic power to glide to a bailout area (but not to land) also made me think. (A big question has to be how much electrical generation and hydraulic power remains in the event of a double flameout?) Coolhand's post was also fascinating, from Spain, he obviously knows anough to know that "the Emergency Checklist of the DA6" dictates that in the event of a "Double engine flameout 1.- If "Hyd Tot" lit or critical operation occurs" the crew should eject.
Someone with that degree of knowledge of DA6 also opines that DA6 had no RAT, and that it would have been impossible to "reach any suitable airport from their possition when the flameout happened."
Another question which may be tormenting those of us who don't routinely sit upon one of Martin-Baker's comfy chairs may be the recommended minimum altitude for ejection. While I appreciate that an engineless EF might be coming down rather rapidly, if the aircraft had not departed, and if control authority were still available (Would it have been? And for how long?) when would the sensible 'last chance' be, and what are the factors governing this with a nominally 'zero-zero' seat (I know that rate of descent is critical)?
The point of all this is that while I don't feel ready to write about the crash yet, I do at least feel that I'm thinking about it more sensibly as time goes on, and as I read more expert opinion about it, and that I am formulating the right questions to ask when I do finally speak to the lads in Munich. Moreover, unlike some, I do admit to being a journo, and have not already rushed into print on the story.
I didn't speculate on the effect on the programme, since I'm clearly less brave than some journos. Perhaps I should have categorically stated that: "The four-nation programme to develop and field the Eurofighter strike aircraft suffered a significant setback" (DA6's flying programme was, I understand virtually over, and there's now plenty of scope for its responsibilities to be taken over by an IPA) or should have speculated that "a fleet-wide grounding order is likely" (I'm told that this is most unlikely) or even that "a grounding order could well threaten its chances of delivering the programme’s first production aircraft before year-end" (you think there was ever much chance of that?)
As for experience, I have never made any secret of the modest level of my own flying exp. and qualifications (UAS/PPL), and do not go around accusing others of being spotters. By doing so himself Smartman looks arrogant enough to be a Bluntie.
Finally, I know who I'll be dangling off a balcony next time I turn North off the M25 instead of south to Gatwick....
Smartie,
Thanks for that, 'Guilty as charged' (I do go off on one with alarming ease) and you were much more polite and reasoned than you were with "Quite right - spotters belt up until more expert facts are to hand".
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
May I make some comments about provisions needed following (total) engine failures in general?.
The Harrier could not be flown without hydraulics for the flying controls so it was fitted with two engine driven HYD pumps plus a RAT driving a third hydraulic pump in case the engine SEIZED in wingborne flight which would instantly kill both EDPs. Thus the RAT would allow you to glide around and organise a controlled ejection in your own time as height allowed.
Bus14 is therefore correct in his post although he did not spell out the seizure bit as the only likely cause of double EDP failure. He is also correct that there was a RAT related servicing and defect rate penalty, first recognised by the USMC who responded by removing the RAT and then the RAF did ditto.
The VITAL difference between the Harrier and the later Hawk is that the Hawk engine would not windmill at normal gliding speed and so you needed to supply hydraulics from a RAT. The Harrier engine has a huge fan to help the HP spool windmill and would probably enable sufficient hydraulic flow from the EDPs alone down to 150 kts, although as Bus said that may have been an academic point in service. It was not so in testing, where Hugh Merewether saved two Kestrel weight aeroplanes and Barrie Tonkinson got a heavy Harrier two seater on to the ground at Boscombe one Saturday morning, all following total engine failure.
Unusually, I am puzzled by BEagle’s comments about the effect of instability on gliding around and landing. The flight controls don’t know whether engines are running only whether they have normal electrics and hydraulics on line, so I do not see why handling would be affected following engine failure.
So the issue for me would be does the Typhoon have such provision for electrics and hydraulics from either a RAT or other emergency power unit (perhaps hydrazine operated for example like on the Israeli Lavi – a similar looking aeroplane to the Typhoon but with one engine) or best of all from engines that windmill at sensible gliding speeds. I suspect there might be a windmilling problem with Typhoon because all these modern twin engine aeroplanes use pretty small diameter donks (as does the Hawk) and so they will necessarily have limited windmilling torques available to drive accessory gearboxes which can absorb literally a hundred or two of HP.
But a lot of good people have worked for many years on the Typhoon so if it cannot glide around following a double flame out then I would be very surprised. A double flame out can be caused by plenty of non engine related issues from n over root theta upwards and downwards so you must be able to cope with such an event for several minutes while you set about restarting those perfectly serviceable donks. Or at least one of them.
May I make some comments about provisions needed following (total) engine failures in general?.
The Harrier could not be flown without hydraulics for the flying controls so it was fitted with two engine driven HYD pumps plus a RAT driving a third hydraulic pump in case the engine SEIZED in wingborne flight which would instantly kill both EDPs. Thus the RAT would allow you to glide around and organise a controlled ejection in your own time as height allowed.
Bus14 is therefore correct in his post although he did not spell out the seizure bit as the only likely cause of double EDP failure. He is also correct that there was a RAT related servicing and defect rate penalty, first recognised by the USMC who responded by removing the RAT and then the RAF did ditto.
The VITAL difference between the Harrier and the later Hawk is that the Hawk engine would not windmill at normal gliding speed and so you needed to supply hydraulics from a RAT. The Harrier engine has a huge fan to help the HP spool windmill and would probably enable sufficient hydraulic flow from the EDPs alone down to 150 kts, although as Bus said that may have been an academic point in service. It was not so in testing, where Hugh Merewether saved two Kestrel weight aeroplanes and Barrie Tonkinson got a heavy Harrier two seater on to the ground at Boscombe one Saturday morning, all following total engine failure.
Unusually, I am puzzled by BEagle’s comments about the effect of instability on gliding around and landing. The flight controls don’t know whether engines are running only whether they have normal electrics and hydraulics on line, so I do not see why handling would be affected following engine failure.
So the issue for me would be does the Typhoon have such provision for electrics and hydraulics from either a RAT or other emergency power unit (perhaps hydrazine operated for example like on the Israeli Lavi – a similar looking aeroplane to the Typhoon but with one engine) or best of all from engines that windmill at sensible gliding speeds. I suspect there might be a windmilling problem with Typhoon because all these modern twin engine aeroplanes use pretty small diameter donks (as does the Hawk) and so they will necessarily have limited windmilling torques available to drive accessory gearboxes which can absorb literally a hundred or two of HP.
But a lot of good people have worked for many years on the Typhoon so if it cannot glide around following a double flame out then I would be very surprised. A double flame out can be caused by plenty of non engine related issues from n over root theta upwards and downwards so you must be able to cope with such an event for several minutes while you set about restarting those perfectly serviceable donks. Or at least one of them.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Jaguar has the same engine family as the Hawk, what do Jaguar drivers do when 2 get silent? Given that the Hawk is a trainer aircraft (albeit fast jet) and a classic direct mechanical/hydraulic flight controls system as opposed to the fly by computer type I would expect it's handling qualities to be nice enough and if sufficient control power could be obtained the Mk 1 pilot should be able to control it.
For fly by computer tactical aircraft that are designed to be inherently unstable if one of two powerplants go the other takes over, if both go you have the RAT or APU or backup power, if that all goes and you can't get the "d" cells from your flashlight (excuse me, torch) into the computer quick enough it looks like you are SOL. seams likethere should be a mode to allow basic control of the aircraft to give drivers a little time to get to a best jumping out point or to get the aircraft on the deck.
For fly by computer tactical aircraft that are designed to be inherently unstable if one of two powerplants go the other takes over, if both go you have the RAT or APU or backup power, if that all goes and you can't get the "d" cells from your flashlight (excuse me, torch) into the computer quick enough it looks like you are SOL. seams likethere should be a mode to allow basic control of the aircraft to give drivers a little time to get to a best jumping out point or to get the aircraft on the deck.
The Jaguar has an electric pump to give hydraulic pressure to the flying controls if the engines cease to do so. It should cut in automatically, but can be switched manually if necessary. Incidentally, when the engines do go quiet, it then soon gets very noisy as all the captions and alarms come on. But, as I found the hard way, the backup does work and the engines relight quite well when you get back down to a sensible altitude. Meanwhile, though you know it doesn't glide at all well, it does seem a long time going back down through the clouds waiting for that altitude.
As for the GR3, I seem to remember a high key (heading across the runway, 270deg to turn) at 14000ft, glide at 250kts, 9000 low key, and a round out starting at some other vast height. Must dig out the old FRCs (from the days before the procedure was deleted) to check.
As for the GR3, I seem to remember a high key (heading across the runway, 270deg to turn) at 14000ft, glide at 250kts, 9000 low key, and a round out starting at some other vast height. Must dig out the old FRCs (from the days before the procedure was deleted) to check.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Probs
Agree your comments about the GR3 except perhaps the roundabout bit. This was the crux of the whole thing. If you kept 250 kts with full flap and gear down it was quite steep on finals. The trick was to aim this ugly dart at the beginning of the lead-in lights. This was easy to do because control at that speed was precise, wind did not come into it so there was none of the usual need for force lob finals judgement. You then used normal low flying skills to start the dive recovery (hardly a flare!) as late as common sense dictated aiming to low fly down the last bit of the lights as low as you dare. This ensured that when you passed the threshold you were as low as possible and you then needed to put it on gently before the speed got below 160kts after which it would likely fall out of your hands.
The big wing on the B (and later GR 5/7) was much more relaxing as it could be kept in the air at the end of the roundabout down to 135 kts thanks to extra area and better flaps. Did them to a touchdown with the B on the lake bed at Edwards during 1982 when I was privileged to log over two hours gliding that year in some 40 odd episodes. Not hairy though because of the space. The experience would have been quite different in the UK.
Agree your comments about the GR3 except perhaps the roundabout bit. This was the crux of the whole thing. If you kept 250 kts with full flap and gear down it was quite steep on finals. The trick was to aim this ugly dart at the beginning of the lead-in lights. This was easy to do because control at that speed was precise, wind did not come into it so there was none of the usual need for force lob finals judgement. You then used normal low flying skills to start the dive recovery (hardly a flare!) as late as common sense dictated aiming to low fly down the last bit of the lights as low as you dare. This ensured that when you passed the threshold you were as low as possible and you then needed to put it on gently before the speed got below 160kts after which it would likely fall out of your hands.
The big wing on the B (and later GR 5/7) was much more relaxing as it could be kept in the air at the end of the roundabout down to 135 kts thanks to extra area and better flaps. Did them to a touchdown with the B on the lake bed at Edwards during 1982 when I was privileged to log over two hours gliding that year in some 40 odd episodes. Not hairy though because of the space. The experience would have been quite different in the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Jacko,
Glad to see that you made it back from the pub in time to respond today.
Fancy my having "already rushed into print" with the story! You clearly haven't forgotten - given your repeated half-references to where I work, but I file for a major 'weekly defence' magazine. As such, I don't have the luxury of sitting on my arse - ooh, let's say near a well-known SH base, if you want to play games - pontificating on the finer details of what might or might not have happened before I think about switching on the laptop in about a fortnight when I 'feel' like it. What luxury!
If you think the accident won't lead to a fleet-wide grounding order (you quote the story incorrectly: it does not say this "is likely", rather likely should the Spanish investigators report that whatever caused the loss of DA6 could happen with another aircraft) then you have some very good sources. But surely plucking an IPA away from training to support further development work will have an significant impact.
FYI, there's no great conspriacy in my not saying I'm a journo in my profile - this was more because I didn't imagine anyone would give a toss who I am. Also, as I file on pprune 0.09 times per day, I look at the site more for recreational use than as a way of life. If it offends you so much, tell me how I go about changing the info in my profile and I'll amend it to say I'm a journo. But at least when I rush a story into print (and this wasn't; I was and am still happy enough with it) it has my real name on it. Unlike some, as you so rightly put it.
Moose
Working hard ... or hardly working
Glad to see that you made it back from the pub in time to respond today.
Fancy my having "already rushed into print" with the story! You clearly haven't forgotten - given your repeated half-references to where I work, but I file for a major 'weekly defence' magazine. As such, I don't have the luxury of sitting on my arse - ooh, let's say near a well-known SH base, if you want to play games - pontificating on the finer details of what might or might not have happened before I think about switching on the laptop in about a fortnight when I 'feel' like it. What luxury!
If you think the accident won't lead to a fleet-wide grounding order (you quote the story incorrectly: it does not say this "is likely", rather likely should the Spanish investigators report that whatever caused the loss of DA6 could happen with another aircraft) then you have some very good sources. But surely plucking an IPA away from training to support further development work will have an significant impact.
FYI, there's no great conspriacy in my not saying I'm a journo in my profile - this was more because I didn't imagine anyone would give a toss who I am. Also, as I file on pprune 0.09 times per day, I look at the site more for recreational use than as a way of life. If it offends you so much, tell me how I go about changing the info in my profile and I'll amend it to say I'm a journo. But at least when I rush a story into print (and this wasn't; I was and am still happy enough with it) it has my real name on it. Unlike some, as you so rightly put it.
Moose
Working hard ... or hardly working
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FECKIN ELL
unstable flybywire aircraft loses all power - becomes totally unstable, like a brick does when you turn off the computer.
therefore, can't hang around for relight drills - leave a/c before it does something apalling like turn upside down or spinning at a silly rate of knots.
this is why the day of the pilot is dead - bring on the playstation generation. Stay with it whilst it is working - **** off quick when its broken and parachute in to pick up another
unstable flybywire aircraft loses all power - becomes totally unstable, like a brick does when you turn off the computer.
therefore, can't hang around for relight drills - leave a/c before it does something apalling like turn upside down or spinning at a silly rate of knots.
this is why the day of the pilot is dead - bring on the playstation generation. Stay with it whilst it is working - **** off quick when its broken and parachute in to pick up another
JF - apologies for any confusion resulting from my post.
As I understand it, there is no handling problem in TypHoon resulting from double engine failure per se - as long as there is sufficient flight control hydraulic power and electrical power available from appropriate back-up systems. If there isn't, it will depart in pitch so rapidly that the crew would be incapacitated before they could attempt to eject. Hence my supposition that the only recourse in the event of much silence from the back end is to do whatever is required to reach a bail-out area before the aeroplane attempts to insert its radome up its own jetpipes!
As I understand it, there is no handling problem in TypHoon resulting from double engine failure per se - as long as there is sufficient flight control hydraulic power and electrical power available from appropriate back-up systems. If there isn't, it will depart in pitch so rapidly that the crew would be incapacitated before they could attempt to eject. Hence my supposition that the only recourse in the event of much silence from the back end is to do whatever is required to reach a bail-out area before the aeroplane attempts to insert its radome up its own jetpipes!
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall comparisons being drawn between the relative cleverness of building aeroplanes which essentially can't fly, and that of building warships out of combustable alloy or putting armoured vehicles onto rubber tyres, for precisely the reasons illustrated here.
At the same time, the point was made that by adding canards and thrust vectoring to an inherently stable airframe, an aircraft could still be more maneuverable than the best G-suit wearer could cope with, while retaining a degree of controlability in the event of total power loss.
What happens if something else knocks out the leading edge control - say a chip failure?
I'm glad the Spaniards made it out OK. Hope whoever it happens to next is as fortunate.
At the same time, the point was made that by adding canards and thrust vectoring to an inherently stable airframe, an aircraft could still be more maneuverable than the best G-suit wearer could cope with, while retaining a degree of controlability in the event of total power loss.
What happens if something else knocks out the leading edge control - say a chip failure?
I'm glad the Spaniards made it out OK. Hope whoever it happens to next is as fortunate.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
That's why you have a multi-channel redundant FBW control system.
An unstable aircraft means you don't have to have as large control surfaces. Every pound you save in structure means less other structure to support it, less fuel to push it etc. Works out that every pound you cut saves around 5 pounds in total.
The end result is that you can build a much smaller aircraft for the same range/payload. Overall, for a combat aircraft, the sums come out in favour of making them unstable.
There is no evidence that anything occured on this occasion which involved the FBW system or that it was a factor in the decision to eject.
An unstable aircraft means you don't have to have as large control surfaces. Every pound you save in structure means less other structure to support it, less fuel to push it etc. Works out that every pound you cut saves around 5 pounds in total.
The end result is that you can build a much smaller aircraft for the same range/payload. Overall, for a combat aircraft, the sums come out in favour of making them unstable.
There is no evidence that anything occured on this occasion which involved the FBW system or that it was a factor in the decision to eject.
Sprucey,
Calm down!
Don't worry, there's millions of you b*ggers working for major weekly magazines in Surbiton, Sutton, Croydon and the like, so no-one will know which of the frightful crew you are. Or even which Frightful crew you belong to.
And though I normally like to take a leisurely view, your piece (out Monday?) will (for once) be beaten onto the street by mine (out Sunday!). I'm going to have to lie down for a very long time after such intensive work. I wasn't going to, but the lure of the lucre forced me to write before I was ready.
Still, my neighbours here in Odiham village will doubtless peel me a grape....
Calm down!
Don't worry, there's millions of you b*ggers working for major weekly magazines in Surbiton, Sutton, Croydon and the like, so no-one will know which of the frightful crew you are. Or even which Frightful crew you belong to.
And though I normally like to take a leisurely view, your piece (out Monday?) will (for once) be beaten onto the street by mine (out Sunday!). I'm going to have to lie down for a very long time after such intensive work. I wasn't going to, but the lure of the lucre forced me to write before I was ready.
Still, my neighbours here in Odiham village will doubtless peel me a grape....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it has been correctly reported regards the unfortunate crash of Eurofighter DA6, then it would appear that there is a gap between the time emergency power is available, and the time to achieve a satisfactory re-light in the event of a double engine flame-out.
Reportedly the removal of the cannon armament has resulted in the addition of lead ballast to retain a satisfactory C of G.
It would appear that this spare weight could be more usefully utilised by the addition of extra emergency power, probably in the form of extra batteries, which could then power the Secondary Power System(SPS) until the aircraft descends to such an altitude as will permit a satisfactory relight.
Reportedly the removal of the cannon armament has resulted in the addition of lead ballast to retain a satisfactory C of G.
It would appear that this spare weight could be more usefully utilised by the addition of extra emergency power, probably in the form of extra batteries, which could then power the Secondary Power System(SPS) until the aircraft descends to such an altitude as will permit a satisfactory relight.