Amen to that.

Hence, I myself think that it may be an ideal time to look beyond the smokescreens thrown up by certain organisations.

And that's as far as I'm going to go with that...

Whichever way you look at it these aircraft are getting old.Maybe we should accept the fact that they shouldn't be flying.
I'd love to see phantoms,lightnings,vulcans,buccaneers et al but sadly time passes

"Whichever way you look at it these aircraft are getting old."

Great sweeping generalisation which just begs to be flamed!

So you'd feel the same way if the BBMF disbanded due to the age of the aircraft? Not to mention all the private WWII warbirds; on the commercial side Buffalo airways would be mightily irked as would all the private DC-3/C-46 owners.

It's about maintenance, implementing and legislating said maintenance and finally cost when the cost of the above makes it financially non-viable.

Displaying aircraft has become a safer spectator experience, having said that most spectators are aware that this, in common with all aviation related activities isn't without risk.
When spectators vote with their feet (or their pockets) all bets will be off.

Not really a 'sweeping generalisation'-just an innocuous remark that 50 year old high performance aircraft may be better in museums.

A straight fact more like.

Fuel leaking from static ports on the pitot head. [read the report]

After 24 yrs fixing various cabs [starting with the canberra] I'm stunned with that one.

The design of the aircraft systems alone [obviously acceptable in those times] should have these aircraft permanently grounded today.

Having spent about an hour reading the whole sorry saga, it sadly confirms what I suspected all along: namely that the guys at Thunder City were a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs that really had very little idea what they were dealing with.

Having spent the best part of 10 years on Lightning’s, nearly 2000 hours and approaching 3000 sorties, reading the accident report leaves me amazed that I only ejected once. But in those days we had hundreds of well trained and well-motivated technicians looking after us, and we literally trusted them with our lives.

As most Lightning pilots will attest, most of the time the aeroplane was a pussy cat. But like most cats, in the blink of an eye it could turn on you and rip your eyes out. Thankfully, in the time I flew them, we buried very few friends and those we did were mainly the result of Operator Errors rather than technical failures.

Before the days of the modern generation of fighters, the Lightning stole the show at many air displays. Who can forget the sight of it performing in the hands of some seriously talented operators; Pete Chapman for instance? But those guys had hundreds and hundreds of hours on type, flew it day in day out, knew what they were doing and were regulated and supported every inch of the way.

With the aeroplane nearly 40 years old, systems and spares getting tired and hard to come by and a handful of technicians that have been proved to have been woefully lacking in experience and authority, I'm amazed they hadn't had an accident sooner.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's easy for people to sit back after the event and pontificate. But the spectacle of a Lightning in burner rotating at the end of the runway and going vertical has an amazing effect and the desire to see it again and again and fly the things forever is very powerful. But the Lightning is no Spitfire and the costs of maintaining just one, let alone 4 must have been horrendous and the temptation to cut corners very compelling. Had those in South Africa had a bit more of an idea of what they were dealing with and listened to the CAA, we wouldn't be having these discussions and a fellow aviator would still be alive.

What amazed me was the lack of the SA aviation authority involvement in all this.
I dont know how the SACAA work, or even if there is some form of regular renewal for "Permit" ex-mil aircraft, but if this organisation had been in the UK I suspect that some audit may have found anomalies very much earlier than this. Having said that - it depends how well the owner used the authority and how well he could waffle.

But the lack of a "CRS" for several years should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the books - so who should have looked at the books? and why didnt they see this?

"Fuel leaking from static ports on the pitot head. [read the report]"

There are no static ports on a Lightning pitot head, the static ports are on either side of the fuselage below the front canopy.

Is there not a static sourced pitot head? Or simply a drain drilling?


.

Nutloose I think you are correct, I can remember there were two transducers in the nosewheel well, an S and P-S for altitude, airspeed and mach data to the ADC. They had Pitot and Static feeds of alloy tubing routing direct to them. The feed also went to a pressure switch up in the engine intake on the port side. Can remember an access panel right where the bifurcation was in the intake. A pain in the ass to work in there I can recall. Which means the static ports I mentioned previously only fed the standby instruments in the cockpit ? Memory check time . .

Fuel in Pitot System
 

Correct - either side of the Lightning were two brass plates with static holes in - the brass was pretty tarnished- can any engineer tell me how fuel could possibly end up in the Pitot system or even forward of the wing line??? As there are no fuel lines forward and fuel doesn't tend to go uphill

"namely that the guys at Thunder City were a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs that really had very little idea what they were dealing with"

Surely that same comment must now also be levelled at the South African regulatory authorities?
Who was mad enough to think he knew better than the CAA at regulating a aircraft which was built and based in the UK, and never based in South Africa? Irrespective of the faults with the company and its staff, those who allowed the aircraft to be imported and flown are also at fault here

Jesus H. Christ! You couldn't make it up could you..? and if you did people would complain about cliches.

Just goes to show you can never take a reputation at face value.

Folk,

The static port on the main Pitot-Static probe comprised narrow slots around the circumference, slightly displaced longitudinally to avoid a circumferential 'cut'. The ports on the side fed the standby-altimeter.

lm

Fuel leak
 

So I ask the question again - how could fuel possibly be leaking from the pitot -static vents whatever. I saw lots of fuel dripping out of Lightnings aft of the missile pack but never ever forward of that?? I think The SACAA were clutching at straws- Simple fact - Aircraft was overheated on previous sortie/ landing - pipes moved - fuel came out at High pressure - Aircraft caught fire - double Hyd Fail endex- No one seems to ask why he didn't use the emergency canopy jett between the seats or indeed just open the canopy on the left hand side ??
Lightning Mate any clues

A lot of UK based pilots flew for Thunder City. Didn't any of them notice anything out of the ordinary, or check any paperwork at all?

Nige:"A lot of UK based pilots flew for Thunder City. Didn't any of them notice anything out of the ordinary, or check any paperwork at all? "

There is no time line for when things started to go wrong. When these pax/pilots flew things may have been fine or even on the turn.

However, visiting or paying pilots are likely to have been given what they expect - Cockpit Briefs, Flight Plans and manoevers, etc, but may not have been expected to go through the Docs/F700. And they may not have recognised SACAA docs unfamiliar to them - just browsing through some vaguely familiar docs expecting/assuming them to be correct.

Anyone, but especially foreigners, in this situation could be blagged.

p 13 Table 1, shows the list of deferred defects in Change of Serviceability Log.
 

30/10/09 1738.3 FLT by pilot Fuel leaking into pitot/static system (leaking out of pitot probe)

Pitot static system drained

Also

P37
1.16.10 The aircraft manufacturer also commented on the deferred defects related to the
fuel leak:
(i) Fuel leaking into pitot/static system (leaking out of pitot probe): Fuel leaking
into pitot/static system - the most serious problem. This is indicative of a fault
in a fuel valve; however, fuel in the pitot static system will also prevent correct
operation of the aircraft instruments and flying control feel system. Although
not a common occurrence, it can occur by internal failures in components in
the fuel venting system, either an Inward-Vent Valve Diaphragm, a Float
Control Valve Diaphragm, an Outward Vent Valve Diaphragm accompanied
with fuel in the vent pipe or by a leak in an Inward Vent Valve NRV. All of
these components are connected to the pitot/static system and are installed in
each integral wing tank. Extract from the Aircraft Maintenance Manual Sect 7
Chap 5 that states:
Note: "The main system provides the pitot and static pressures required to
operate the pressure switches, transducers, feel simulator and altitude and air
speed unit. The pressures are taken from a pressure head, extended on a
probe located under the nose air intake. In addition, the head provides two
sources of static pressure, one of which supplies the instruments and the other
which serves the fuel venting system."

:ouch:

Thanks
 

Yes that would all seem reasonable that air from the Pitot could be fed to various parts of the feel system etc - still never ever saw an RAF Lightning leak fuel other than aft of the missile pack - thanks for taking the trouble to enlighten me

Hi Glad,
Yes remember in the '60s being told that fuel leaking out of the pitot was not unusual, and ISTR seeing the odd pitot leaking. Our ships always seeemed to leak, and we always had one in the hangar Cat 3 with a centre section leak.