There are occasions when the forced landing option is hardly available. I recall learning to fly the Bulldog at Scampton and that area of Lincolnshire is one huge emergency landing ground with a few hedges in it and that was good. Compare and contrast with the terrain around Woodvale, where I flew for 2 years and for 4 months of the year many available fields were waterlogged bogs and a forced landing would have resulted in a rapid halt and a forward somersault! I reacall that OC of the UAS in Northern Ireland was killed by hitting a dry stone wall during a forced landing. My own view is that the forced landing should be considered and is probably the better option than abandonment, but there are other factors re availibilty of somewhere to land.

We used to send a very few students solo around North Wales coast @500 ft on Navexes and we were lucky that there were no engine failures on these sorties

RNEFTS lost a QFI, Flt Lt "Jack" Piercy and stude Mid Mark Simon two/three courses before me on a LL navex at 250' in September 1978 - one of them survived the impact and got a few yards away, I seem to recall. Engine failure coupled with landing in a peat bog.

A page on the crash here.

Correction to Post 53: Bale-Out
 

I would just like to correct/elaborate upon my earlier Post 53 in which listed the following points derived from the Service Report :-

"1.None of the four people in the two aircraft was injured in the actual mid-air collision.
2. Neither cadet made any attempt to bale out and both remained strapped in their seats - even though both wore parachutes and had just viewed an instructional video on bale-out procedure
3. Although both pilots had released their straps neither of them baled out .
4. The emergency canopy jettison handle was not activated in either aircraft"

Point 3 in that list is not quite correct . Although both pilots released their straps and neither deployed their parachutes the Service Report says one pilot was found in the cockpit of his aircraft whereas the other pilot was found 23 metres from the wreckage of his aircraft- his injuries being consistent with ground impact. I had assumed from the report that he had been thrown from the aircraft on impact with the ground. However I now see that a local newspaper reported at the time :-

"Eye-witness Kieren Hamblin, 19, of North Cornelly, Bridgend said: “I saw one of the planes was doing aerobatics. “Then I heard an explosion above my head and saw one plane spiralling out of control, and the other shot off in the other direction.
“The first plane took a nose-dive. You could see the pilot trying his hardest to control the plane and he jumped out before it crashed.”

If you read the full report it says it's unclear whether he jumped out, or was pulled out by aerodynamic forces or aircraft motion once his harness was released. Either way he exited through the broken canopy, rather than jettisoning it. (Part 1.4 Para. 26 Sub Para. b)

korrol, did you read the report?? :confused: Its all in there, and quite clear?

I don't know why you guys bother to reply to people who make posts and clearly have no idea what they are talking about, question posts by people have some knowledge of the subject matter and would place more credabilty on witness statements reported in tabloid newspapers than investigations carried out by qualifed professionals.

AAIB and RAF reports out today on tutor midair
 

There are a number of contributing causes, as usual.

The pilot of the tutor had a medical problem, which prevented an effective lookout.

The warning from RAF controller at Benson may or may not have come to the attention of those responsible, namely that there was a lot of air traffic in the constricted space chosen for the sortie; a less appropriate location for aerobatics is hard to imagine.

Once again I am horrified by the whole mess, and by the practice of giving young teenagers aerobatics on a first or a second flight.

Even if the instructor had been medically unfit to see properly, if aerobatics had not been normal practice, there might have been a better outcome.

How a lad of 15 can be expected to decline the offer of a thrill ride? He has neither experience nor judgement. The entire organisation should first of all make sure all the instructors are medically fit, and that in the future, aerobatics are not offered until the student is well advanced.

Wrong thread/accident Mary! This thread is about the accident in Wales, whereas you're referring to the one in Oxfordshire, link below:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...n-today-9.html

MM, Why do you say that aeros should not be offered until a student is "well advanced"? What difference would it have made in this instance if the student was different? Are you saying that cadets are made to experience aerobatics against their personal will?

Having been a CCF cadet myself (well over 35 years ago), the one thing that was impressed upon us before AEF flights was that we might be asked if we wanted aeros and if we said not, it would not occur. Some declined, the great majority of us were only too willing to experience them. My 13 year old daughter has just joined the ATC. I know 100% that she will ask to experience aeros on her first air experience flight.

Mary...

Prior reading your post I read the whole 107 pages ff the AAIB report.

I then read your post. A couple of major disagreements:
It was not a "whole mess" IMHO. It was a tragic accident, unforeseeable, but lessons have been learned.

You clearly have some concern, even obsession with "aerobatics"? The AAIB report list 13 recommendations, the word "aerobatics" features not once in these.

My reading of the report is that the aerobatic maneouvre, whilst it did immediately precede the collision, could equally have been a turn. Furthermore, there was no "student" involved - but a "passenger". That passenger could have been on their 1st, 2nd, 10th or 100th flight and what difference would it have made?

In short, and IMHO, a tragic accident with nobody culpable, nobody doing anything other than trying their best to give young people a supervised experience in life, one that did carry risks, but the best of intentions to reduce those. Lessons have been learnt, and I am not sure that without the accident, they could/would have been unearthed?

In short, AEFs have for many years given many cadets truly memorable experiences, with few incidents. A bad run last year, but my understanding is that the "uptake" in such flying by parents has been more realistic than your post suggests, and continues largely unaffected.

NoD

MM

Just to make sure you have understood what others above have alluded to.

AEF is not flying training. There are no students, only passengers. It is a series of Air Experiences of a military nature intended to develop and foster an interest in aviation for deserving Air Cadets. The organisation also provides gliding scholarships and, for the very select few, pilot scholarships - which is PPL flying training delivered to the prescribed syllabus by a civilian FTO.

There are forty six thousand Air Cadets and many more Sea Cadets, CCF, Scouts, Girl Guides etc etc. without whom our society would be a much poorer place. Most offer many types of adventurous training and with all such human endeavours, risk comes with the activity.

All these activites are managed to the Nth degree and accidents are rare (much more so than the teenage violence we see in other parts of our society).

If we ever stop our youth from partaking in these superb organisations, and their associated activities, with all that they bring to the positive development of these young adults - be it from a lack of funding, or risk adversity - then we as a society will be well and truly screwed.

Thank you, gpn01, for your cross reference.

The two occurences are linked, in any case.
I sincerely hope that a lot has been learned from these tragic events. Some of the more sensible suggestions have already been made in the other thread.

Clearly, lack of communication in the second midair - the Tutor pilot may not have had the heavy traffic in the air corridor on that day called to his attention.
Perhaps the RAF would like to ban cross country flying by civilian aircraft and gliders on a good day? Without a NOTAM in advance? A bit like the police chief up in Atherstone who wanted 24 hour notice of 16 gliders landing in a farmer's field during a competition!

And how the instructor's medical condition managed to be overlooked by the organisation implies improvements can be made in supervision. Whether or not parents are still happy to send their children up in a Tutor does not imply an informed decision. In my experience, parents trust those of us who actually do fly with trial lessons, and are willing to sign anything. It is up to us and our organisation to make sure they are safe.

According to the AAIB report it was the pilot's third flight of the day:

(times are in UTC)

Surely he would have observed the heavy traffic during the earlier flights? I find the idea that he would have needed a briefing to draw his attention to it scary to say the least. But of course Mary might be being ironic.

Just trawled through this thread, and there is some utter nonsense being spouted. Its all in the report, and it's a clear case of not seeing each other. There is no evidence to suggest that any manoeuvre was the cause, or that Cadets are placed under duress in the aircraft as a captive audience.
I despise the use of phrases such as 'showing off' from people who don't have a clue.
I've flown as a cadet and airman on 'AEF' been offered and declined areo's. I've been offered and declined control. The offer was given once - to decline meant no further offers. Those flights included safety briefings relevant to type, an explanation of exactly what was going to happen next throughout the flight and have been flown with due consideration of my confidence - or indeed lack of.
This approach gave me complete confidence in the Pilots and aircraft and in due course I expanded my flying envelope. These people are professionals who's job is to foster the spirit of flying, and I would have no qualms whatsoever should my child one day end up in their care.
RANT OFF

and the glider pilot rolled right and pulled hard into a climbing turn to try to avoid a collision. ( report para 13)

Edited to add that my first flight was as an ATC cadet, and I spent much of my school holidays badgering Cadet Liaison Officers at an assortment of Yorkshire RAF stations (many now closed) to spend as much time airborne as possible. I strongly support the Air Experience flying, and realise that no useful activity is risk free. But there are some aspects of the RAF accident report that make uncomfortable reading.

Yellow sun - I think you've missed the point being made. Yes, pulling into the mvr being attempted (possibly a loop) caused the tutor to collide with the glider. But it could just as easily have been a turn, or a straight and level collision. The point is that one of the two a/c involved did not spot the other. It didn't have to be doing aerobatics or any other kind of mvring.

It's obviously an emotive subject, but let's keep it clean and accept that lessons have been learnt and acted on please.