I say again "what rot"!

Please see here: http://www.brsparachutes.com/files/b...%20Version.doc

If there was an appetite for it then Grob would be rolling it out right now on their types.

The B Word

Rot or not ?
 

Mr B word, anything is posable if you chuck enough money and effort at it but the cost of fitting a BRS to the Grob 115 as a retrofit would be prohibitively expensive. Apart from quoting brochures and sales stuff about posable new aircraft fits do you have any engineering data to show that a parachute system could be economicly retrofitted to the G115 ?

Mechta

With a new build I have no doubt a parachute system could be accommodated but one of the critical issues is to get the aircraft occupants to be decelerated forward with their body weight held aganst the harness, to do this the inital declaration is in a aircraft nose down attitude with line cutters firing to lower the aircraft into a more level attitude once the the aircraft has slowed.

I don't know how a sideways facing rocket could be made to do this without the chance of the occupants sliding half restrained sideways out of there seats.

Having spent considerable time over the last five years involved with G115 structural repair I can't see any easy retrofit items that would economicly do the job given the engineering problems and small production run to spread the development costs.

Edit.

The Cirrus has a restriction on the structure that prohibits installation of anything under the seats, this is because the area under the seats is part of the colapsable structure that protects the occupant from rapid declaration when the aircraft hits the ground, no such area is avalable in the Grob 115 due to the flying control pushrods and flap motor being fitted in the bottom of the fuselage below the seats.

Escape proceedures
 

Spot on biscuit74 ' Use a time expired airframe or simple mock-up to allow passengers to practice exit before flight if you are really paranoid. There are relatively cheap effective solutions.'

As a direct result of the AEF fatalities, the VGS recieved additional training facilities, practice and monitoring of escape proceedures prior to the 'pause'.

Being paranoid about safety is a good thing and I know from experience the level of professionalism applied by the 'amateur' VGS pilots of all grades, categories and ages, many of whom fly with 100+ passengers behind them in their day jobs.

ACW VGL
 

You make a good point about escape training but there seems to be some doubt as to the ability of the crew to get the ( quite heavy ) Grob Tutor canopy open in the event of an emergency.

Rather than the hugely costly and payload restricting BRS device favoured by some contributors above would not a simple compressed gas driven canopy opening device with a sequenced inflatable seat cushion be far more practicable.

Arclite 01
 

Arclite 01 - yes love it, but with bolts, you'd need to address the concerns of "working at heights" and have all ladders, telehoists or other equipment certified to EN 9994567 or similar, overalls to flame proof standard, safety goggles and all torque wrenches calibrated.

Thanks Mechta - yes the rather 'relaxed' parachute arrangements in the Chipmunk AEF days is something I had forgotten.

VX275 - Thanks also. I wasn't aware the Blower Tunnel was going; should have realised, given how much has been shut down, sold off. That is an interesting and disappointing oversight; I wonder why the Grob canopy was not tested. Viewed as too simple to warrant it, perhaps?

And ACW VGL - delighted to hear that. I too get paranoid and obsessive about such things...

Did means of escape not get tested at BD?

Canopy Assistance
 

A and C.

No need for the complexity of compressed air. The Chippy has a small canopy assits panel that aids the pilot to slide back the lid at high speed.

I believe an issue in the Tutor v Glider mid-air was a potential delay in starting to abandon, due to the lack of the 'Jump, Johnnie, Jump' order to the unfortunate cadet, as his captain may not have survived the initial impact.

Did means of escape not get tested at BD?


No.
IIRC The only time BD has been involved with the Viking was for spin testing with the Nose Whiskers fitted.
The Vigilant has only been subjected to an engineering assessment against the Super Falke prior to selection and some increased wind limit trials which were wasted when the lower wind limits for the parachutes was promulgated.
The Tutor only came to BD because that's where the AEF/UAS is based. As a civilian aircraft there is no need to put them through the rigor of a BD assessment so hated by the PTs and users alike.

Ref the BD testing mentioned above..I can confirm they did carry out Spin trials (from Upavon).
However, the more I think about it ..I can't remember if spin whiskers were fitted or not?


I think they did about 3 or 4 aero tow launches and IIRC it did not spin too well...but I think they only had the one crew in the front seat so maybe not the best C of G config.

Is this the way to go :ok: https://www.facebook.com/northernire...type=3&theater

ACW VGL
 

The Grob canopy is about triple the weight of the DHC-1 canopy, some sort of drag producing canopy opening assistance is something that should be considered. Aerodynamic investigation is the only way to find out if this is practicable.

For new designs maybe but the Grob is what it is, a new canopy would involve far too many legislative hoops to jump.

A&C - Cats is right, there won't be anything like that sort of change to the airframe. Especially since the MoD/ACO/RAF don't even own the aircraft.

It would be more likely (in the current environment) that they would do a risk assessment, say that the canopy (in its present form) is too greater a risk to continue using in that role (AEF), and that the AEF should therefore be scrapped ('paused'):}

Arc

A re-think
 

Rather than start major mods on the Tutor why not look at an alternative?

There are many civilian flying training organisations spread across the country. All are required to have a CAA audit into their training systems and facilities.

Why doesn't the ACO look at these pre-audited schools and see if they might fill the needs for cadet AEF? An aircraft like the PA28 could take two, possibly three cadets (depending on their mass) and fly them for an hour or so for a reasonable rate. Spreading the load across a larger number of FTO's around the country might mean that at least some of the cadets do actually get to fly during their ACO service.

I made this suggestion to my Wing Commander back in February. This was passed up the ling to OC 2FTS. Thus far I've hod no acknowledgement that they have even received the note.......

Because (a) the risks of further Tutor mid-airs have been reduced (fitting TAS, requiring radar service while flying cadets whenever possible) and (b) your solution denies many cadets the chance to handle the controls or even see clearly out of the front. Having flown both Tutor and PA28, I know I feel safer in a Tutor given the enormously better view from the cockpit backed up by the TAS.

And your parting shot (implying that currently no cadets get to fly) is an inaccurate slur - perhaps unintended - on those people who continue to work hard to deliver exactly that.

I wonder if these are the same civil flying training organisations that I fly at and who are regulated by the CAA and who are used to training student pilots, including Commercial flight training and whose aircraft have Public Transport Certificates of Airworthiness and Public Liability Insurance?

I, as a taxpayer would be delighted to fund such activities to get Cadets back into the air although I wonder if the OC 2FTS is more interested in shiny new buildings and empire building at Syerston.

These RAF senior officers are only used to the RAF way of doing things and are completely unfamiliar with the civil flying world and I am sure that we could get more Cadets flying and at a cheaper cost than keeping senior officers in their comfort zone.

I doubt very much that it was an intended slur. Cadets in Norfolk and Suffolk Wing have suffered hugely a) from lack of gliding opportunities as 611VGS ceased flying long before the current pause, having lost their airfield when Watton was closed (as the then WGLO, it was greeted with dismay as they had purpose built facilities there) and b) they've suffered with the move of 5 AEF to Wittering with the problems with weekend ATC cover that followed. I left the ACO in June 2013 and I'm told that unless cadets get flying at annual camp and obviously available cadet places are less than there used to be, cadets in that Wing have pretty much forgotten what aircraft look like. I believe a handful have been gliding via the RAFGSA...

Taking your point about not being able to take the controls in a PA28 etc, that precedent was set years ago as my first flight as a cadet was in the Beagle Husky at 5AEF. I absolutely agree it's not ideal, but at least they'd get airborne...

Auster Fan, its not just Norfolk & Suffolk who have lost out on the flying/gliding front with the situation you describe, the next county across has suffered exactly the same. The challenge for the volunteers is to try and make up the shortfall with other activities. Not an easy task.

Bobward,austerfan and brokenlink

As an ex611 VGS Instructor I concur. The loss was huge - the question for me was why was Watton closed ?

STANTA still needs an airfield - now they have to use Sculthorpe (miles away) if they are doing any form of airdrops ( not realistic unless you are re-enacting Arnhem with the distances tripled ) and Mildenhall lost their nearest strip for off field strip training. More importantly to me and the ACO was the loss of a great airfield for winch launching and we had just spent a fortune building a hangar and facilities and it was Central for a lot of people travelling (an issue in East anglia)

Another mad decision, all users inconvenienced - another victory for the bean counters !!

Arc

P.S. I flew over it the other day - floor to ceiling straw bales on that lovely 6000' runway.

P.P.S. - why not a return to Swanton Morley ??