PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Air Cadets grounded? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded.html)

Chugalug2 9th Aug 2016 21:27

Leon, good point, and I'm not sure what is meant by the AAIB "convening a five member Board of Inquiry". The BoI would surely have been convened by the AOC (38 Gp?), and as was made clear by SoS Healey was not to be held in public. I can only assume that the AAIB took a lead role in the Inquiry and so was free to use its expertise to swiftly find the cause and have its recommendations constitute much of the BoI's findings. A rather more proactive state of affairs than occurred in the Mull BoI whereby the AAIB Inspector was greatly constrained in his role. Hopefully we can source the BoI Report and all will be made clear...

tucumseh 10th Aug 2016 05:52

I think the article suffers a little from a confusion of terminology and the common misconceptions about the role of the AAIB (or AIB in those days) in a military accident investigation; where they don't so much investigate but examine part of the evidence. Any attempt at investigation is severely restricted by not being permitted access to key data, which means they cannot focus correctly or swiftly on areas of obvious interest (such as the aircraft not being airworthy). Also, their final reports are heavily edited and very often bear no relation to the Inspectors' reports. Chinook ZA721 in 1987 is the obvious example, where the AAIB almost immediately produced photographic evidence of most likely cause, and MoD buried it and said cause not determined.

Chugalug2 10th Aug 2016 06:27

Thanks tuc. Unfortunately I can find no link to the BoI for TG577, but hope that others more adept at t'internet might find some link to it, if only a summary. I'm afraid that wiki is not the best authority on anything, simply the most convenient. Your point about the AAIB's role in BoI's is well made. They do not conduct the Inquiry, the RAF Board does. They merely contribute what the Board asks them to and, as you say, a great deal of that may never appear in the final RAF published report. Hence the call for an independent military investigator "sistered" to the AAIB.

Frelon 10th Aug 2016 07:56

Grounded Vigilants
 
Shaft109 says...


OK lets say I bought a Vigilant and paperwork as they are right now and wanted to put it on the CAA Register.

WHat would be required and what sort of cost are you looking at?
Of course you don't think the VSOs would allow any of their grounded Air Cadet Grob 109s to get out into the public domain to show how easy it would be to get them into the air again:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Chugalug2 10th Aug 2016 13:06

This link does not cover the TG577 BoI but has an eye witness claim that a CAA Inspector (?) was at the crash scene very quickly post the accident, and just as quickly searched for and discovered the fractured bolt(s). I suspect that he was possibly an AAIB Inspector who lived close by.

Thus the AAIB would have deduced the probable cause of the accident before the RAF even had time to convene the BoI. Could that be the cause of confusion in the Wiki version of events? The accident features about half-way down the page:-

Hastings Bangs and Prangs and Splashes and Crashes


The crash of Hastings TG577 at Little Baldon, Oxfordshire

Information kindly supplied by David Rayner on October 20th 2003 (June 2005 David Rayner has recently started his own website page on TG577 so if anyone can help click here http://www.aaahs.org.uk/crash1965.html )

RAF Handley Page Hastings C1 TG577 crashed at Little Baldon, Oxfordshire at 1600hrs GMT Tuesday 6th July 1965. All 41 passengers and crew on board died. The aircraft was based at RAF Colerne Wiltshire.

An RAF Board of Inquiry was opened at RAF Abingdon to establish the cause of the crash into a barley field of 100 acres at Little Baldon.

Many eye witnesses saw the aircraft in difficulties, which was full of parachutists heading for a drop over Weston-on-the-Green, the pilot radioed that he was in some sort of trouble and apparently avoided missing the nearby village of Berinsfield. The first ambulance arrived from Didcot but the plane was an inferno. There were no survivors, an all night guard was placed around the scene of the crash with many sightseers jamming the local roads.

One lady eyewitness thought the Hastings was performing stunts whilst a male farm worker who had arrived on the scene thought he saw that some soldiers had deployed their parachutes. Apparently Hastings TG577 had landed upside down in the field.

Salvage experts were concentrating on checking the elevator tail bolts connected to the tail plane, the BoI had later determined that the cause of the accident was due to metal fatigue of two of the elevator bolts, this put stress on two more bolts that failed. The Hastings climbed steeply out of control, stalled and crashed into the field. It was trying to return to Abingdon and I understand that a Beverley aircraft was already at the end of the runway preparing to take off, but TG577 couldnt make it back to Abingdon.

This in effect grounded all Hastings aircraft and only a few Hastings carried on in service being replaced by the C130 Hercules. The elevator bolt fatigue was an ongoing problem with this type of aircraft and several Hastings crashed due to this design fault since it first flew in 1946.

An Inquest was held at The Guildhall in Abingdon with a verdict of accidental death, all victims died from multiple injuries, the aircraft was reported as recently being serviced.

At this point in time this was the worst peacetime accident involving any passenger aircraft of the Royal Air Force.

Received from David Barrott on July 3rd 2004:

Reference the crash of TG577. As I recollect, (being in close contact with several RAF and Parachute Regiment personnel at the time) .

Shortly after takeoff the pilot requested a priority landing at RAF Abingdon as he was experiencing some stiffness in the elevator controls. He was asked if he was declaring an emergency and requesting emergency clearance but
declined. Shortly after the aircraft assumed a nose down attitude. The pilot corrected this, but the elevators went hard up and locked there. The aircraft went to near vertical before stalling and dropping to land inverted. The altitude at the commencement of the manoeuvre was approximately
5000'. The First vehicles on site were the ambulance and fire tender from UKAEA Culham Laboratory, who's drivers were subsequently reprimanded for leaving their base without permission although their CO was in Reading at the time. They had reached the crash site cross-country by breaching the
fence of the Culham Naval Stores depot and a bill for replacement of the fence was received within a month.

Added on 4th November 2004 by Ch/Tech Ray Bunce ex RAF Benson via Doug Adams

One specific that I have been provided with some additional comments for are your article

about the Hastings TG577 tragedy in July 1965. Most of the comments serve to complement

or supplement the fuller details already printed. My cousin is Ray Bunce who, as Chief Technician R.A. Bunce, was NCO in charge of the RAF Benson Duty Crew on that fateful evening, and took the call to attend the scene.

The crew travelled to the crash site, a barley field it is reported, travelling in the standard

3 ton Bedfords provided. The crew arrived after about an hour, presumably after the

chaps from Culham mentioned in your main article. The severity of the crash was

already known or generally anticipated as they travelled expecting only to assist in the

recovery of bodies. On arrival at the scene the only recognisable piece of aircraft was the (upside down) tail unit.


Already at the scene, presumably called from his local base or home, was the Inspector

from the CAA who straightforwardly advised that he had no doubt of the cause, fatigue in the

elevator attachment bolts and was looking for these bolts to satisfy himself this was the

case. On finding the two broken parts of one of these bolts, he reassembled it for the crew to

look at, to show how difficult this fatigue was to detect visually. (My own comment but, given all that had been said and documented about these bolts failing in other situations, why had an effective correction not been made before more crashes and fatalities?)


A rather poignant In Memoriam here which lists 30 RAF and 11 Army Airborne of the 41 total fatalities, a ratio that I was hitherto unaware of:-

http://www.parachuteregiment-hsf.org...20TG%20577.htm

VX275 13th Aug 2016 20:20

A little bird told me today that the Vigilants could return to cadet flying. Unfortunatley it looks like it will be Swedish Air Cadets not UK ones.

RUCAWO 14th Aug 2016 10:43

Sounds about right !

clunckdriver 14th Aug 2016 13:48

Oh, that's just perfect, aircraft which were used as stepping stones to train allied aircrew are to be used by a nation which played both sides and gained financial benefits from doing so , { ask me how I really feel about this!}

VX275 14th Aug 2016 18:14

As an ex staff member I attended 612 VGS disbandment parade today. Amongst the guests were a Lord Lieutenant, Air Chief Marshall, Air Vice Marshal, Major General, Brigadier and Colonel, as well as a number of local Mayors. Anyone representing HQAC, 2FTS or CGS were noticable by their absence.

tmmorris 14th Aug 2016 20:09

Indeed VX275 I was there too, a great event. OC 2FTS was sadly on leave though he was definitely invited, I understand.

Spooky that a civvy glider 'landed out' on the runway while we were listening to the speeches.

I then ferried an aircraft to Membury to a hangar full of Vikings. An interesting visit... And on the way home we encountered what looked like a civvy G109.

EnigmAviation 15th Aug 2016 09:11

The 612 Funeral vs 75th ACO celebrations @ Cranwell
 
just really a very sad but telling coincidence that 612 officially closes down as one of the, or THE most productive VGS in the UK on the very same day that the ACO parades itself to celebrate 75 yrs. Shame nobody publicised at the 75th Cranwell event that the opportunities we gave years ago have now evaporated into the shambles where we have very few A/C of any type operating on a VGS anywhere, where we have built accommodation blocks at questionable airfields but can't use them as they have no aircraft and as the pictures show, immaculate aircraft stood in a disused hangar posing the un-answered question of who and what are we going to do with them ? Can't help thinking despite all the "airworthiness" issues, that for a large part the Vigilant didn't fit in with OC 3 FTS vision for the future. When he finishes next year we can all evaluate his "legacy". What does it all prove? The Amateurs were the professionals and vice versa !!

VX275 15th Aug 2016 11:48

The Cranwell parade was on Saturday, the 612VGS Flag Lowering was on Sunday afternoon. Plenty of time to drive down even with a hangover from Saturday night. Also, hadn't anyone at Cranwell / Syerston ever heard of the concept of delegation.

sharpend 16th Aug 2016 12:51

Is there some policy afoot to stop ATC cadets from even seeing aeroplanes? As a retired RAF A2 Bulldog QFI owning my own Bulldog with a valid C of A, I approached HQ Air Cadets with a view to flying a few of my own ATC Sqn. No reply. This week I offered to just show the cadets around a very interesting hangar full of old jets. Oh dear, cannot do that, was the reply, you have to get permission, but the ATC internet is down, so you cannot even ask; moreover, you will need copies in triplicate of the airfield's public liability insurance etc. This is enough for me to think why should I even bother.

The B Word 16th Aug 2016 13:55

Sharpy

The document you need to comply with is Air Cadet Trg Order 35 (ACTO35). There are a whole lot of qualifying criteria you need to meet. Hours on type, hours in last 30 days, Class 2 medical, under 65, etc... Lots of other stuff. When cleared, no aeros either if I recall correctly. All measures to derisk the activity as the Cadets will be doing this in Cadet time so there is a liability issue if it all goes wrong during the flight - I guess its the same showing them around a hangar as well. You'll also need to have some DBS clearance done to prove that you are able to work with children, or be chaperoned by someone who is.

I do know that a lot of 2FTS are away on summer leave at the moment as well. I have been waiting for an answer since last week on another matter from the same chap who does ACTO35 stuff. My advice is to ask for the ACTO35 from your local ATC sqn to see if you meet the criteria first.

The B Word

tmmorris 16th Aug 2016 15:07

The problem with ACTO35 isn't the criteria, it's the process - which I suspect is just undermanned.

bobward 16th Aug 2016 19:38

Sharpend
 
When the Corps were having problems with the Tutors I wrote to my local Wing pointing out that a local civvy flying school was available to help. The school has been CAA audited as a Flight Training Organisation (twice) and passed with no adverse comments. I was assured that details had been passed up the line, and would be dealt with in due course.

Bear in mind that this was April 2015.......... so far, nothing heard, not even an acknowledgement of having received the details allegedly passed on.

tmmorris 17th Aug 2016 06:04

Rightly or wrongly, the RAF has decided that merely because a flying school is CAA approved (or a BGA club similarly) they still have to audit it. This means that there is no blanket permission to use either.

To be fair to them, the RN does the same with RYA centres - I am issued with an 'approved list' I can use for cadets.

Now, whether a system of approval of civilian FTOs would be cheaper than the current system is worthy of debate.

Sky Sports 17th Aug 2016 12:31

Health and Safety / Red tape crap
 

Rightly or wrongly, the RAF has decided that merely because a flying school is CAA approved (or a BGA club similarly) they still have to audit it. This means that there is no blanket permission to use either.

This week I offered to just show the cadets around a very interesting hangar full of old jets. Oh dear, cannot do that, was the reply, you have to get permission, but the ATC internet is down, so you cannot even ask; moreover, you will need copies in triplicate of the airfield's public liability insurance etc.
A solution to the problem.

The cadets are 'on duty' for a sightseeing mini-bus ride from the squadron to 2 yards short of an airfield / civvy gliding club / any other 'highly dangerous' activity. They disembark and become 'off-duty'.
What they get up to during the day is between them and the 'host' organisation.
At a set time, they all meet 2 yards away from the 'dangerous activity' for an 'on duty' sightseeing mini-bus trip back to their squadron.
The squadron only have to complete the paperwork for a mini-bus trip :ok:

Wander00 17th Aug 2016 13:33

Which would be OK until someone stubs their toe and 'elf and safety" and the lawyers get involved

Cat Funt 17th Aug 2016 15:47


The problem with ACTO35 isn't the criteria, it's the process - which I suspect is just undermanned.
Requires auth at Regional HQ and HQ 2FTS. Until very recently auth at the 2FTS level was either Wg Cdr Flying or Comdt 2 FTS personally. Not that he has a fetish for micromanagement or anything...

BEagle 17th Aug 2016 16:17

Blunty, mon brave, don't forget that this is the same RAF which decreed that an aeroplane which used to fly HM The Queen around the globe had suddenly become too dangerous to carry non-service passengers....:ugh:

PS - Didn't see you at the Bulldog / Chipmunk do at Kemble the other week?

chevvron 17th Aug 2016 21:26


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 9469250)
This link does not cover the TG577 BoI but has an eye witness claim that a CAA Inspector (?) was at the crash scene very quickly post the accident, and just as quickly searched for and discovered the fractured bolt(s). I suspect that he was possibly an AAIB Inspector who lived close by.

Thus the AAIB would have deduced the probable cause of the accident before the RAF even had time to convene the BoI. Could that be the cause of confusion in the Wiki version of events? The accident features about half-way down the page:-

Hastings Bangs and Prangs and Splashes and Crashes



A rather poignant In Memoriam here which lists 30 RAF and 11 Army Airborne of the 41 total fatalities, a ratio that I was hitherto unaware of:-

RAF Hastings_Call Sign TG 577

'Inspector from the CAA'
The CAA didn't exist until 10 years later ie 1975.

Chugalug2 18th Aug 2016 08:02

chevron:-

The CAA didn't exist until 10 years later ie 1975.
Thank you chevron (I wondered who'd spot that one first, Wilson! ;-). Which perhaps makes it more likely that our man was an AAIB Inspector who had discovered the cause of the crash within hours of it happening, and hence the AAIB involvement was from the very start of the investigation. That in turn could have led to the misunderstanding that the formal accident investigation was carried out by them. It was not of course, it was carried out by a BoI.

Hope that answers your query Leon. Again, can anyone help us trace that 1965 BoI report?

clunckdriver 19th Aug 2016 21:58

Yesterday I went to Smith Falls {CYSH} at the crack of dawn to fly my very old DH Hornet Moth, lo and behold when I got there the first thing which met my eyes in the sunrise were two immaculate gliders and an even smarter L19, having flown the Hornet {what a strange flying aircraft it is!} I decided that working on the hangar would be more fun than returning home to cut the grass, to my great pleasure a bunch of ATC honchos turned up to make sure their competency was up to date before they started flying on the weekend {the CO is an ex employee of mine} Good heavens Britain, if a huge country like Canada with a small population spread over Hells half acre can do this what in hell is wrong with you guys?

Sook 28th Aug 2016 19:13

Meanwhile in the Senior Service....

The Sea Cadet Aviation Advanced Flying Course

Note the aircraft used.

aw ditor 29th Aug 2016 19:24

(UK) CAA was formed in 1972 via' the Civil Aviation Act of 1971.

chevvron 1st Sep 2016 05:48

But didn't start operating until 1 Jan 1975.
I can remember signing my contract after some months at Farnborough having been posted there in Sep 1974 as an ATCO Grade 4 of the NATCS which was then still administered by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Chugalug2 1st Sep 2016 08:02

Pinch and a punch for the first of the month and no returns! Which is my way of pointing out that tucumseh's post #2777, re the publishing of the story of the 1994 Mull of Kintyre tragedy and of the associated gross unairworthiness of ZD576 and her sister Mk2's, informed us that it would be at the end of August. It is in fact today, 1st September 2016.

tucumseh:-


Later this month a book will be published (Kindle version available now) which will help you in your efforts. I have no intention to discuss it further, except to say it was submitted to MoD, the Defence Select Committee and Cabinet Secretary for vetting, and passed.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Great...9118596&sr=1-1

Engines 1st Sep 2016 08:35

I'd like to encourage all PPrune readers who have followed the various threads and posts associated with UK military airworthiness issues to consider purchasing the recently published book 'Their Greatest Disgrace'. Easily found on Amazon UK.

In my view, it's an essential read for anyone involved (or interested in) procuring and maintaining military aircraft, or anyone who wants to know the truth about the state of airworthiness of our aircraft. And who'd like to do something about it.

I also understand that all monies raised by sale of the book are going to charity.

Best regards as ever to all those who want to do the job properly,

Engines

jonw66 1st Sep 2016 10:38

Engines
I finished nights at half six and am half way through it.
I was at Aldergrove until 92 and though on Wessex was friends with a lot of the Chindet guys.
Thanks for the link chug and well done tuc
Regards
Jon

G-ARZG 1st Sep 2016 12:23

Re Sook's post 2825, even the Fish Heads should know the difference between hangars and hangers (or maybe not?)

Retreats to safe distance...'ZG

chinook240 11th Sep 2016 14:21

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/ai...gain-1-7568756

Mushroom club 11th Sep 2016 15:55

Has there been any comms from 2 FTS regarding the return to flying. Assuming there is one!

The Halton scheme looks good on the face if it but I'm just curious if the pilots involved are checked out in any way.

Wander00 11th Sep 2016 17:33

Seems an imaginative use of Station non-public funds. I don't recall the use of SIF money being in the station commander's remit - that is what the SIF Committee is for (or was 30 years ago) bearing in mind the fund's charitable status ( A bit an@l for a Sunday afternoon I accept)

brokenlink 12th Sep 2016 22:12

Mushroom, nothing heard to date. I did ping OC 2EFTS a few weeks ago on the topic which was swiftly passed on to Air Cmd who responded with an abridged version of a letter already published on this thread. Not given up yet though.

Frelon 13th Sep 2016 11:57


Squadron Leader Jocelyn Tack, OC Herts and Bucks Wing, said: “We have been trying to find a way to get the cadets up and flying again so I approached the station commander to look into how it could be financed. He came up with a solution and now we can return to making full use of the facilities here.”
Read more at: Air cadets take to the skies once again - Bucks Herald

Well done to those out there who are trying to make things happen for today's cadets who are missing out on their Air Cadet gliding.

Jim Lovell (Commander of Apollo 13) said, “There are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen, and there are people who wonder what happened. To be successful, you need to be a person who makes things happen."

My feeling is that today's Air Cadets are commanded by people who are now wondering what has happened!! There are no positive signs coming from 2FTS or HQ Air Cadets. So sad:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Frelon

chevvron 13th Sep 2016 12:57


Originally Posted by Frelon (Post 9506528)
Read more at: Air cadets take to the skies once again - Bucks Herald

Well done to those out there who are trying to make things happen for today's cadets who are missing out on their Air Cadet gliding.

Jim Lovell (Commander of Apollo 13) said, “There are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen, and there are people who wonder what happened. To be successful, you need to be a person who makes things happen."

My feeling is that today's Air Cadets are commanded by people who are now wondering what has happened!! There are no positive signs coming from 2FTS or HQ Air Cadets. So sad:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Frelon

Something wrong here; Wing OCs with the ATC are normally Wing Cdr (Acting) rank. Maybe she's Wing Admin Officer.
Notwithstanding that, I'm glad my old wing has had the guts to actually do something; we were pioneers of cadet microlight flying at Halton back in the '90s.

Cows getting bigger 13th Sep 2016 15:28

Jocelyn is WXO (Old duffers like chevvron would call it Wg Admin Officer ;) ). Good on RAF Halton.

chevvron 13th Sep 2016 16:38


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 9493077)
Pinch and a punch for the first of the month and no returns! Which is my way of pointing out that tucumseh's post #2777, re the publishing of the story of the 1994 Mull of Kintyre tragedy and of the associated gross unairworthiness of ZD576 and her sister Mk2's, informed us that it would be at the end of August. It is in fact today, 1st September 2016.

tucumseh:-



https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Great...9118596&sr=1-1

In my personal opinion, one of the root causes of this tragedy was the withdrawl of radar from Macrihanish a month or so previously.
No radar = no LARS hence the Chinook crew had to try to fly VMC below rather than above safety altitude with radar service.
As I said, just one of the causes, but the BOI wouldn't want this to be aired in public so it doesn't appear to be mentioned - I admit I haven't read the report though.

hoodie 13th Sep 2016 17:24

Without rehashing the long Chinook thread, it's been stated that they couldn't climb to MSA due to the temperatures and lack of an Icing clearance.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:46.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.