Yak 52 down Nr Boscombe 8/7/2016
 

Though it happened two days ago it appears that it was being used by ETPS and I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned, hence this post.
Sadly one has died


Yak 52 down nr Salisbury. 1 fatality

RIP and thoughts are with the family and friends at this time.

Plane flying round Boscombe today ? FighterControl ? Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast


..

Two threads already running on it - one in "Accidents and close calls", one in "Private flying"

Per Ardua. So very sad.

RIP fella

The poor chap who died was a very experienced serving pilot in the RAF. Spent many enjoyable hours flying with him around the world, including an impromptu light aircraft vs. car 'Top Gear' challenge between San Diego and 'Vegas a few years ago. A good friend who'll be missed by all who knew him and flew with him. Had a few glasses of our favourite 'detachment wine' in his honour on Saturday night. RIP mate.

Yes, RIP to a great pilot, captain, skier, hockey player, keen GA/glider pilot and Cambridge graduate. Outstanding individuals like him are only made once in a while and he is a great loss to his family, friends and his country.

I have deliberately not mentioned his name until it has been formally released. I know that tributes have been flooding in via private social media and email all weekend.

Ad Astra old chum. :(

Official obit and valediction on the MOD website:

RAF Pays Tribute to Pilot Killed In Civilian Air Accident

Shocked, hugely saddened and devastated for his family and all his many, many friends.

RIP mate. A tiny consolation is that you died in the pursuit of your passion, but you'll be sorely missed my friend.

Per Ardua old boy.

Very sad to hear the news. A nice guy, good pilot and one of the best senior students CUAS has had. Very sadly from the same CUAS course as Kev Whyman.
Best wishes to all left behind

MM

A top top man in every sense. Will be sorely missed and all my thoughts are with his poor family. Am shocked to say the least, he was one of the nicest, most welcoming, inclusive aviators I have had the pleasure of meeting.

RIP Alex. A top aviator, skier and such fun to be around. You lived up to the 8 Sqn motto:

USPIAM ET PASSIM - EVerywhere Unbounded

My condolences to your family...

:sad:

Ah bugger. Alex was a great bloke, always had time for a chat with the squips.. Thoughts are with the family at this difficult time. :(

First met Alex at CUAS in '94 where, to my mind, he had the correct focus on flying and having a good time; regrettably his college tutors didn't share this enthusiasm.

The T&E world brought us together again and he had lost none of the humour or talent and I always enjoyed flying with him.

I am gutted by his loss and the Service will be a poorer place without him. My thoughts are with his family.

Tragic to read.

The second RAF loss in small civilian aircraft of late. I lost a serving RAF colleague in a accident in a small SEP and another ex-RAF one, too.

Just goes to show that small aircraft can bite just as hard as large military ones.

The world was a better, more fun place for Alex's presence. RIP, and condolences to his family.

May I add my sincere condolences to this very very sad loss. First met Alex as he had flown the Bulldog on the CUAS and he kindly later invited me to display at the Bulldog at Waddington 2006. Loved life loved flying. Wishing strength to all his nearest and dearest. A gentleman aviator that will be sadly missed.

I know this isn't the place to post detailed information, Alex's funeral will take place next Friday, July 29th.

A fine tribute today to a great man, father, test pilot and husband. Holding up traffic in central London for his funeral was exactly the sort of thing that tickled his humour. As was the 6-ship of RAF be-medalled No 1 wearing RAF officers on 'Boris Bikes' riding to his wake at the RAF Club as they had missed the bus from St Clement Danes!

Per Ardua Ad Astra, Alex, old chum...

The report of the Service Inquiry into this accident has just been released.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...on-8-july-2016
This is the military inquiry - the AAIB Investigation is still listed as 'under investigation'.

A sobering read.

Literally breathtaking. If you step back far enough, you begin to see a very worrying picture of Airworthiness post-Haddon Cave. This report contains pages and pages of descriptions about risks, ALARP, insurances, Government Contracting and Sub-Contracting arrangements, operational pressures, AWC Audits and a whole host of "protections". But despite all that guff, a service pilot got airborne in an aircraft that had fundamental serviceability issues with a non-service pilot whose qualifications were never fully established by the Board. When the aircraft developed problems maintaining power, the most basic of airmanship principles appear not to have been applied in recovering to a forced landing, resulting in the tragic loss of life.

My point is quite simple, have we become lost in our own Byzantine safety culture to the detriment of applying the most basic supervision and airmanship principles?

I count at least 9 errors of fact in that paragraph alone....

The minimum for revalidation of an SEP (Land) Class Rating is either a Proficiency Check, or 12 hrs PIC in the 12 months before expiry plus a total of an hour of refresher flying with an instructor.
- Revalidation is required every 2 years
- An FI certificate has to revalidated every 3 years by completing '2 out of 3 ' of the following: attending an FI refresher seminar, 50 hr of instructional time or an Assessment of Competence. An Assessment of Competence is mandatory at least every 6 years.

:rolleyes:

To be precise, the revalidation of an SEP (Land) Class rating does not require 12 hrs PIC but either a Proficiency Check or 12 hrs flight time including 6 hrs PIC, 12 take-offs and landings and a training flight of at least 1 hour (or a maximum of three totalling 1 hour) with the same flight instructor or class rating instructor.

high spirits,

I guess the thing to remember here is that the AAIB have primacy over this accident not the DAIB. There was some errors in military supervision which contributed to the accident; however, I would think that the AAIB's focus will be on how this un-airworthy aircraft was being used for demonstration flying with more than a minimum crew for commercial purposes breaching Article 23 of the ANO.

You are correct about the 12 hrs flight time including 6 hrs PIC minimum - my late night error!

However, has now been amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/445 of 17 March 2015; the hour if refresher flying no longer needs to be a gained in a maximum of three flights with the same instructor.

Anyway, the report should really have been 100% correct to establish whether the PIC had a valid SEP Class Rating and Instructor Certificate.

Nevertheless, the report makes shocking reading concerning flying supervision, aeroplane maintenance records, ANO compliance, pilot qualifications, pilot recency etc. etc.....

The engine hadn't received any overhaul in 24 years, no-one seemed to have checked or replenished the oil that day, many of the engine instruments were unserviceable as were the artificial horizons and altimeters...

Does the RAF still have a Flying Supervisors' Course? If so, this accident should be used as an example for FSC students.

I'm having trouble opening Airsound's link, which produces mainly blacked out pages interspersed with occasional readable ones. Is this a problem at my end or simply security redaction?

As I understand it this was a civilian registered aircraft, hence subject to the civilian regulator rather than the MAA, and subject to AAIB investigation primarily. Is that correct?

The aircraft was being operated for Boscombe Down and included a Service pilot, hence this SI. Is that correct?

As to airworthiness, it has been said repeatedly on this forum, "Implement the Regs". No amount of huffing and puffing, or creating new "independent" authorities will gainsay that. The UK military air fleet is riddled with unairworthiness because that simple requirement was not adhered to.

Sounds like at your end - I've seen that when there is an incompatability between the PDF and the reader you are using (Usually, but not always, the version of Adobe Reader).

Yes to your other questions - Civil aircraft, operated at/for ETPS, incident involved the death of a service pilot.

Many thanks Daveof68. I'll check out my adobe reader. Thanks also for the confirmation of my queries. If the MOD tries making hay out of poor civilian airworthiness, then the words glasshouses and stones come to mind.

Years ago we had numerous aircraft types of various vintages and design concepts owned and maintained by the UK test pilot organisations. Other nations did likewise and with mutual cooperation across nations this gave an extensive list of aircraft for test pilots to fly inside the military domain.

Costs money though.

Much cheaper to contract to one company (who prefers collecting and storing documents, rather than reviewing them), who contracts another, who contracts yet another, who then hires an aircraft from an individual who operates on a PtF, complete with an installed engine that has never been overhauled in its 24 years of service. For safety, just add a PIC with little currency or experience on type, no supervision, questionable ability, a cavalier attitude to rules and regulations, doubtful airmanship and a madcap scheme to hand a forced landing to the front seat occupant (even if not qualified and on his first trip) as he doubted his own ability to execute one from the rear seat.

Seems a perfect mix to conduct extended envelope spinning, both erect or inverted and expanded envelope flying. Best not worry the aircraft & airworthiness owner though, the PIC can just send a quick email to state that it would just be gentle and benign flying.

I had known Alex for 20 years and flown with him in a number of aircraft types. He deserved better than this.

Lordy lord. There is so much wrong here. Headlines:

Confusion over DH responsibilities
Process 'holes' - numerous
Contractural weaknesses/ignorance
Sub-Sub-Sub- contracting (nothing new there)
Civilian Airworthiness (not just MoD/QinetiQ oversight)
Permit to Fly rather than CofA - no exemption from CAA to undertake specified activity (breech of ANO)
Ignorance within QinetiQ regarding PtF vs. CofA
Aircraft/pilot Insurance
A 24 year-old engine that had never been overhauled
Rear seat PIC did not have engine MAP or serviceable RPM gauge.
Numerous other unserviceable instruments
Questionable (by MoD standards) pilot currency/competency.
Inadequate pre-flight crew brief
Incorrect ARTM (Aviation Task Risk Matrix)
Shortened timeline - rushing

We've now arrived at the aircraft!

One other morsel:

FFS.

Blimey. Talk about a damning report. As stated, all under the gaze of ETPS.

Sorry, round 2.

I don't normally get annoyed by stuff like this; I try to take an objective stance. BUT - this is shambolic. This reads like a flying club/group hidden in the wilderness. In fact, I'm probably doing flying clubs a disservice. ETPS military personnel shouldn't have even walked within 50ft of that aircraft, never mind fly in it.

If the name of the organisation that was supposed to be providing supervision and oversight had been redacted we'd all have assumed this was either the world's worst flying club or a real banana republic Micky Mouse airforce operating that Yak. The Empire Test Pilots School? Really?

I'd known Alex since we were Air Cadets together..

I shared some of my EFB work with him and sought advice on getting stuff into the cockpit. A more enquiring and professional mind I have yet to meet.

The report is a truly scary read and I feel that he was let down by a series of safety checks that should have stopped that aircraft ever getting to the QE course.:sad::(

There are also a number of very good and well cared for Yak-52s out there as well as the world's most experienced Yak-52 instructor (ex-DOSAAF) who is based in the UK.

I have no doubt one could have been made available to ETPS with all the Is dotted and Ts crossed if they had asked around.

That SI is an absolutely shocking read and, as Beagle states, ought to become the starting point on any course discussing how a flying organisation ought not to be run. It is probably one of the most startling for many years.

QinetiQ should never have let that aircraft get airborne from Boscombe Down with either a military or civilian member of ETPS (which, as I understand it, they now own) on-board, looks a real dereliction of their airworthiness and safety responsibilities. QinetiQ - a supposed world class organisation, I just hope they have been able to acknowledge and rectify their failings.

And where was the AWC is all of this with regards the much vaunted MAA DH process? Surely they retained primacy with regards the duty of care to a serving Flt Lt while flying on duty, or did they? What oversight/assurance were they providing to serving ETPS military aircrew on a day-to-day basis while flying on behalf of QinetiQ? Personally I couldn't untangle the division of responsibility between the AWC and QinetiQ in this report with regards a serving military pilot, flying a CAA regulated aircraft, in an MOD funded, privately owned, flying organisation - or is that just me? Who is the dog and who is the tail in this QinetiQ/AWC arrangement?

Suspect the fallout from this could run and run - and that's even before the AAIB present their report. As others have said the good Flt Lt was seriously let down - in my opinion by both QinetiQ and the AWC - and he did deserve a lot better; RIP.

Tay - No real chance of getting all the dots and crosses sorted as all UK Yak-52s are only on a PtF - this was commented on in the report.

In reply to Just this Once

The Yak-52 being on a PtF is irrelevant, it's either airworthy or it's not - in this case NOT airworthy. I've seen enough PtF aircraft and flown some and being on a PtF is not an excuse for poor maintenance/adherence to AD's.

Agree with the other posters that this is banana republic territory.

This was an accident waiting to happen compounded by what appears to be a level of complacency that beggars belief.

No, it is relevant as the PtF is linked to the incomplete airworthiness chain, oversight and design support. As a result the burden of airworthiness passes directly to the owner and the residual risk is mitigated by the restrictions stipulated in the PtF (e.g. prohibition on revenue earning flights, limited POB etc). Airworthiness and serviceability are different things, albeit intertwined.

I read through the report and could not help but wonder how military airworthiness processes are hopelessly wrapped up in paperwork - with no proper linkage to the real world.

The risk assessment would have stopped the engine stopping? The reason the engine actually stopped (operation or fault not even established - FFS?) not established. Lots of indignation about a Ptf - when military aircraft do not actually meet civilian standards anyhow..... and so do not have a C of A (and when they are supposed to the standards are not met anyhow - anyone for gliding?)

The limits for spinning breached on multiple occasions and none of these military trained and experienced pilots thought to even mention it?

Little or no sortie briefing, little or no checking the aircraft is even ready.

Everything passed over to a contracting company who themselves obviously had a similar level of non-competence.

Yes it is a shambles - but one created and perpetuated by the military processes and plain lack of competence, discipline and organisation within it

The risk assessment would have stopped the aircraft from flying. It would have ensure the crew restraints were satisfactory. It would have ensured the appropriate insurance. It would have identified that the Yak 52 was not fit for purpose.

The risk assessment would have stopped the accident.

Agree Cows but it should never have got anywhere near a risk assessment the aircraft was unserviceable.
I read it this morning when airsound posted the link and still cannot believe the complacency.
Would be interesting to hear Engines thoughts as a senior engineer.
Best
John