Thank you Beagle.
|
Prior to the tragedy, the procedure was: Park and shutdown Release seat harness While remaining seated, undo the parachute harness. Vacate ac leaving parachute on seat. After the tragedy: Release seat harness and vacate ac. When clear of the ac (not on the wing) remove parachute. Climb back on wing and place parachute on seat |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10269639)
rolling20, I had known the chap who was killed when he released both seat harness and parachute - but only as a fellow ULAS student many years earlier.
I can't remember the exact procedure we used when I became a Bulldog QFI in 1991, but the fatal accident was still quite fresh in peoples' minds and some procedure had been adopted to reduce the risk of inadvertent chute QRF release during a real abandonment. I was a Bulldog QFI on a UAS from 1989 till 1992. At the UAS I worked at, parachutes were not routinely left in the seat for the next person; they were normally kept in the line office. The procedure was to collect a parachute from the line office and return it afterwards, or when a running change was necessary, the oncoming student was assisted to don it before climbing in. However, due to wear on the parachute outer covering we were told we should use the practice of unstrapping from the parachute before exiting the aircraft and carefully lift it out afterwards, when standing on the wing. I declined to do this for the reason I already stated. The later accident occurred after this; it seemed obvious to me that the pilot who died probably reverted to the normal procedure used iaw with that instruction, rather than the emergency procedure, which was only carried out once a month. Had he been used to leaving the chute on his back every time he left the aircraft he might not have inadvertently unlocked his QRB before unstrapping his seat harness and abandoning the aircraft in flight. |
Fully understand Shy, but like I said procedures may have changed by the end of the decade.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10269756)
It appears that some haven't understood my post so I'll try again!
I was a Bulldog QFI on a UAS from 1989 till 1992. At the UAS I worked at, parachutes were not routinely left in the seat for the next person; they were normally kept in the line office. The procedure was to collect a parachute from the line office and return it afterwards, or when a running change was necessary, the oncoming student was assisted to don it before climbing in. However, due to wear on the parachute outer covering we were told we should use the practice of unstrapping from the parachute before exiting the aircraft and carefully lift it out afterwards, when standing on the wing. I declined to do this for the reason I already stated. The later accident occurred after this; it seemed obvious to me that the pilot who died probably reverted to the normal procedure used iaw with that instruction, rather than the emergency procedure, which was only carried out once a month. Had he been used to leaving the chute on his back every time he left the aircraft he might not have inadvertently unlocked his QRB before unstrapping his seat harness and abandoning the aircraft in flight. I left the Bulldog - first time round - in 88 and the procedure to vacate wearing the chute had been implemented before then. |
Dutystude, During my UAS time (mid-90s) the drill was such that you released the seat harness, then shutdown, then released the parachute. Same reasoning but you didn’t vacate with a parachute on. I very clearly remember the OC asking me if I knew the reason we did it like that. |
I don't know what happened prior to 1989 but it sounds like the same as our local procedures when I arrived (presumably it was done like that following the 1982 accident). The later edict to leave the chute in the seat came out during my tour. I don't know if it was later rescinded after the second accident because I no longer flew the Bulldog after 1992.
|
I think we may be a little out with some of the dates on this one. The pilot in the “harness accident” was Flt Lt Ian Redwood. Ian came through the CFS Bulldog course as a student QFI in the summer of 84 at Scampton. I flew with him on the course. The accident happened the following year in Mar 85. Generally speaking the chute stayed / lived in the aircraft seat. You walked out to the aircraft and the chute was already in the seat waiting for you. Prior to the accident, the parachute procedure after normal shutdown was to unstrap in the cockpit and leave the chute in the aircraft seat prior to vacating the aircraft. The chute harness was the higher of the two boxes and was realeased first, followed by the lower seat harness. Evidence from the accident suggested Ian may have inadvertently released the chute harness before jumping from the spinning aircraft (albeit he may have hastily attempted to resecure the chute harness). Reflecting on this the white coated behavioural boffins decided we Pilots needed to “make it normal” to leave the aircraft with our chute still attached to us and so the norm / SOP was changed so that after shut down the crew would simply release the seat harness, vacate the aircraft with parachute still attached, and after jumping / stepping off the wing (ie feet now on the ground) to then release the chute harness and take the chute off. Having completed this “normal behavioural pattern” the crew would then step back onto the wing and return the chute to the cockpit seat. So my point is that the change came then in the summer of 85, after Ian’s accident. I left the waterfront and the Bulldog world in the following summer of 86 but I would have expected the revised SOP for the chutes might have been in force throughout its remaining service life; though the thread (albeit thread drift) on here might suggest otherwise ? Happy days. |
I must confess that my memory of flying the Bulldog in 1975/76 involved leaving the parachute in situ....but it was a while ago (although I still remember the downwind checks).
|
Originally Posted by Idle Reverse
(Post 10269964)
Prior to the accident, the parachute procedure after normal shutdown was to unstrap in the cockpit and leave the chute in the aircraft seat prior to vacating the aircraft. The chute harness was the higher of the two boxes and was realeased first, followed by the lower seat harness. |
Originally Posted by Idle Reverse
(Post 10269964)
I think we may be a little out with some of the dates on this one. The pilot in the “harness accident” was Flt Lt Ian Redwood. Ian came through the CFS Bulldog course as a student QFI in the summer of 84 at Scampton. I flew with him on the course. The accident happened the following year in Mar 85. Generally speaking the chute stayed / lived in the aircraft seat. You walked out to the aircraft and the chute was already in the seat waiting for you. Prior to the accident, the parachute procedure after normal shutdown was to unstrap in the cockpit and leave the chute in the aircraft seat prior to vacating the aircraft. The chute harness was the higher of the two boxes and was realeased first, followed by the lower seat harness. Evidence from the accident suggested Ian may have inadvertently released the chute harness before jumping from the spinning aircraft (albeit he may have hastily attempted to resecure the chute harness). Reflecting on this the white coated behavioural boffins decided we Pilots needed to “make it normal” to leave the aircraft with our chute still attached to us and so the norm / SOP was changed so that after shut down the crew would simply release the seat harness, vacate the aircraft with parachute still attached, and after jumping / stepping off the wing (ie feet now on the ground) to then release the chute harness and take the chute off. Having completed this “normal behavioural pattern” the crew would then step back onto the wing and return the chute to the cockpit seat. So my point is that the change came then in the summer of 85, after Ian’s accident. I left the waterfront and the Bulldog world in the following summer of 86 but I would have expected the revised SOP for the chutes might have been in force throughout its remaining service life; though the thread (albeit thread drift) on here might suggest otherwise ? Happy days. |
Originally Posted by Idle Reverse
(Post 10269964)
I think we may be a little out with some of the dates on this one. The pilot in the “harness accident” was Flt Lt Ian Redwood. Ian came through the CFS Bulldog course as a student QFI in the summer of 84 at Scampton. I flew with him on the course. The accident happened the following year in Mar 85. Generally speaking the chute stayed / lived in the aircraft seat. You walked out to the aircraft and the chute was already in the seat waiting for you. Prior to the accident, the parachute procedure after normal shutdown was to unstrap in the cockpit and leave the chute in the aircraft seat prior to vacating the aircraft. The chute harness was the higher of the two boxes and was realeased first, followed by the lower seat harness. Evidence from the accident suggested Ian may have inadvertently released the chute harness before jumping from the spinning aircraft (albeit he may have hastily attempted to resecure the chute harness). Reflecting on this the white coated behavioural boffins decided we Pilots needed to “make it normal” to leave the aircraft with our chute still attached to us and so the norm / SOP was changed so that after shut down the crew would simply release the seat harness, vacate the aircraft with parachute still attached, and after jumping / stepping off the wing (ie feet now on the ground) to then release the chute harness and take the chute off. Having completed this “normal behavioural pattern” the crew would then step back onto the wing and return the chute to the cockpit seat. So my point is that the change came then in the summer of 85, after Ian’s accident. I left the waterfront and the Bulldog world in the following summer of 86 but I would have expected the revised SOP for the chutes might have been in force throughout its remaining service life; though the thread (albeit thread drift) on here might suggest otherwise ? Happy days. Indeed, following the change, I logged a practice abandonment drill every time I flew since standard egress mirrored the actions I would take if I needed to abandon. |
Arguably MD died because he broke his authorisation and then grossly mishandled XX712, not because a fireman couldn't save him from the burning wreckage. |
Back to the thread
Is there any one with any news/info concerning the Tutor in a field near Wittering. Tired of the disappointment of opening this thread up to read the new posts only to discover they are all about some unrelated Bulldog bolleaux. |
Originally Posted by H Peacock
(Post 10270588)
Arguably MD died because he broke his authorisation and then grossly mishandled XX712, not because a fireman couldn't save him from the burning wreckage. |
Originally Posted by Mach the Knife
(Post 10270618)
Is there any one with any news/info concerning the Tutor in a field near Wittering. Tired of the disappointment of opening this thread up to read the new posts only to discover they are all about some unrelated Bulldog bolleaux. |
Originally Posted by nonsense
(Post 10271250)
I confess I keep seeing the thread title and expecting a discussion about an instructor standing in a paddock, wittering on about something nobody else is interested in hearing about.
|
Originally Posted by rolling20
(Post 10271499)
If this thread hadn't drifted, then I for one wouldn't have known the answer to a few queries that have been unanswered for a number of years.
I found the input from Mach the Knife quite inappropriate. |
The Accounts have run a computer module and have come up with an answer.
The Accountants plans are: A: Build a runway and fly the thing out. B: Leave the runway in situ, then other aircraft in difficulties could use it. C: Constuct the rumway in airportable sections so it can be re-used. Fred the Farmer (who owns the field) offered to cut the vegetation down, harrow it and fly the thing out. I wonder who's plan will win the day. |
Whichever plan is used, I suspect they will do more damage getting it out of the field than somebody did getting in there in the first place!
I don't think it will be Plan A. 2 years is a long time to wait to get your aeroplane back. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.