No Water Please
 

So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?

By not buying a solution and changing it all.

CG

Under a different regulatory framework maybe?

Move back into Linton, problem solved.

Bit of an issue when operating from an airfield on an island?!

I guess the key word is ‘minimise’, so no long transits over water but the Menai Straits are probably not an obstacle. Which explains how the one that flew over me this morning made it to the Lake District.

Not sure if following the flow arrow up Windermere would count as minimizing though?

Martin_the_Martian.

Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix

Two Newest RAF Pilots Earned their Wings in 'Record Time' | Aero-News Network

One way round it. FFS!

Errr. One year JP to "wings", then (for the lucky ones) onto the Gnat, predecessor of the Hawk. I didn't go that route, but many did, and that was mid sixties. Re-inventing the wheel?

Hmm. Another great aircraft procurement decision. Is it too late to take them back and swap for some PC-21s?

M the M
 

I have two points:

1. The MOD did not procure the aircraft. They were chosen and bought by the contractor. It is just possible that they may have realised they need more than the initial purchase of 10.

2. I’ve said this countless times before but I’ll say it again. PC21 is overkill. It’s a great aircraft but not what was required for the job in hand.

BV

Perhaps the problem lies in using the aircraft in a place that freezes your knuts off. Other users live in more sensible climates.
But I think it is taking a rather extreme view in wanting this water-activated quick- release buckle. What happens when some student barfs on it? Or spills his inflight coffee?

The choice of the aircraft doesn't help if you order it with the wrong seat/harness/life support (etc) kit.

Regarding PC-21, that aircraft is used by some air arms as an ab initio trainer and by some as an advanced trainer leading onto Gripen, F-18 etc. Therefore, it covers the whole spectrum of training. When the contractors (Affinity and Ascent) decided on platforms for MFTS the Hawk T2 was already well in service and the PC-21 would have had considerable overlap of capabilities with it. In fact, the PC-21 has some capabilities which I believe the Hawk T2 does not (synthetic air-to-ground radar). The PC-21 was more expensive than the T6 and so was not a sensible option, however good and capable it may have been.

I was involved with the proposal by Affinity to Ascent of the T6 as the platform for this role but my remit did not involve any aspects of AEA. Both the T6 and PC-21 are fitted with Martin-Baker Mk 16 ejection seats. Therefore, it begs the question why the UK T6s were not fitted with a version of the seat that used UK AEA. I suspect that it was a question of cost but some here may know more.

The Tucano was never cleared for flight over the sea due to a number of reasons. As has already been stated, the real issue is basing the aircraft at Valley.

Well that makes instrument approaches to the southeasterly runway tricky.....

This must be old news as the Texans have been happily transmitting over the Irish Sea for low level work in LFA17. There were several in the Lake District last week for example.

Seriously? I don't recall any similar limitation with the JP. We didn't wear immersion suits, but then again Church Fenton, Cranwell, Finningley, Leeming, Linton and Syerstonl were well inland, as were Manby and Strubby. Although Acklington was pretty close to the North Sea.

The water-activated QRB sounds interesting. Something which doesn't operate when a student is strapping in on a wet day, but operates quickly enough to release him/her quickly enough to avoid drowning must be something of a design challenge.

But I still cannot understand why the RAF didn't include the optional the M-B Mk.17 lightweight ejection seat in the user requirement for the Prefect T1.

You just can’t keep some people off GUARD......

Orac, thought I was missing something when I read you post.... Then reread my post.....”transmitting” should have read ‘transiting’.....

Bloody predictive text....

BEagle; I presume for "Sywell" read "Syerston"; or have I missed something?

No restrictions on flying a Tucano over the sea when I was at Linton, 95-99. Valkenburg, Prague, Budapest and Krakow were regular rangers. Even took a pair to Malta for the air show.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Move Reds and Texans to Linton. Easy to organise 10(?) Texans flying around the Reds slots. Instant access to loads of free airspace, instant access to the low flying system in any direction, far too sensible to be considered.

2 TWU
 

Many of us have said this before but I’ll say it again.

Linton is closed and the basing decisions for MFTS were not up to the MOD.

BV

You’re right. I’m wrong. What I should have said was that the Tucano was never cleared for flight with an immersion suit. Apologies.

Bob V, I was involved with MFTS in 2000/1, no decisions taken in those days but MoD certainly in the loop. To put things into context, the Hawk was slated to go MFTS in 2005, Tucano, at Linton, in 2007.

To confirm what 2 TWU said Bob, MoD in the shape of me, plus others, was most certainly involved In the early days. At one stage, we even took prospective bidders around Linton, most were trying to choose the best office.

2 TWU and Audax
 

I’m not saying that MOD didn’t get involved in the early days. The fact is that when the time came the contractor decided which bases they wanted to use and Linton wasn’t one of them.

No matter how much some people might want it, Linton isn’t coming back either.

Time will tell if that was a good decision.

BV

If it’s not one thing it’s another....... (read the comments below the article if you have access - they’re all complimentary of the jets and the writers evocative memories)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ales-388z7pxsx

Buzz off! RAF low-flying pilots hit by flak in north Wales

Fordecades north Wales has been a training ground for RAF pilots practising low flying. In the valleys and on the peaks of Snowdonia enthusiasts flock to see the spectacle of pilots streaking by at 500mph, and locals and farmers complain in vain about the noise.

In nearby Anglesey and North Gwynedd, however, residents say that a new fleet of “buzzing” RAF planes is “adversely affecting the mental health” of those living below their flight paths. Locals affected by the Beechcraft Texan aircraft complain of “a distinctive loud, buzzing noise” when pilots in training practise fly close to the ground. Hundreds have signed an online petition and the local MP, Liz Saville Roberts, is taking up their cause.

“It’s like living next door to Biggles”, wrote one, referring to the fictional pilot and adventurer.

One woman complaining about the “ridiculous amount of noise pollution”, added: “I am also late in my pregnancy and with the lockdown it’s been tough and I don’t wish our baby to be woken by those loud sounds early mornings onwards. Please make it stop!” A third said: “It does my head in buzzing around everywhere like a bloody giant wasp.”

The dispute echoes the long-term complaints of residents in Snowdonia living close to the Mach Loop. Made up of valleys between Dolgellau and Machynlleth, it is well known for jet pilots training at low altitude.......

Ms Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, said: “The issue is that they make a high-pitched and intrusive buzzing noise.”

She has often raised issues relating to low flying in the Mach Loop. In recent days North Wales police have issued warnings about dangerous parking as plane spotters go in search of photos. She added: “These are narrow, rocky, mountainous valleys and it does appear that sometimes these aircraft are not aware there are people in these valleys.”

Alan Jones Evans, a local councillor, said: “Since I was a schoolboy there has always been concern about low-flying issues. We’ve been complaining for 40 years and nothing seems to be done about it. They come very quickly and give you a hell of a fright. It’s disrespectful when there is a funeral and you get these screaming aeroplanes. The schoolchildren get frightened.”

The plane spotters say there has been a considerable decline in sightings over the past year and a half. One said that publicising the area with videos of low-flying jets on social media had brought negative attention, portraying the area as dangerous. “It used to be a small group of photographers – now people think it’s an air show. It’s not an air show, it’s a training ground. Photography is very deceiving, and people use it to make a news article.

“I think the Mach Loop is pretty much finished because the RAF stopped a lot of flying there,” he said.

A spokesman for the RAF said: “The RAF is striving to ensure that disturbance is kept to an absolute minimum and noise pollution distributed as evenly as possible. However, we must continue to conduct essential flying training.”

Takes you back to Kipling's day.

To be honest, I've never heard a Texan II, but I have listened to plenty of Texan I's and the supersonic prop tips make a hell of a racket and they don't have to be going at Vne to generate it :eek:

If the MOD were to announce the closure of Valley and move all the assets to another location I expect the locals would soon change their tune and start bleating about the adverse effect on the local economy...

The RAF have had that problem ever since the Harvard.

A Sea Water Activated Release System was spec’d for all F-35 seats (US16E) if I recall correctly. perhaps that’s why it was also required on T6? As was a liferaft with a single skin canopy. (Although I believe UK MoD has (or is) changed it for something more useful in the North Atlantic in winter.) The F-35 survival kit was developed for a rapid re-role depending in which theatre of Ops it was to be used. Changing a liferaft type or scale of survival equipment was to be simple - by design - and it was, IMHO. However......

To quote a very senior member of MBA management, who commented to me a few years back:

“The customer will not always know what he needs, but he will always know what he wants...and he is always the customer.”


Look to the customer...

Been hinted at before,(as long ago as 2016) at 6:35

Why not paint Piss Off Biggles on the roof and see what happens?