Warship Tour of duty, 7pm BBC2 covers the F35 accident
 

Title says it all. It’s the F-35 jet launch disaster episode.
so I take it is the one over the side in the ogging.

Sky channel 102

Yes it is. The pilot is still flying with 617, the intake blank was so far up the intake to be missed by everyone. I know that as one of the pilots at my line station is good mates with him. Proceedure and bad design major factors.

Given that my £5,000 car won’t start unless the clutch is depressed, it amazes me that a cutting-edge technology £xxx million jet can get as far as trying to take off with an engine blank installed. Staggering.

Read the BoI.

engine blanks were simply the last in a huge and quite concerning error chain.

I take it the shotgun used to scare the birds were firing some of these and not just standard cartridges.

https://www.wildlifecontrolsupplies....NWS15MMBB.html

I am surprised in this day and age they do not have something built into the ramp similar to something like this

https://portek.co.uk/portfolio/scatt...aring-gas-gun/

rather have three men and a shotgun having to walk down the front and let rip with a shotgun.

Navy Lookout's long and highly critical take on the event and the investigation findings: The F-35 accident report – a reality check for UK Carrier Strike | Navy Lookout

Every jet that I’ve worked on with twin intakes had the two blanks connected and a warning flag. Basics that seem to have been forgotten in this new air force.

When? Never so on Jags or Tornados? 50 years ago.

I don't think there is a positive sentence in that entire report!

You'll have fun with SHARKEY take on event & report then. “With the RAF in charge we are Sunk!” 26 Sep 2023 https://hermajestystopgun.com/with-t...e-we-are-sunk/
"...A Royal Navy Board of Inquiry led by an experienced Fleet Air Arm fixed wing carrier pilot and supported by a Naval Air Engineer and a Surgeon Commander would undoubtedly have addressed all these important issues [five listed earlier] and produced a more concise and relevant Report...."

AL1. Delete "would undoubtedly", insert "might".

And what does Sharkey think demanded an experienced Fleet Air Arm fixed wing carrier pilot? The accident was nothing to do with pilot handling, all the error chains being organisational or human factor-related. As for a Surgeon Commander, only if he or she had some serious HF knowledge that would be unusual for the medical profession; it is why the AAIB has an HF Inspector and not a doctor on the team.

But it is a bloody awful report, written by someone with almost no understanding of, and seemingly little interest in, the norms of carrier operations. Sharkey's point is that had the BOI been conducted by people with the appropriate experience it would have properly addressed the issues that are really behind this entirely unnecessary accident. These issues all flow from the catastrophic decision in 2000 when the Joint Force Harrier was formed and the Navy permanently gave up (was robbed of) direct control of its fixed-wing aviation, effectively reversing the Inskip Award of 1939 which returned naval aviation to where it belonged.
I guess it is career suicide for any light blue officer to suggest that naval aviation is anything more than aviation from a floating airfield, but this accident drives that point home.

I don't think it really matters who or what wrote the report. In short order an interim report should have been issued to DG DSA:

'Once again an accident has been caused by the total breakdown of all eight Defence Lines of Development. Our recommendation is to do what you're meant to be doing'.

But that would need an SI president who was retiring that same day...!

This was first aired on the BBC programme back in the Spring. Lots of embarrassed faces around. Can't recall if the carrier's commander left his post before or immediately after - cause or effect?

The pilot had one helluva shaving rash, a consequence of the det cord in the canopy.

Kind of like CIWS but without the lead?

Sounds like a bit of a wheeze to me. Some people are such fun-sponges ;)

Before - handover was in the Far East. But you can't blame him for the systemic failures that caused the crash.

Not blanks but on the C130 the nose wheel pin was connected by bungees to the pitot covers, so that in theory you couldn’t miss the pin as the latter had big ‘remove before flight’ flags. For some unknown reason (to me anyway) the ground crew would often remove the covers, roll up the bungees and lodge them above the pin, hidden in the nose bay. A thorough walkround would discover the pin but it wasn’t unheard of that an aircraft would get airborne and find the nosewheel wouldn’t retract…

It still tickles me that in spite of this, the BoI report had an unredacted photo down the intake, but redacted captions on pictures of the ski ramp and deck lift!(Although someone suggested that the photo may be of a mock-up rather than a real F-35)

Even 30 + years ago I had to certify in the (civilian HS748) Tech Log that all pitot/static covers, gear pins and engine blanks had been removed before flight. What's the RAF/RN/AAC paperwork process to prevent oversights these days?

My point was did standards slip after he left?