S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Canberra Times 22 Jul 1995 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128288929
MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Dec 2023 at 09:11. Reason: + PDF & JPG
There has been a fair bit of discussion on this thread about ejection seats, whether or not fitted on the lost S-211, and the local regulatory position.
In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.
In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:
"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".
So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.
In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.
In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:
"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".
So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.
There has been a fair bit of discussion on this thread about ejection seats, whether or not fitted on the lost S-211, and the local regulatory position.
In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.
In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:
"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".
So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.
In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.
In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:
"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".
So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.
The following users liked this post:
In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.
The following users liked this post:
Yep, sorry, now refreshed my memory re your post #77 and other posts like #91, #98. Also realised Clinton McKenzie had explained the hurdles in maintaining operational ejection seats in #61 which seems to answer my other question.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
(14Mb FREE PDF S211 PAF Flight Manual 08 Mar 1994)https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ght_manual.pdf
'CLUMP's' MiG-15 (owned by a car dealer) was fraudulently represented as flyable when it really was only a 'museum piece'. The owner & pilots ('Hammo' & 'Ezza') did not know this before the fatal accident.
MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au)
MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au)
In relation to Martin Baker ejection seats in particular, I think the company gave notice, in around 2018, that it wouldn’t be providing spares support for ‘historical’ seats. As I recall, that caused some complexity for the Sabre operated by Temora Aviation Museum. TAM had spares for the seats in the Meteor (or was it Vampire?). These may have been among the complexities that resulted in it all being eventually moved into 100SQN RAAF. But I have no first-hand knowledge of the details of the circumstances.
As far as I am aware, no passengers were carried in ejection seat fitted aircraft while they were being operated by TAM (assuming the aircraft had the capacity).
As far as I am aware, no passengers were carried in ejection seat fitted aircraft while they were being operated by TAM (assuming the aircraft had the capacity).
Those circumstances were about enthusiasm and cash.
'CLUMP's' MiG-15 (owned by a car dealer) was fraudulently represented as flyable when it really was only a 'museum piece'. The owner & pilots ('Hammo' & 'Ezza') did not know this before the fatal accident.
Canberra Times 22 Jul 1995 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128288929
MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au)
Canberra Times 22 Jul 1995 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128288929
MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au)
https://books.google.com.au/books/ab...AJ&redir_esc=y
The big fellas drop stuff on the suburbs as well up to and including engine pods, most damaging was a 747 shedding two pods then the airframe crashing into a block of apartments resulting in a large death toll, should ALL aircraft be banned from over flying the suburbs on that basis? More to worry about is a motor vehicle parking in your bedroom, happens on a regular basis.Particularly when that command decision produces an outcome of no consequence, I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.
The FAA doesn't think flight of ex-military aircraft over populated areas is a minor issue, far from it, they identify it as the major issue. So why people here think it's ok to drop stuff on populated areas is one of the great mysteries.
Far more light GA types have crashed into houses and suburban areas than any ex military jets. Even airliners, the last aircraft to hit buildings near Essendon was a relatively new Kingair. Maybe we should just ban all aviation over populated areas and let cars and trucks be the only home wrecking vehicles. These arguments are just fear-mongering rubbish. There are far more deaths on the few kms of freeway passing by the airport than occur due to airport operations, maybe you should cry to ban Freeways.
PS This accident most likely was a result of a midair collision, during filming airwork, where the aircraft were already operating in an area remote from populated areas. There is no evidence that these aircraft were not capable of operating safely in day to day normal operations.
The crew were possibly worried about small parts coming off during landing that would pose a threat to other aircraft, in the way of FOD ingestion or tyre damage, not wings and major componants falling off. Therefore any threat to persons on the ground was minimal from falling objects. You'd be more likely to be killed by a tyre coming loose from a truck and hitting you, which actually happened on the ring road nearby not long ago.
PS This accident most likely was a result of a midair collision, during filming airwork, where the aircraft were already operating in an area remote from populated areas. There is no evidence that these aircraft were not capable of operating safely in day to day normal operations.
The crew were possibly worried about small parts coming off during landing that would pose a threat to other aircraft, in the way of FOD ingestion or tyre damage, not wings and major componants falling off. Therefore any threat to persons on the ground was minimal from falling objects. You'd be more likely to be killed by a tyre coming loose from a truck and hitting you, which actually happened on the ring road nearby not long ago.
Last edited by 43Inches; 11th Dec 2023 at 19:36.
So why people here think it's ok to drop stuff on populated areas is one of the great mysteries.
Go back and look at the quote from my previous post, that was "Megan". There are a few others as well if you go further up the thread.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.
The document you posted quotes the S-211 has having a reduced risk as a small aircraft. You're quoting a document that is referring to aircraft like MIG-23's and F-4's with engine driven hydraulic powered flight controls that can not be controlled in the event of an engine failure and that are substantially heavier and more complex and trying to apply it to a light trainer jet with no powered flight controls that was fully controllable.
The AWAL permit index system applies restrictions to warbird aircraft based on their complexity, known history and risk factor. The S211, like the L-39, has no overflight restrictions and more often than not are Permit Index 0 (no limitations). Perhaps you should read up on limited category aircraft in Australia. Your assumption that warbirds have not been regulated here or aren't risk managed is absurd.
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/spo...Relatedcontent
The AWAL permit index system applies restrictions to warbird aircraft based on their complexity, known history and risk factor. The S211, like the L-39, has no overflight restrictions and more often than not are Permit Index 0 (no limitations). Perhaps you should read up on limited category aircraft in Australia. Your assumption that warbirds have not been regulated here or aren't risk managed is absurd.
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/spo...Relatedcontent
The following 3 users liked this post by junior.VH-LFA:
Go back and look at the quote from my previous post, that was "Megan". There are a few others as well if you go further up the thread.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.
I would not even classify the S-211 as a warbird, it's a basic jet trainer. I also want to know what distance you would prevent these jets from flying near a town, or such, the recent F-35 ejection had the aircraft travel 100km from where the pilot left it.
The reason I laugh at these rules is simply they are to stop the average Joe from looking up and seeing something they don't like, and have next to no safety benefit. "OMG a jet just flew over my house" complain, complain, "what if it crashes, OMG OMG". FAA/CASA response, lets just move the flight path so they don't notice it, not that its less likely to spear off that path and still land on your house.... Planes don't crash straight down, they tend to veer off and aim for day cares and hospitals for children.
Last edited by 43Inches; 11th Dec 2023 at 22:08.
There is a big difference between effective accident investigations revealing shortcomings that have led to accidents and pedant civil servents using 'risk management' to cancel everything that has risk. The later is what is occuring in todays world. Any activity has risk, right now the pedants have too much control resulting in major failures in addressing the real risks in aviation. Simple things like the hi viz brigade more worried about the shade of day glo yellow vs focusing on pilots stick and rudder and weather awareness skills. Or those on here that are more worried about the exact content of a mayday vs just flying safely home.