ex Military Jet Trainers (JP's, L39 etc.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD if you read the whole thread, you may get the gist of what I'm talking about.
Too many people are being killed in historic a/c of all kinds. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I will repeat myself again, What are we going to do about? Sit about and hope nobody notices? We live in a nanny society that likes to tell people what they can and can't do, unless we take the lead in trying to eliminate as many accidents as possible, eventually we may have to give up watching/flying these wonderful machines and only see them in a museum because the powers that be have decided that they are too dangerous. (I don't mean the CAA here, as they do seem to have a fairly sensible approach to most of these types.)
If you don't want that to happen, then lets have a proper discussion about it, rather than the petty mud slinging that seems to fill these boards a lot of the time.
Too many people are being killed in historic a/c of all kinds. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I will repeat myself again, What are we going to do about? Sit about and hope nobody notices? We live in a nanny society that likes to tell people what they can and can't do, unless we take the lead in trying to eliminate as many accidents as possible, eventually we may have to give up watching/flying these wonderful machines and only see them in a museum because the powers that be have decided that they are too dangerous. (I don't mean the CAA here, as they do seem to have a fairly sensible approach to most of these types.)
If you don't want that to happen, then lets have a proper discussion about it, rather than the petty mud slinging that seems to fill these boards a lot of the time.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly,
I do understand that you have concerns, but I don't understand what your latest question has to do with those.
You seem reluctant to elaborate on the thrust behind the question.
So, as far as I can see it there are 3 options:
1. You ring the people who are operating a JP and ask them to resolve your questions as posted on here in:
2. You try to keep this thread going by asking something which as far as I can see has nowt to do with the original question or your concerns.
3. And if neither of those are applicable I think I may have been correct when I wrote, on this thread:
FD
I do understand that you have concerns, but I don't understand what your latest question has to do with those.
You seem reluctant to elaborate on the thrust behind the question.
So, as far as I can see it there are 3 options:
1. You ring the people who are operating a JP and ask them to resolve your questions as posted on here in:
Can anybody tell me what the legal standpoint with JP's that are operated in clubs. i.e buy a membership at £345 and get a "FREE" flight in a JP.
3. And if neither of those are applicable I think I may have been correct when I wrote, on this thread:
SASlowly will only stop a thread when his posting is the last one!
FD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again Slowly,
Havent you finished your MSc dissertation yet??
As FD says, pop over to North Weald one busy Saturday and ASK the operators of ex-mil jets there how THEY operate them.
Much more effective than asking Ppruners, many of whom (apart from Sycamore and Mike Garfield), dont know the first thing about it! And who knows, you may even finish your dissertation before the deadline
TTFN
Z
Havent you finished your MSc dissertation yet??
As FD says, pop over to North Weald one busy Saturday and ASK the operators of ex-mil jets there how THEY operate them.
Much more effective than asking Ppruners, many of whom (apart from Sycamore and Mike Garfield), dont know the first thing about it! And who knows, you may even finish your dissertation before the deadline
TTFN
Z
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being wary that something can 'bite' says to me that a pilot has not reached a sufficient level to be able to control or understand their machine properly. The handling notes and experience of others should allow you to see what the envelope and limitations are. Step outside it and the a/c will 'bite', but it is you who provoked it. If you know the a/c well enough and the issues surrounding it, then hopefully you are less likely to get into trouble because of a handling error…. You shouldn't need to be 'worried' about any a/c you fly.
If I correctly understand SASlowly, his point is that any properly trained and experienced pilot [which he believes is the only sort that should ever fly an ex-military type] will be completely familiar with the aircraft and will be entirely confident in his or her abilities. I don't know anything about jets, but it's well-documented that many high-time combat veterans were killed in Harvards during WWII ("it's just a trainer"). Even Chuck Yeager was recently humbled (see NTSB and AvWeb reports.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Zlin, Yep all finished about 2 weeks ago, not a dissertation though, just a short project of 1500 words.
I have spoken to a few operators, but they are pretty closed about the details. Might have something to do with any extra cost if current thinking is changed. All sections of the industry try to exploit 'grey' areas. I know we do on occasion. I'm in no way whiter than white, but I have my limits. If people have all the facts about something, then they can make an informed judgement. Does Bloggs care about the legal niceties? Of course not, they assume that it is all kosher. We hopefully know a bit better and can ask some more searching questions. One reason that I personally would be very circumspect about taking up some of the more complex historic types, especially anything with an ejection system in it.
I can't see why you shouldn't post about it on this board, even if people might not like the answer, actually change that to ESPECIALLY if people might not like the answer.
MLS, absolutely right. It doesn't matter if you are Lindbergh, Yeager or Niel Armstrong. What we can do is try to minimise the number of accidents. I'm still wary of the R22 but I know as much about the machine and its handling traits as I do about anything else in flying. Does that mean I won't ever have an incident? NO. does it make me less likely to smash one up? Maybe.
Well I think I'll forget about trying to have a serious discussion on here, since some people seem to be unable to get out of the school yard.
These boards are not just about enjoyment, but also education, if anything I or anyone else has written makes somebody think a bit more, then that's ok. But to go down to petty comments........ I notice nobody has said that the accident rate is worrying. Heads in the sand? Or is it acceptable?
I have spoken to a few operators, but they are pretty closed about the details. Might have something to do with any extra cost if current thinking is changed. All sections of the industry try to exploit 'grey' areas. I know we do on occasion. I'm in no way whiter than white, but I have my limits. If people have all the facts about something, then they can make an informed judgement. Does Bloggs care about the legal niceties? Of course not, they assume that it is all kosher. We hopefully know a bit better and can ask some more searching questions. One reason that I personally would be very circumspect about taking up some of the more complex historic types, especially anything with an ejection system in it.
I can't see why you shouldn't post about it on this board, even if people might not like the answer, actually change that to ESPECIALLY if people might not like the answer.
MLS, absolutely right. It doesn't matter if you are Lindbergh, Yeager or Niel Armstrong. What we can do is try to minimise the number of accidents. I'm still wary of the R22 but I know as much about the machine and its handling traits as I do about anything else in flying. Does that mean I won't ever have an incident? NO. does it make me less likely to smash one up? Maybe.
Well I think I'll forget about trying to have a serious discussion on here, since some people seem to be unable to get out of the school yard.
These boards are not just about enjoyment, but also education, if anything I or anyone else has written makes somebody think a bit more, then that's ok. But to go down to petty comments........ I notice nobody has said that the accident rate is worrying. Heads in the sand? Or is it acceptable?
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 5th Dec 2003 at 01:51.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All sections of the industry try to exploit 'grey' areas.
I'm in no way whiter than white, but I have my limits
And while we are on that subject of knowing them, do you ever consider that the reactions that you evoke have something to do with your presentation?
You write:
I have spoken to a few operators, but they are pretty closed about the details
I'm still wary of the R22 but I know as much about the machine and its handling traits as I do about anything else in flying
Well I think I'll forget about trying to have a serious discussion on here
IF you are interested in having a serious debate it pays to be interested in and respect other people's opinions even when they do not concur with your own point of view.
You still have not clarified what your motives are behind the posting:
Can anybody tell me what the legal standpoint with JP's that are operated in clubs. i.e buy a membership at £345 and get a "FREE" flight in a JP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libelous to whom? No specifics are mentioned are they?
The route that is being used is exploiting the fact that you are not paying for a flight in a Permit a/c, but as a member of a club you get a free flight due to your membership. How much clearer does that need to be? Do a google search about JP's and you'll find this very quickly.
This is also done in a similar way in flight instruction, to get around the fact that somewhere hasn't got an AOC. "We'll call it an instructional flight." That is not a particularily clever thing to do.
This is a pretty cynical way around the rules that are in place to protect the public. If Bloggs got killed on his flight, would an insurance company pay out? May be not. Does Bloggs know this? I doubt whether anything done is 'illegal', but it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the regs in anyway.
FD don't start insulting somebody who you don't know. I am very interested in other people's opinions, but not that many have offered any about how things can be made different. I seem to have struck a nerve here for some reason that I can't quite fathom. Do YOU have an opinion about this? If so I would like to hear it. If not then why are you wasting bandwidth?
The route that is being used is exploiting the fact that you are not paying for a flight in a Permit a/c, but as a member of a club you get a free flight due to your membership. How much clearer does that need to be? Do a google search about JP's and you'll find this very quickly.
This is also done in a similar way in flight instruction, to get around the fact that somewhere hasn't got an AOC. "We'll call it an instructional flight." That is not a particularily clever thing to do.
This is a pretty cynical way around the rules that are in place to protect the public. If Bloggs got killed on his flight, would an insurance company pay out? May be not. Does Bloggs know this? I doubt whether anything done is 'illegal', but it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the regs in anyway.
FD don't start insulting somebody who you don't know. I am very interested in other people's opinions, but not that many have offered any about how things can be made different. I seem to have struck a nerve here for some reason that I can't quite fathom. Do YOU have an opinion about this? If so I would like to hear it. If not then why are you wasting bandwidth?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD don't start insulting somebody who you don't know.
I am very interested in other people's opinions, but not that many have offered any about how things can be made different.
Do YOU have an opinion about this? If so I would like to hear it.
Bit rich then to state:
why are you wasting bandwidth
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry FD, but the last thread was not about canvassing any opinions for a project. Pprune is not the place to get any real attributable data as I've posted before. These thoughts came up as I wrote a project about one particular crash. No 1500 word essay could ever come close to exploring any of the points raised here.
I don't want to get into a slagging match, if you want to continue it then either PM or e-mail me.
I don't want to get into a slagging match, if you want to continue it then either PM or e-mail me.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are around 6 accidents a year throughout Europe in ex military a/c, with a total of around 350-400 machines that is a serious problem.
Flying such aircraft is a dangerous occupation, however you try to minimise the risks. Rock climbing without a rope is dangerous. So is climbing Everest, even with a rope. As long as people understand the implications of what they are doing, good luck to them and let's not have any tears when they go west, just a jolly good wake.
It would be interesting to know what the RAF's acceptable attrition rate in training was in the 50s. 6/400 = 1.25% / year. Looks pretty good to me. I bet the RAF accepted a lot more back then.
QDM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I got it wrong, it is closer to 8 per year out of around 400 machines. 2% per year. The main problem is though that the number of these machine is reducing because of crashes, this can make the real figures even worse.
Is there an 'acceptable' figure for crashes? Not for me, but what about others? At what point do we say enough?
Is there an 'acceptable' figure for crashes? Not for me, but what about others? At what point do we say enough?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, I notice you quote no of aircraft on UK register but then include accident figures for aircraft not on the UK register... doesnt that mix up all the stats and make them worthless?
I think you will more than likely find that more than 2% of people who own a vehicle wipe themselves out in car accidents than stacking an aircraft - think you are flogging a dead horse myself.
I think you will more than likely find that more than 2% of people who own a vehicle wipe themselves out in car accidents than stacking an aircraft - think you are flogging a dead horse myself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI JUlian, as I said, stats can be made to mean anything you want. I don't know how many a/c have come onto the register since the different crashes, but in the interest of fairness I assumed that the total number has remained around constant. The finite detail of the numbers however is not really the point, I find them pretty shocking, but that's my opinion.
If 2% of car driver per year killed themselves, then I think the government would be pretty concerned. In WW2 as a bomber command crew, if the shoot down rate went over 2%, then statistically you had no chance of finishing a tour. 75 missions x 2 = 150% chance of being shot down. Its all cumulative, could there concievably be a time where there are no historic a/c left because they've all been involved in accidents?
If 2% of car driver per year killed themselves, then I think the government would be pretty concerned. In WW2 as a bomber command crew, if the shoot down rate went over 2%, then statistically you had no chance of finishing a tour. 75 missions x 2 = 150% chance of being shot down. Its all cumulative, could there concievably be a time where there are no historic a/c left because they've all been involved in accidents?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is your information regarding the number of missions flown on a tour for bomber crew incorrect (it was 25 and went up to 30) but also your grasp of basic statistics is flawed.
A 2% chance of an occurence does not amount to a 150% chance after 75 times.
FD
A 2% chance of an occurence does not amount to a 150% chance after 75 times.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial tour for an RAF crew was 30 missions followed by a 6 month break teaching at an OTU or HCU. Then 20 missions more. After this they could then volunteer for more op's if they wanted.
Many did, brave men.
Chance is cumulative, the loss rate in bomber command was around 5%, this meant that even on the inital tour you had mathematically no real chance of survival. 5 x 30= 150.
This is the accepted way of measuring risk. In a cumulative way. It is not my method, but one that has been used for many years. Could you tell me why this is wrong?
Many did, brave men.
Chance is cumulative, the loss rate in bomber command was around 5%, this meant that even on the inital tour you had mathematically no real chance of survival. 5 x 30= 150.
This is the accepted way of measuring risk. In a cumulative way. It is not my method, but one that has been used for many years. Could you tell me why this is wrong?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaS...
Your stats above (last page) attempt to correlate "being on the UK reg" with "accidents". Ummmm.... never knew a piece of paper was so dangerours.... must do something about it.
I think you'll find most of the accidents occurred whilst the aircraft was flying, or attempting to fly. One tends to measure flying in "hours" or "flights" or something like that.
If you can produce some useful stats about accident rates i.e. accidents per hour (or even flights) then post it. Otherwise please stop drawing meaningless conclusions...
As an example you quote:
Hurricance x on reg y accidents
JP ... " ... "
your "conclusions" only have any validity if the hours / flights flown per annum by the Hurricanes are the same as the JP. In that I am sure they are not, your post was a complete waste of time...
As noted by others, you again seem to keep trying to direct this thread (like your last removed one) in accordance with some agenda only known to you. Makes trying to debate or discuss anything very difficult....
NoD
Your stats above (last page) attempt to correlate "being on the UK reg" with "accidents". Ummmm.... never knew a piece of paper was so dangerours.... must do something about it.
I think you'll find most of the accidents occurred whilst the aircraft was flying, or attempting to fly. One tends to measure flying in "hours" or "flights" or something like that.
If you can produce some useful stats about accident rates i.e. accidents per hour (or even flights) then post it. Otherwise please stop drawing meaningless conclusions...
As an example you quote:
Hurricance x on reg y accidents
JP ... " ... "
your "conclusions" only have any validity if the hours / flights flown per annum by the Hurricanes are the same as the JP. In that I am sure they are not, your post was a complete waste of time...
As noted by others, you again seem to keep trying to direct this thread (like your last removed one) in accordance with some agenda only known to you. Makes trying to debate or discuss anything very difficult....
NoD
Just to be pedantic chaps, RAF bomber crew flew "operations", the USAAC flew "missions".
The heavy bomber crews flew 30 ops. At the very end of the war I understand it was raised to 35 as the risks reduced (slightly) and the Heavy Conversion Units were running down from January 1945 thus the supply of fresh crews was slowly drying up. The chance of dying in RAF Bomber Command between starting flying training and completing a tour of ops was an extremely scary 62%. Yes, a 62% chance of dying, not surviving
The only military service with a higher loss rate was the Kriegsmarine U-Boats with around 70-odd %. The merchant marine on convoy durty was also frighteningly high.
Back to the original subject; the post war RAF had a high loss rate, what the percentages were I don't know. Old military aircraft may have handling "quirks" that will have been designed out of more modern machinery. A proper conversion to type should more or less negate these. However, no aeroplane, no matter how benign, is completely tolerant of errors and all humans regardless of experience and ability WILL make a mistake occasionally. In a low level environment these can be, and often are, fatal. Unfortunately that low level environment is usually in front of a crowd measured in the thousands........
The logic of flying "spirited" displays in aircraft that are 60+ years old, close to the ground, with limited total hours on type is a whole different issue. Personally I think that Shuttleworth and the BoBMF have got it right in the way they display their aircraft.
The heavy bomber crews flew 30 ops. At the very end of the war I understand it was raised to 35 as the risks reduced (slightly) and the Heavy Conversion Units were running down from January 1945 thus the supply of fresh crews was slowly drying up. The chance of dying in RAF Bomber Command between starting flying training and completing a tour of ops was an extremely scary 62%. Yes, a 62% chance of dying, not surviving
The only military service with a higher loss rate was the Kriegsmarine U-Boats with around 70-odd %. The merchant marine on convoy durty was also frighteningly high.Back to the original subject; the post war RAF had a high loss rate, what the percentages were I don't know. Old military aircraft may have handling "quirks" that will have been designed out of more modern machinery. A proper conversion to type should more or less negate these. However, no aeroplane, no matter how benign, is completely tolerant of errors and all humans regardless of experience and ability WILL make a mistake occasionally. In a low level environment these can be, and often are, fatal. Unfortunately that low level environment is usually in front of a crowd measured in the thousands........
The logic of flying "spirited" displays in aircraft that are 60+ years old, close to the ground, with limited total hours on type is a whole different issue. Personally I think that Shuttleworth and the BoBMF have got it right in the way they display their aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD, how would you measure accident rates then? Number of a/c divided by number of accidents. seems fine to me. I haven't got access to the data you require, No. of hours flown per accident is far more meaningful, but I do have to go to work occasionally, so If somebody would like to do a more indepth analysis.....
I can't quite work out why you are looking for a hidden agenda, I've made my position abundantly clear. If you don't like my points, then refute them with EVIDENCE.
How the Shuttleworth collection operate, is in my eyes an example of what we all should aim for with the operation of historics. I don't agree with their policy of test pilots only, simply because that excludeds me!, but they have an excellent record flying some very challenging machines.
The same with the Tiger club. They ensure by their own high standards that it is unlikely that the 'right' of flying their a/c will ever be taken away from them. They have sensible limitations and stick to them. This may be a bit restrictive in some peoples view, but if it allows continued access to these a/c....
CAP 632 is a very good document, if it is adhered to. If it didn't exist, then I doubt there would be an historic jets flying around today.
How many private operators have a thorough Safety Management System (SMS)? Looking for problems before they occur and fixing thm before they become an issue.
I'll go back to the issue of ejection seats.
CAP 632
_Chap 5 para 4
_Ejection Seats
“Where ejection seats are an integral part of the aircrew escape system, as specified in the relevant Pilot’s Notes, Flight or Aircrew Manuals, it is recommended that they be fully serviceable for all flights. It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational.”
A JP being straight wing therefore doesn't HAVE to have a serviceable system.
T3 and T4 have manual canopy, T5 has electric.
CAP 632
Annex E paragraph 2.4.2
_Parachutes
_ “In those jet aircraft where the ejection seat is inhibited, a parachute should still be worn by all occupants of the aircraft.”
This means that in an inert seat a/c you need to do an 'over the side' bail out. Must be at least 2000' to allow for canopy deployment etc.- How likely is it that someone will leave their pride and joy that early? or will they try and get it back?
There has only been one case of a succesful 'over the side' bailout. An F8 Crusader. It is almost impossible to get out of a machine at high speed and at high 'g'. This is why ejection seats were invented, so why are people flying without them?
This does not however take into account the point of being able to succesfully force land a JP due to its fairly forgiving nature and especially it's straight wing.
How likely is somebody to use an ejection seat rather than try to put the a/c down in a field? NoD and others who fly these machines what would YOU do? In what situation would you use the seat? How confident are you that it would lead to a successful outcome.
(I've reread my notes and the figure I gave earlier for successful ejection stats wasn't quite right. In RAF use there was a 92% success rate. In civvy hands it is now a 75% FAILURE rate.)
There is more to a seat than just having up to date cartridges.
1) Are the seats totally inert?
2) Seat to a/c locking sytem. If the seat is inert, why isn't the seat bolted to the a/c?
3) Pilot to Seat locking system
4) Pilot to a/c connections. Oxygen etc.
How is it possible to have up to date cartridges in non U.K a/c with the problems of short shelf life and trying to get new explosives through customs?
How many pilots who fly JP's and the like are aware of these issues? Hopefully all are, but I suspect not.
I can't quite work out why you are looking for a hidden agenda, I've made my position abundantly clear. If you don't like my points, then refute them with EVIDENCE.
How the Shuttleworth collection operate, is in my eyes an example of what we all should aim for with the operation of historics. I don't agree with their policy of test pilots only, simply because that excludeds me!, but they have an excellent record flying some very challenging machines.
The same with the Tiger club. They ensure by their own high standards that it is unlikely that the 'right' of flying their a/c will ever be taken away from them. They have sensible limitations and stick to them. This may be a bit restrictive in some peoples view, but if it allows continued access to these a/c....
CAP 632 is a very good document, if it is adhered to. If it didn't exist, then I doubt there would be an historic jets flying around today.
How many private operators have a thorough Safety Management System (SMS)? Looking for problems before they occur and fixing thm before they become an issue.
I'll go back to the issue of ejection seats.
CAP 632
_Chap 5 para 4
_Ejection Seats
“Where ejection seats are an integral part of the aircrew escape system, as specified in the relevant Pilot’s Notes, Flight or Aircrew Manuals, it is recommended that they be fully serviceable for all flights. It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational.”
A JP being straight wing therefore doesn't HAVE to have a serviceable system.
T3 and T4 have manual canopy, T5 has electric.
CAP 632
Annex E paragraph 2.4.2
_Parachutes
_ “In those jet aircraft where the ejection seat is inhibited, a parachute should still be worn by all occupants of the aircraft.”
This means that in an inert seat a/c you need to do an 'over the side' bail out. Must be at least 2000' to allow for canopy deployment etc.- How likely is it that someone will leave their pride and joy that early? or will they try and get it back?
There has only been one case of a succesful 'over the side' bailout. An F8 Crusader. It is almost impossible to get out of a machine at high speed and at high 'g'. This is why ejection seats were invented, so why are people flying without them?
This does not however take into account the point of being able to succesfully force land a JP due to its fairly forgiving nature and especially it's straight wing.
How likely is somebody to use an ejection seat rather than try to put the a/c down in a field? NoD and others who fly these machines what would YOU do? In what situation would you use the seat? How confident are you that it would lead to a successful outcome.
(I've reread my notes and the figure I gave earlier for successful ejection stats wasn't quite right. In RAF use there was a 92% success rate. In civvy hands it is now a 75% FAILURE rate.)
There is more to a seat than just having up to date cartridges.
1) Are the seats totally inert?
2) Seat to a/c locking sytem. If the seat is inert, why isn't the seat bolted to the a/c?
3) Pilot to Seat locking system
4) Pilot to a/c connections. Oxygen etc.
How is it possible to have up to date cartridges in non U.K a/c with the problems of short shelf life and trying to get new explosives through customs?
How many pilots who fly JP's and the like are aware of these issues? Hopefully all are, but I suspect not.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chance is cumulative, the loss rate in bomber command was around 5%, this meant that even on the inital tour you had mathematically no real chance of survival. 5 x 30= 150.
This is the accepted way of measuring risk. In a cumulative way. It is not my method, but one that has been used for many years. Could you tell me why this is wrong?
This is the accepted way of measuring risk. In a cumulative way. It is not my method, but one that has been used for many years. Could you tell me why this is wrong?
I will explain to you with a simple example how it works.
Mum and Dad are going to make a first baby. What is the chance(risk) that it will be a boy?
Exactly 50% or half.
They had so much fun and decided to have another go at it for number 2.
What is the chance that it will be a boy?
Exactly 50% as number 2 does not 'know' what the outcome was the first time around.
Etc even if they go on to have 50 kiddos the chance for that 50th one will be 50%.
Comprendo?
Now what is the chance that they will only have boys?
The first time around that was 50% or half(1/2) and half(1/2).
The chance that the both are a boy is 1/2 from the first time and 1/2 that it is the second time. That chance is not 1 (or 100%) as per your calculations but 1/2*1/2 = 1/4 or 25%
Cappice?
Hope this helps.
FD
How the Shuttleworth collection operate, is in my eyes an example of what we all should aim for with the operation of historics. I don't agree with their policy of test pilots only, simply because that excludeds me!,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and what's wrong about that? From Rod Dean:
The vast majority are test pilots and I personally don't know of any others. Their policy not mine.
Maybe Aerbedane or Grandad Biggles could clear this one up.
This argument is spurious, As I stated the system of cumulating risk is a standard one when talking about war time ops. By your calculations a bomber crew on their final mission have an enormously reduced chance of being shot down than at the beginning of operations (thanks LowNSlow, A good bit of trivia!) Try telling that to a crew. They had just as much chance of being shot down on the first, second or 50th missions. An experienced crew might have actually had more chance (I've seen a figure of a new crew having 10X the likelyhood of being shot down on their first 15 operations compared to their later missions) but overall it was always an incredibly risky proposition.
TEST PILOTS (WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS)
Maybe Aerbedane or Grandad Biggles could clear this one up.
This argument is spurious, As I stated the system of cumulating risk is a standard one when talking about war time ops. By your calculations a bomber crew on their final mission have an enormously reduced chance of being shot down than at the beginning of operations (thanks LowNSlow, A good bit of trivia!) Try telling that to a crew. They had just as much chance of being shot down on the first, second or 50th missions. An experienced crew might have actually had more chance (I've seen a figure of a new crew having 10X the likelyhood of being shot down on their first 15 operations compared to their later missions) but overall it was always an incredibly risky proposition.