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
ex Military Jet Trainers (JP's, L39 etc.)
This is a new thread about the use of ex-military jet trainers by civilian and especially private pilots.
Are the current standards set by the CAA tough enough? If so why is the accident rate in ex-military a/c so much higher than in 'normal' GA.
Is there enough oversight of inexperienced pilots who buy into syndicates? Apart from instructor overview.
There are virtually no guidelines from the CAA about ejection seats. Is this acceptable? A seat is just part of an ejection system that needs ALL parts to be in working order. If this is true, why is it that when in RAF service the sucessful ejection rate was 75%, but using the same technology this rate has dropped to below 15% in civillian hands?Is this down to maintenance, training in the use and limitations of the seat or a combination of the two?
How do people feel about the onset of EASA, is this going to affect the way these a/c are operated, for instance in Germany, ex-military a/c are not allowed to have functioning ejection seats, could this happen here. (personally I hope not.)
If there are problems with British machines, how serious are the issues with eastern bloc types such as the L29, L39 and Galeb for example. Is it possible to get the seat charges required despite customs not allowing the import of explosives? Should the CAA make a representation to Customs on behalf of the owners of these machines to allow an exemption on seat charges on safety grounds?
In regards to the problems with the previous thread, these have been resolved and this thread is to be used in no other way by myself other than for a discussion about topics I find worrying and by a desire to make sure that we keep a/c like these being flown by ANY pilots who are capable. Any responses will not be used outside of this forum by myself.
Are the current standards set by the CAA tough enough? If so why is the accident rate in ex-military a/c so much higher than in 'normal' GA.
Is there enough oversight of inexperienced pilots who buy into syndicates? Apart from instructor overview.
There are virtually no guidelines from the CAA about ejection seats. Is this acceptable? A seat is just part of an ejection system that needs ALL parts to be in working order. If this is true, why is it that when in RAF service the sucessful ejection rate was 75%, but using the same technology this rate has dropped to below 15% in civillian hands?Is this down to maintenance, training in the use and limitations of the seat or a combination of the two?
How do people feel about the onset of EASA, is this going to affect the way these a/c are operated, for instance in Germany, ex-military a/c are not allowed to have functioning ejection seats, could this happen here. (personally I hope not.)
If there are problems with British machines, how serious are the issues with eastern bloc types such as the L29, L39 and Galeb for example. Is it possible to get the seat charges required despite customs not allowing the import of explosives? Should the CAA make a representation to Customs on behalf of the owners of these machines to allow an exemption on seat charges on safety grounds?
In regards to the problems with the previous thread, these have been resolved and this thread is to be used in no other way by myself other than for a discussion about topics I find worrying and by a desire to make sure that we keep a/c like these being flown by ANY pilots who are capable. Any responses will not be used outside of this forum by myself.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chertsey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex-RAF groundcrew member with a life-long interest in aircraft, I guess there are a multitude of inter-linking causes-and-effects here.
The almost saturation servicing with a large manpower resource in a service environment; availability of relevant spares and POL (no visible cost); constant aircrew training and perhaps more in-depth introduction to type; possibly stretching the boundaries of normal usage of the a/c by air-show performances rather than standard in-service flight envelope.
I recall an accident a couple of years back when one of the 'Vintage Pair' fell down. One comment from a gentleman who used to fly the type was that a certain manouevre early on take-off had probably caused the problem. This was flagged in the service pilots notes, as hard experience had shown it up. Said experience has to be re-learned if the pilots notes are unavailable to the aircraft renovators and current operators.
It would be interesting to compare the accident rate for 'preserved aircraft' (lack of a better term) in UK with that in Canade/USA where the numbers are so much larger but the governing attitude seems to be more relaxed.
None of this is to decry the guys who perform wonders every year bringing historic aircraft to us punters, whether at Old Warden or Fairford. It's just that warnings like 'Careful, she bites', posted by the original operators, can get lost over time.
Long may all the pilots and ground crew flourish, though. Museums are interesting to a point, then you need the sight, sound and smell of the real thing (or very close approximation)flying.
Regards
RonBVR
The almost saturation servicing with a large manpower resource in a service environment; availability of relevant spares and POL (no visible cost); constant aircrew training and perhaps more in-depth introduction to type; possibly stretching the boundaries of normal usage of the a/c by air-show performances rather than standard in-service flight envelope.
I recall an accident a couple of years back when one of the 'Vintage Pair' fell down. One comment from a gentleman who used to fly the type was that a certain manouevre early on take-off had probably caused the problem. This was flagged in the service pilots notes, as hard experience had shown it up. Said experience has to be re-learned if the pilots notes are unavailable to the aircraft renovators and current operators.
It would be interesting to compare the accident rate for 'preserved aircraft' (lack of a better term) in UK with that in Canade/USA where the numbers are so much larger but the governing attitude seems to be more relaxed.
None of this is to decry the guys who perform wonders every year bringing historic aircraft to us punters, whether at Old Warden or Fairford. It's just that warnings like 'Careful, she bites', posted by the original operators, can get lost over time.
Long may all the pilots and ground crew flourish, though. Museums are interesting to a point, then you need the sight, sound and smell of the real thing (or very close approximation)flying.
Regards
RonBVR
I know from "reliable sources" that CAA is concerned about the safety record of ex-mils, which is poor. This is identified primarily as being down to a combination of...
- Maintenance schedules need to be appropriate to civil operation, and it's often difficult to know what should be put together.
- A lot of these aircraft are being flown limited hours, much of which is airshows or associated practice. This is a high-risk operating schedule.
- Source and quality of spares can be an increasing problem.
In addition, there's a general concern over the fact that ex-mils aren't allowed to operate in IMC. The consensus amonst operators is that an aircraft like a Hunter transiting across the country is far safer punching up through cloud in IMC and transiting VFR on-top, than mucking about at 250-400 knots at relatively low level amongst all the GA traffic.
I believe that they are living with it because everybody wants to see these beasts continue to fly, and also because it's perceived that virtually anybody getting into an aircraft in this category is highly experienced, usually ex-military, and therefore well equipped to judge the risks that they are undertaking for themselves - not a view (rightly in my opinion) that CAA takes with CofA aeroplanes.
G
- Maintenance schedules need to be appropriate to civil operation, and it's often difficult to know what should be put together.
- A lot of these aircraft are being flown limited hours, much of which is airshows or associated practice. This is a high-risk operating schedule.
- Source and quality of spares can be an increasing problem.
In addition, there's a general concern over the fact that ex-mils aren't allowed to operate in IMC. The consensus amonst operators is that an aircraft like a Hunter transiting across the country is far safer punching up through cloud in IMC and transiting VFR on-top, than mucking about at 250-400 knots at relatively low level amongst all the GA traffic.
I believe that they are living with it because everybody wants to see these beasts continue to fly, and also because it's perceived that virtually anybody getting into an aircraft in this category is highly experienced, usually ex-military, and therefore well equipped to judge the risks that they are undertaking for themselves - not a view (rightly in my opinion) that CAA takes with CofA aeroplanes.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that perception part of the danger Genghis. In the airshow world, it usually is fairly experienced people flying and since they have to get DA'd then hopefully there is a good check on their competance. But what about in the normal world, where somebody goes out and buys a machine and flys it with much less experience and checking than in the airshow industry.
I definately agree about the IMC issue, this will be even more pertinent when/if the Vulcan 558 project gets off the ground so to speak.
I definately agree about the IMC issue, this will be even more pertinent when/if the Vulcan 558 project gets off the ground so to speak.
In general, the vast majority of accidents that happen to ex-mil fast jets are during airshow (and probably by implication to the most experienced pilots).
I'm not sure about the pilot training requirements for such aircraft - particularly for somebody civil trained, maybe somebody in the room knows and can enlighten us?
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that things can't be improved - in fact I know CAA work quite hard to try and make warbird operation a lot safer than it is at present, I was mostly explaining why CAA aren't panicking about the current position.
G
I'm not sure about the pilot training requirements for such aircraft - particularly for somebody civil trained, maybe somebody in the room knows and can enlighten us?
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that things can't be improved - in fact I know CAA work quite hard to try and make warbird operation a lot safer than it is at present, I was mostly explaining why CAA aren't panicking about the current position.
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most ex-mil jet accidents at shows? I can only think of the L-29 at a South coast show and the Vampire at Biggin. And on the non-show side you have the JP seat incident, the Strikemaster crash oop North, the JP forced landing on the mud flats, the Hunter crash this year, L-39 runway overrun at Duxford, L-39 forced landing near Duxford, etc. Going to check the AAIB in a minute but my perception is there have been more non-show accidents by a substantial margin.
Edit - AAIB results (aircraft crashes or forced landings only) - my memory not so good (though there are several non-fatal incidents involving minor damage that are all non-airshow stuff which I haven't included).
Hunter G-HHUN - airshow
Hunter G-KAXF - airshow transit
L-29 G-MAYA - airshow
Vampire G-DHAV - airshow
Meteor (RAF vintage pair) - airshow
Vampire (RAF vintage pair) - airshow
JP G-BWBS - aeros (non airshow)
JP G-BYED - local flight
JP G-TOMG - pleasure flight
L-39 G-BZVL - training
Strikey G-BXFX - air test
L-39 ? - training? (not on AAIB yet)
Edit - AAIB results (aircraft crashes or forced landings only) - my memory not so good (though there are several non-fatal incidents involving minor damage that are all non-airshow stuff which I haven't included).
Hunter G-HHUN - airshow
Hunter G-KAXF - airshow transit
L-29 G-MAYA - airshow
Vampire G-DHAV - airshow
Meteor (RAF vintage pair) - airshow
Vampire (RAF vintage pair) - airshow
JP G-BWBS - aeros (non airshow)
JP G-BYED - local flight
JP G-TOMG - pleasure flight
L-39 G-BZVL - training
Strikey G-BXFX - air test
L-39 ? - training? (not on AAIB yet)
Last edited by DamienB; 21st Nov 2003 at 23:20.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One fact that brought me up short is that the accident rate for ex-military Permit aircraft is fifty times that of the normal run of civilian machinery. (My publisher came up with this when he was quizzing the CAA on the issue of flight restrictions on Gazelle helicopters - machines with a superb safety record in military service, I should add.)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damien,
Just a little clarification of your stats:
G-HHUN crashed on a non-display day at Dunsfold, hence I dont believe this is a true display-related accident; As I remember it, and without looking at the AAIB report, it occured during a practice flight. Aerobatics yes, but could have been at 30,000ft. I recently attended a seminar (along with 'Say Again Slowly') where it was suggested that the pilot of this aircraft should have ejected, but chose to try and fly the aeroplane back onto the runway. I often wonder if these people ever consider what happens to the aircraft after the pilot leaves? The pilot's life may have been saved, but the burning aircraft may have ended up flying into the high street of the local town??
G-KAXF - Again, this was transitting back to base from a display, therefore in my view, and certainly that of the CAA, it was an A to B flight, straight and level (initially) and not display related.
It's very easy to massage the statistics to make them read how you want them to.
For the anti-display lobby, it may 'appear' that lots of aircraft crash at air displays if you read statistics without detailed knowledge of the actual causes
At the same seminar as I have mentioned, and a recent Military seminar, the L39 which recently force landed in a field near Duxford was described as "taking part in a display". Incorrect information from people who really should know better..
Say Again Slowly,
Do you think that the CAA should restrict pilots who get to fly TBM700s, Malibus, and other high Performance aircraft, as maybe your average PPL can't cope with their High speeds, engine handling and exceptional performance? What about all the PPLs who fly Harvards, an aeroplane that will certainly bite you if pushed in a slow speed turn......
Just a little clarification of your stats:
G-HHUN crashed on a non-display day at Dunsfold, hence I dont believe this is a true display-related accident; As I remember it, and without looking at the AAIB report, it occured during a practice flight. Aerobatics yes, but could have been at 30,000ft. I recently attended a seminar (along with 'Say Again Slowly') where it was suggested that the pilot of this aircraft should have ejected, but chose to try and fly the aeroplane back onto the runway. I often wonder if these people ever consider what happens to the aircraft after the pilot leaves? The pilot's life may have been saved, but the burning aircraft may have ended up flying into the high street of the local town??
G-KAXF - Again, this was transitting back to base from a display, therefore in my view, and certainly that of the CAA, it was an A to B flight, straight and level (initially) and not display related.
It's very easy to massage the statistics to make them read how you want them to.
For the anti-display lobby, it may 'appear' that lots of aircraft crash at air displays if you read statistics without detailed knowledge of the actual causes
At the same seminar as I have mentioned, and a recent Military seminar, the L39 which recently force landed in a field near Duxford was described as "taking part in a display". Incorrect information from people who really should know better..
Say Again Slowly,
Do you think that the CAA should restrict pilots who get to fly TBM700s, Malibus, and other high Performance aircraft, as maybe your average PPL can't cope with their High speeds, engine handling and exceptional performance? What about all the PPLs who fly Harvards, an aeroplane that will certainly bite you if pushed in a slow speed turn......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Zlin,
With respect to TBM's and Malibu's there already has to be a formal type rating, hopefully this helps keep the standard high. I am always worried about inexperienced people in High performance types.
The Harvard can be a very tricky a/c, in the same way an Extra 300 needs to be treated with respect.
Personally I wouldn't be adverse to a system like the Australian's and South African's where ALL types have a formalised type rating system. That may seem a bit silly for people tranfering from a C152 to a C172, but it would be one way of making sure a lot more is covered rather than a perfunctorary check, where im,portant details may be missed.
With respect to TBM's and Malibu's there already has to be a formal type rating, hopefully this helps keep the standard high. I am always worried about inexperienced people in High performance types.
The Harvard can be a very tricky a/c, in the same way an Extra 300 needs to be treated with respect.
Personally I wouldn't be adverse to a system like the Australian's and South African's where ALL types have a formalised type rating system. That may seem a bit silly for people tranfering from a C152 to a C172, but it would be one way of making sure a lot more is covered rather than a perfunctorary check, where im,portant details may be missed.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaS
Does "high performance" count as complexity, in the same way as tailwheel etc.? It does in the States where anything with more than 200hp requires additional training and an instructor sign-off (61.31f) but I'm not sure what happens here - can't find a reference in any of my PPL books.
If it doesn't, then why not? - and if it does, then isn't it a failure in the training system for pilots to be in command of a high-performance aeroplane that is beyond them..?
I am always worried about inexperienced people in High performance types.
If it doesn't, then why not? - and if it does, then isn't it a failure in the training system for pilots to be in command of a high-performance aeroplane that is beyond them..?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say Again Slowly...
I have flown both the Extra 300 and Harvard and the Extra is a pussy compared to the Harvard. Both a real treat to fly, but the Harvard will bite you every time in a slow speed turn.
There is a form of type rating available for civilian ex-mil jets. In essence, it goes something like this:
The current JAA rules state that a type rating is required for turbojet aircraft. As there is currently no type rating available for these aircraft in the UK (as there is for TBM700, Malibu, Boeing 737 etc), the CAA issue a pilot with a Type Rating Exemption. This is not a 'tick in the box' exercise. When an application is made, quite detailed consultation is made between FCL at the Belgrano and with relevant experts in the other operational branches of the CAA about the pilots flying background and suitability to fly the intended aircraft; most of these experts are ex-mil QFIs on various types of fast jets. A training syllabus is proposed by the operator, and accepted by the CAA. Once they are happy with the proposals, a training Exemption is issued, which allows the pilot to undertake training on one nominated type of aircraft with a named instructor. The training Exemption also allows the pilot to fly a single solo exercise.
Once the pilot has flown a solo to the instructor’s satisfaction, then the pilot may apply to the CAA for a full Type Rating Exemption on the strength of the training as previously proposed. This is valid for one year, and is renewable by logbook evidence of satisfactory currency. Conditions can and are imposed where relevant.
In addition to the licensing requirements, ex-mil jet operators are required to operate in accordance with CAP632 and to prepare and submit an Organisational Control Manual (OCM). Once this has been accepted by the CAA as meeting the requirements of CAP632, they are then subject to annual audit. Approvals can and are withdrawn when the requirements are not being met, or where doubt exists about operator’s procedures. Once this happens, the aircraft cannot fly, because the aircraft’s Permit-to- Fly requires compliance with CAP632.
With this in mind, I personally believe that there is satisfactory supervision and safety oversight undertaken by the regulatory bodies. These are civilian aircraft operated by private individuals. Somebody at Big Chief level in the CAA must have taken a long hard policy review of the realities of allowing low hour pilots to fly these aircraft. They must have been happy to allow it then, and to keep allowing it some 10+ years after the start of civilian ex-mil jet flying in the UK. I agree that there are now a large number of ex-mil jet aircraft flying, but the regulatory principals remain the same.
Looking at Damien B's list, I count 10 civilian jet accidents, with 9 fatalities. How many other fatalities have there been in light aircraft and Helicopter types over that same 10 years? LOTS! So as I said in my previous post to your thread about JPs (which has been deleted by the moderators), why single out ex-mil jets? There will always be the small number of pilots who's financial status far outweighs their flying ability, and only fly these aircraft to impress the girlfriend, but hopefully the requirements weed these pilots out right at the start.
Can we look forward to the DVLC restricting 17 year old drivers to cars under 1000cc, and not being allowed to drive Ferraris and Lamborghinis??
Phew.....
P.S.
On the subject of impressing people, I saw a real 'smoothy' type who spent all day walking around Kemble at the open day a few months ago. Wearing a Gro-Bag with loadsa badges, and some G trousers with the hose hanging out of his pocket. All the 'real' ex-mil jet pilots were sniggering in their coffee, 'cos apparently they are too uncomfortable to walk in unless you are posing.
I have flown both the Extra 300 and Harvard and the Extra is a pussy compared to the Harvard. Both a real treat to fly, but the Harvard will bite you every time in a slow speed turn.
There is a form of type rating available for civilian ex-mil jets. In essence, it goes something like this:
The current JAA rules state that a type rating is required for turbojet aircraft. As there is currently no type rating available for these aircraft in the UK (as there is for TBM700, Malibu, Boeing 737 etc), the CAA issue a pilot with a Type Rating Exemption. This is not a 'tick in the box' exercise. When an application is made, quite detailed consultation is made between FCL at the Belgrano and with relevant experts in the other operational branches of the CAA about the pilots flying background and suitability to fly the intended aircraft; most of these experts are ex-mil QFIs on various types of fast jets. A training syllabus is proposed by the operator, and accepted by the CAA. Once they are happy with the proposals, a training Exemption is issued, which allows the pilot to undertake training on one nominated type of aircraft with a named instructor. The training Exemption also allows the pilot to fly a single solo exercise.
Once the pilot has flown a solo to the instructor’s satisfaction, then the pilot may apply to the CAA for a full Type Rating Exemption on the strength of the training as previously proposed. This is valid for one year, and is renewable by logbook evidence of satisfactory currency. Conditions can and are imposed where relevant.
In addition to the licensing requirements, ex-mil jet operators are required to operate in accordance with CAP632 and to prepare and submit an Organisational Control Manual (OCM). Once this has been accepted by the CAA as meeting the requirements of CAP632, they are then subject to annual audit. Approvals can and are withdrawn when the requirements are not being met, or where doubt exists about operator’s procedures. Once this happens, the aircraft cannot fly, because the aircraft’s Permit-to- Fly requires compliance with CAP632.
With this in mind, I personally believe that there is satisfactory supervision and safety oversight undertaken by the regulatory bodies. These are civilian aircraft operated by private individuals. Somebody at Big Chief level in the CAA must have taken a long hard policy review of the realities of allowing low hour pilots to fly these aircraft. They must have been happy to allow it then, and to keep allowing it some 10+ years after the start of civilian ex-mil jet flying in the UK. I agree that there are now a large number of ex-mil jet aircraft flying, but the regulatory principals remain the same.
Looking at Damien B's list, I count 10 civilian jet accidents, with 9 fatalities. How many other fatalities have there been in light aircraft and Helicopter types over that same 10 years? LOTS! So as I said in my previous post to your thread about JPs (which has been deleted by the moderators), why single out ex-mil jets? There will always be the small number of pilots who's financial status far outweighs their flying ability, and only fly these aircraft to impress the girlfriend, but hopefully the requirements weed these pilots out right at the start.
Can we look forward to the DVLC restricting 17 year old drivers to cars under 1000cc, and not being allowed to drive Ferraris and Lamborghinis??
Phew.....
P.S.
On the subject of impressing people, I saw a real 'smoothy' type who spent all day walking around Kemble at the open day a few months ago. Wearing a Gro-Bag with loadsa badges, and some G trousers with the hose hanging out of his pocket. All the 'real' ex-mil jet pilots were sniggering in their coffee, 'cos apparently they are too uncomfortable to walk in unless you are posing.
Last edited by Zlin526; 22nd Nov 2003 at 05:07.
Sas, where do you get the 75%/15% ejection seat figures from?I can`t believe your man fromM_B would be happy. as I think you would find that there has not been a seat failure in the RAF/Navy,or of the Folland seats in the Gnat.By that I mean if the seat has been triggered it has worked/operated. If the seat has been operated outside the Parameters for a Safe ejection( ie pilot alive) then that is a different statistic, and should not cloud the reliability issue.There have also been many successful ejections outside the limits as well.
Also, in the civil accidents, the seats have worked, but in two instances were outside the parameters for different reasons.
A recent accident to a German Alpha-jet in which the crew were killed may lead to a revision by the LBA, if it was true that it had to have de-activated seats, and it had been a surviveable accident.( my speculation, based on brief info. only)
Also, in the civil accidents, the seats have worked, but in two instances were outside the parameters for different reasons.
A recent accident to a German Alpha-jet in which the crew were killed may lead to a revision by the LBA, if it was true that it had to have de-activated seats, and it had been a surviveable accident.( my speculation, based on brief info. only)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sycamore, the figures come directly from the chap at MartinBakers. I can assure you he was not happy about them one little bit.
MB count the seat as one part of an ejection system and a successful ejection can still lead to a fatality from an unrelated problem it is not just a case of the seat firing.
For example, the JP accident at Bradwell in '98 was an example of this. The seat fired and the chute opened, but the pilot was not wearing a life jacket and there was no dinghy. The pilot subsequently drowned. Was this a failure of the ejection system, not really, but as part was missing the end result was dreadful. (especially as it was on Christmas eve)
Zlin,
I have no experience with the Harvard apart from reading and talkong about it. I understand that it has some pretty nasty characteristics. The extra is a lovely machine to fly, but it needs to be handled with respect, especially on T/O and Landing.
If these procedures are so red hot, why are we still having the accidents?
I fly Helis as well as fixed wing and the accident rate on R22's is also pretty scary, but the problems are being addressed and Frank Robinson is making concerted efforts to try and reduce the accident rate.
MB count the seat as one part of an ejection system and a successful ejection can still lead to a fatality from an unrelated problem it is not just a case of the seat firing.
For example, the JP accident at Bradwell in '98 was an example of this. The seat fired and the chute opened, but the pilot was not wearing a life jacket and there was no dinghy. The pilot subsequently drowned. Was this a failure of the ejection system, not really, but as part was missing the end result was dreadful. (especially as it was on Christmas eve)
Zlin,
I have no experience with the Harvard apart from reading and talkong about it. I understand that it has some pretty nasty characteristics. The extra is a lovely machine to fly, but it needs to be handled with respect, especially on T/O and Landing.
If these procedures are so red hot, why are we still having the accidents?
I fly Helis as well as fixed wing and the accident rate on R22's is also pretty scary, but the problems are being addressed and Frank Robinson is making concerted efforts to try and reduce the accident rate.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zlin256 -
The AAIB report says the crash occurred after a display and before rejoining with another Hunter for a run and break to end their respective displays together.
So that would make it an 'airshow transit' as per my list, no?
A quite remarkable accusation to sling at me when I was doing nothing of the sort; indeed I was being particularly harsh on my own recollections of which ex-mil jet incidents were airshow related by erring on the side of including airshow transits and practices under that heading purely because, as Genghis said, participation in display flying implies more experienced pilots.
My feeling had been that more accidents were to be found when looking at flights totally unrelated to airshows (and by implication a little more likely to be flown by less experienced pilots) than when looking at flights related to display flying (and therefore DA holders, more experience, blah blah). Genghis said opposite, I went to check, and by the looks of things it's pretty much 50-50 so we're both wrong!
Does demolishing my own position make me a statistic massager?
G-HHUN crashed on a non-display day at Dunsfold, hence I dont believe this is a true display-related accident
G-KAXF - Again, this was transitting back to base from a display
It's very easy to massage the statistics to make them read how you want them to.
My feeling had been that more accidents were to be found when looking at flights totally unrelated to airshows (and by implication a little more likely to be flown by less experienced pilots) than when looking at flights related to display flying (and therefore DA holders, more experience, blah blah). Genghis said opposite, I went to check, and by the looks of things it's pretty much 50-50 so we're both wrong!
Does demolishing my own position make me a statistic massager?
Some good thoughts on here. Sycamore's points on ejection statistics are very valid. With the exception of the 75%/15% ejection statistics, most of the comparisons on this thread have been between civilian operated ex-military jet aircraft and pure civilian aircraft. We also need to consider a comparison of the statistics between civilian operated ex-military aircraft and the same types when in service. We then need to consider the differences in the two operations. Specifically:
Ejection seats live/inhibited. Pilot background with respect to ejection philosophy.
Aeromedical training for high altitude operation (one that has not caused an incident in an ex-military aircraft yet but has in Learjets!).
Minimum runway lengths for take-off and landing and stopping aids (arrester barriers). I believe that this is a major issue.
The carrying of unserviceabilities.
Modus operandi. Is a pilot tempted to low fly because his aircraft type did in service, and it is legal, even though he may have little experience of that environment?
IMC flight (already mentioned).
250 KIAS speed restriction below 10,000 ft if not in receipt of a radar service.
I am sure that I will think of more items and I will then edit this post accordingly. What we have here is the basis for a major symposium, and I have not touched on engineering aspects (quite deliberately as that is not my field). These problems are not insurmountable and are certainly not just related to pilot experience. We continuously go through soul searching in the display world, where some of the issues are similar to those here. If we keep dialogue such as this going, hopefully it will help in the jet world.
Keep 'em flying.
L
Ejection seats live/inhibited. Pilot background with respect to ejection philosophy.
Aeromedical training for high altitude operation (one that has not caused an incident in an ex-military aircraft yet but has in Learjets!).
Minimum runway lengths for take-off and landing and stopping aids (arrester barriers). I believe that this is a major issue.
The carrying of unserviceabilities.
Modus operandi. Is a pilot tempted to low fly because his aircraft type did in service, and it is legal, even though he may have little experience of that environment?
IMC flight (already mentioned).
250 KIAS speed restriction below 10,000 ft if not in receipt of a radar service.
I am sure that I will think of more items and I will then edit this post accordingly. What we have here is the basis for a major symposium, and I have not touched on engineering aspects (quite deliberately as that is not my field). These problems are not insurmountable and are certainly not just related to pilot experience. We continuously go through soul searching in the display world, where some of the issues are similar to those here. If we keep dialogue such as this going, hopefully it will help in the jet world.
Keep 'em flying.
L
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damien,
I dont want to get into the details of this for obvious reasons, or into a slanging match but the crash of G-HHUN happened at Dunsfold on the Friday. I know because my own involvement at Dunsfold was cancelled because of it! It was a display PRACTICE, and not an actual display...therefore it doesn't make it a display accident in my view. The accident cause was not related to an air display flight, the aircraft caught fire whilst practicing, and the pilot tried unsuccesfully to land back on at Dunsfold with obvious consequences. I have done quite a bit of research into this and other accidents at Air Displays, using the CAA/SIDD stats.
And G-KAXF. My apologies you are indeed correct. I was getting confused with the recent Hunter accident in Wales, which was certainly not a display related accident in any way, shape or form..
On a related subject, and FYI, as far as display related accidents in the UK go, the vast majority are to experienced pilots, often with lots of hours on type, and quite often with a military flying background.
I dont want to get into the details of this for obvious reasons, or into a slanging match but the crash of G-HHUN happened at Dunsfold on the Friday. I know because my own involvement at Dunsfold was cancelled because of it! It was a display PRACTICE, and not an actual display...therefore it doesn't make it a display accident in my view. The accident cause was not related to an air display flight, the aircraft caught fire whilst practicing, and the pilot tried unsuccesfully to land back on at Dunsfold with obvious consequences. I have done quite a bit of research into this and other accidents at Air Displays, using the CAA/SIDD stats.
And G-KAXF. My apologies you are indeed correct. I was getting confused with the recent Hunter accident in Wales, which was certainly not a display related accident in any way, shape or form..
On a related subject, and FYI, as far as display related accidents in the UK go, the vast majority are to experienced pilots, often with lots of hours on type, and quite often with a military flying background.
Engineering issues
Engineering issues are an interesting problem, and worth mentioning.
Let's take a hypothetical case, and say that next week the RAF will decide to retire the entire Hawk fleet within 6 months.
So, straightaway it'll probably do two things, firstly it'll cancel all spares contracts that take it past May, secondly it'll cancel all maintenance actions which don't become critical past May. This is only sensible, after all why should it pay to retire aircraft in condition to be used after it's last flight.
So, these Hawks get put up for disposal at auction, and I go along and buy myself one for whatever the going rate turns out to be. Presumably the RAF will have already removed the weapons systems so I don't need to worry about that.
I'm going to disregard the legalities for the moment, and just think in terms of pure technical problems. (That way, the whole thing looks just difficult rather than almost impossible).
- Firstly although inevitably some spares will be available (they never run out at the same rate) there are bound to be some parts I can't get. Let's say the RAF used it's last set of mainwheel brake-sets the day before retiring the fleet. So where do I get them, well I can go to BAe or their subcontractors but they are probably now busy tooling up to make bit for Eurofighter, Hawk replacement, etc.
- So, I then need to find somebody sufficiently competent to make these bits, get hold of the data out of BAe, get them authorised by the CAA to manufacture spares - and that should solve that problem. (Alternatively I can buy two, and keep robbing one to keep the other going - easier but probably no cheaper and a strategy with a fixed life.)
- Next problem, the maintenance practices and schedules are all written around people holding military qualifications, with no direct equivalence in civil licenses. So, I need to re-write all of that aspect of who-may-do-what, to show who is qualified to do each maintenance task on the aircraft.
- Oh yes, and almost certainly some bits life expired the day I bought the aircraft, so having dealt with who may do what, I can get some of these folks on bringing the aircraft into currency.
- Now another problem, the maintenance schedule for the Hawk was probably written around the assumption of each airframe flying about 400 hours per year; nothing wrong with this, since the RAF expects to get the maximum use out of it's expensive assets. However, the odds are that I'll only be able to fly the aircraft for about 40 hours a year tops. Is this a problem - yep. Lets say there's a series of hydraulic seals in the undercarriage which BAe decided should be replaced every 100 hours or 6 months. Now, they knew the aircraft would fly 400 hours per year, so they only listed the 100 hours interval - but at 40 hrs per year that's 2½ years, and they'll probably fail long before that. So, I've got to go through the entire set of maintenance schedules, re-writing the lot in terms of the utilisation rates that I'm expecting to get out of the aircraft.
- Now I need to ensure that I've a complete set of the specialist tools needed to maintain the aircraft.
- Armed with this lot, I can start to get my groundcrew doing the numerous jobs deferred by the RAF, so that I've then got some hours on the airframe.
So, now armed with procedures for obtaining acceptable spares, a complete set of tools, alternative qualifications for my ground crew (oh yes, and trained them on type) and re-written all of the maintenance manuals, plus put some hours back into the airframe I'm in a position to go to the CAA and start talking about actually letting somebody fly it.
It's a credit to those involved that these machines fly it at-all. I've no doubt that the aircrew are fully aware of this, but perhaps a shame that the general airshow-going public isn't even faintly aware of the huge efforts that are behind allowing them to watch somebody display a Hunter on a Sunday in August !
G
Let's take a hypothetical case, and say that next week the RAF will decide to retire the entire Hawk fleet within 6 months.
So, straightaway it'll probably do two things, firstly it'll cancel all spares contracts that take it past May, secondly it'll cancel all maintenance actions which don't become critical past May. This is only sensible, after all why should it pay to retire aircraft in condition to be used after it's last flight.
So, these Hawks get put up for disposal at auction, and I go along and buy myself one for whatever the going rate turns out to be. Presumably the RAF will have already removed the weapons systems so I don't need to worry about that.
I'm going to disregard the legalities for the moment, and just think in terms of pure technical problems. (That way, the whole thing looks just difficult rather than almost impossible).
- Firstly although inevitably some spares will be available (they never run out at the same rate) there are bound to be some parts I can't get. Let's say the RAF used it's last set of mainwheel brake-sets the day before retiring the fleet. So where do I get them, well I can go to BAe or their subcontractors but they are probably now busy tooling up to make bit for Eurofighter, Hawk replacement, etc.
- So, I then need to find somebody sufficiently competent to make these bits, get hold of the data out of BAe, get them authorised by the CAA to manufacture spares - and that should solve that problem. (Alternatively I can buy two, and keep robbing one to keep the other going - easier but probably no cheaper and a strategy with a fixed life.)
- Next problem, the maintenance practices and schedules are all written around people holding military qualifications, with no direct equivalence in civil licenses. So, I need to re-write all of that aspect of who-may-do-what, to show who is qualified to do each maintenance task on the aircraft.
- Oh yes, and almost certainly some bits life expired the day I bought the aircraft, so having dealt with who may do what, I can get some of these folks on bringing the aircraft into currency.
- Now another problem, the maintenance schedule for the Hawk was probably written around the assumption of each airframe flying about 400 hours per year; nothing wrong with this, since the RAF expects to get the maximum use out of it's expensive assets. However, the odds are that I'll only be able to fly the aircraft for about 40 hours a year tops. Is this a problem - yep. Lets say there's a series of hydraulic seals in the undercarriage which BAe decided should be replaced every 100 hours or 6 months. Now, they knew the aircraft would fly 400 hours per year, so they only listed the 100 hours interval - but at 40 hrs per year that's 2½ years, and they'll probably fail long before that. So, I've got to go through the entire set of maintenance schedules, re-writing the lot in terms of the utilisation rates that I'm expecting to get out of the aircraft.
- Now I need to ensure that I've a complete set of the specialist tools needed to maintain the aircraft.
- Armed with this lot, I can start to get my groundcrew doing the numerous jobs deferred by the RAF, so that I've then got some hours on the airframe.
So, now armed with procedures for obtaining acceptable spares, a complete set of tools, alternative qualifications for my ground crew (oh yes, and trained them on type) and re-written all of the maintenance manuals, plus put some hours back into the airframe I'm in a position to go to the CAA and start talking about actually letting somebody fly it.
It's a credit to those involved that these machines fly it at-all. I've no doubt that the aircrew are fully aware of this, but perhaps a shame that the general airshow-going public isn't even faintly aware of the huge efforts that are behind allowing them to watch somebody display a Hunter on a Sunday in August !
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think LOMCEVAK's point about pilot background in relation to ejection seats is a very valid one.
Sometimes they are seen almost to be a get out of jail free card. This is not always the case, they have their limitations like any device, but are people aware of it enough when in a time of high stress? The envelope of use for any seat is not very flexible since there must be a finite amount of time from pulling the handles to being under a fully deployed canopy.
I don't think ANY of the seats in civilian hands are zero/zero.
The point about some way of arresting a/c, particularily at Duxford is also pertinent, nobody wants a repeat of the M11 over run.
I would hate to see a blanket ban put on the use of any a/c, a similar example of this was the DVLC putting a limit of 33hp on all new motorcycle riders under the age of 21 with less than two years experience. This has lead to all sorts of problems, usually in the understanding of who can do what and when. The numbers of new bikers around the ages of 17-21 has dropped dramatically, without changing the fatality statistics. Not everything that was imposed was bad however, epecially in that you now have to do your test on a relatively powerful machine to prove you can handle it.
This may point the way for how in the future we handle the issue of allowing people to fly high performance types of ANY kind. Have an examiner on each type (ex-mil or whatever) who can make the decision about if a pilot is safe, rather than the committe based, rather complex system we have today.
Zlin, does the prospective pilot undergo any sort of interview to test suitability. Your example of the chap walking about in a G suit all day is exactly the type of person I'd think was maybe a bit unsuitable.
I was on a safety course for Robinson Heli's a while ago. At the beginning the instructor asked for our backgrounds and experience, he then categorised how 'risky' he felt we were. An interesting excercise, I was a bit worried to find out that I was high risk; relatively high time fixed wing, young and a biker to boot. By the end of the 3 days though he had modified his impression slightly and whilst I was still 'risky' he felt happier because of my temperament. Compare this to another in the group who he said would definately kill himself in a heli, a few months later, this individual bent a machine pretty badly, but on paper this chap was very experienced, all the right 'ticks', but had an ego the size of a small country.
The problem is though is that is easy to be wise in hindsight. Accidents will always occur, we just need to find a way of minimising them, without imposing draconian measures. A pretty tough task.
Engineering is a massive part of the of the operation any type of aircraft, but especially with the ex-mil machines. I think how it could be done for all types in the future has been shown with a company like De Havilland Support who have taken over all the responsibility for De Havilland types from BAe. This gives the CAA a reference point and owners some proper backup even if a manufacturer isn't interested themselves. (Concorde being a prime example unfortunately
)
Sometimes they are seen almost to be a get out of jail free card. This is not always the case, they have their limitations like any device, but are people aware of it enough when in a time of high stress? The envelope of use for any seat is not very flexible since there must be a finite amount of time from pulling the handles to being under a fully deployed canopy.
I don't think ANY of the seats in civilian hands are zero/zero.
The point about some way of arresting a/c, particularily at Duxford is also pertinent, nobody wants a repeat of the M11 over run.
I would hate to see a blanket ban put on the use of any a/c, a similar example of this was the DVLC putting a limit of 33hp on all new motorcycle riders under the age of 21 with less than two years experience. This has lead to all sorts of problems, usually in the understanding of who can do what and when. The numbers of new bikers around the ages of 17-21 has dropped dramatically, without changing the fatality statistics. Not everything that was imposed was bad however, epecially in that you now have to do your test on a relatively powerful machine to prove you can handle it.
This may point the way for how in the future we handle the issue of allowing people to fly high performance types of ANY kind. Have an examiner on each type (ex-mil or whatever) who can make the decision about if a pilot is safe, rather than the committe based, rather complex system we have today.
Zlin, does the prospective pilot undergo any sort of interview to test suitability. Your example of the chap walking about in a G suit all day is exactly the type of person I'd think was maybe a bit unsuitable.
I was on a safety course for Robinson Heli's a while ago. At the beginning the instructor asked for our backgrounds and experience, he then categorised how 'risky' he felt we were. An interesting excercise, I was a bit worried to find out that I was high risk; relatively high time fixed wing, young and a biker to boot. By the end of the 3 days though he had modified his impression slightly and whilst I was still 'risky' he felt happier because of my temperament. Compare this to another in the group who he said would definately kill himself in a heli, a few months later, this individual bent a machine pretty badly, but on paper this chap was very experienced, all the right 'ticks', but had an ego the size of a small country.
The problem is though is that is easy to be wise in hindsight. Accidents will always occur, we just need to find a way of minimising them, without imposing draconian measures. A pretty tough task.Engineering is a massive part of the of the operation any type of aircraft, but especially with the ex-mil machines. I think how it could be done for all types in the future has been shown with a company like De Havilland Support who have taken over all the responsibility for De Havilland types from BAe. This gives the CAA a reference point and owners some proper backup even if a manufacturer isn't interested themselves. (Concorde being a prime example unfortunately
)
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 22nd Nov 2003 at 22:45.
Since the controversy is about the safety implications of such aircraft being flown by privately trained civilians as opposed to experienced military trained pilots. Should we consider how many of these accidents do actually involve inexperienced civilians?
My understanding is that many, such as the Vampire at Biggin Hill and the L29 off the south coast, involved highly experienced ex military pilots.
My understanding is that many, such as the Vampire at Biggin Hill and the L29 off the south coast, involved highly experienced ex military pilots.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's gone very quiet........
Say Again Slowly,
The actual point i was making is that any form of flying attracts different individuals. How 'individual' they are sometimes manifests itself as the example I used. For all I know he was a superb pair of hands, but just wanted everybody to know it..I remember when I was learning to fly a guy at the nextdoor flying club used to wear the full kit, Gro-bag, pristine white leather gloves and flying boots.......to fly a Cessna 150. Did that mean he was a bad pilot?
As far as interviews go, I'm not sure it happens. But then again where do we draw the line. Some of the most experienced airline pilots I know, I wouldnt let loose with an Airfix model!
England needs individuals!
Say Again Slowly,
does the prospective pilot undergo any sort of interview to test suitability. Your example of the chap walking about in a G suit all day is exactly the type of person I'd think was maybe a bit unsuitable.
As far as interviews go, I'm not sure it happens. But then again where do we draw the line. Some of the most experienced airline pilots I know, I wouldnt let loose with an Airfix model!
England needs individuals!