Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

Old 7th Jul 2017, 11:49
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who would offer insurance cover for a Hawker Hunter and at what price? Might get a sensible deal for the USA but cannot see insurers being able to offer an affordable premium for a pilot to to fly in the UK.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2017, 13:00
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bvcu
Will the manufacturer supply seat cartridges now
I understood from what has been written on the web that I saw a fair while back that MB had already stated that it would no longer be supporting or supplying spares or providing replacements for time expired components for ALL of its legacy ejection seats.
dsc810 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2017, 14:24
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 525
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bigpants
Who would offer insurance cover for a Hawker Hunter and at what price? Might get a sensible deal for the USA but cannot see insurers being able to offer an affordable premium for a pilot to to fly in the UK.

Why would it be any worse than before Shoreham?
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2017, 19:52
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigpants
Who would offer insurance cover for a Hawker Hunter and at what price? Might get a sensible deal for the USA but cannot see insurers being able to offer an affordable premium for a pilot to to fly in the UK.
Why ? What`s wrong with the Hawker Hunter, is it some kind of a dangerous aircraft ? The only danger it could ever have posed would have been to the enemy in combat. I think insurers may now only have concerns over who flies it, for what purpose and where.
Chronus is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2017, 23:54
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chronus

Calm down.

I don't believe the a/c could ever have been insured when used against an enemy in combat? Even though this is a rumour network, please let's keep just a modicum of reality about proceedings?

Nor can I be sure the military actually 'insure' their own birds?

Privately owned combat jets used entirely for displays would very likely fall into an entirely different 'new'(ish) category? That someone would HAVE to insure?

How many Lightnings do you see displaying in the UK?

Has that been only because they couldn't find anyone to fly one?
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 08:39
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I doubt any Hunters on the civil register will meet the CAA requirements to be re-issued with a Permit. I doubt any have been stored as per the manuals or any spare engines have been stored correctly either before or after the accident. The cost of a full strip and comprehensive overhaul of the engine by Rolls Royce will be a fortune alone, let alone the cost of an airframe overhaul if you could find a maintenance company wishing to do it and their insurance company covering them to do so.


There are no seat cartridges as any in stock prior to the accident will now be out of date or at least very near to. Unless they can import them from another country but presumably these would be old Martin Baker stock which again would be out of date or if not at least very expensive.


I too am in agreement the only Hunters left flying will be those on a military contract, who are the only ones that have the experience and expertise to service the aircraft correctly and have current pilots.


As for the CAA saying 'This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident' - it did contribute as if the maintenance records had not been fudged and the maintenance companies been honest about it not meeting CAA requirements for a Permit to be renewed it would not have been flying on that day. At the end of the day they have committed fraud by falsely declaring the aircraft meet the CAA requirements when it clearly didn't.
Hebog is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 09:55
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I flew in a 2 seat Hunter, 2003, at Thunder City Cape Town. The company had Buccaneers & Lightning. Are they still flying? If with public pax like me then they will have a SA transport permit. They also did displays.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 10:02
  #888 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Thunder City operation fell below the required standards and led to ZU-BEX crashing at a display, killing the pilot because the escape system failed. If you read the report you will see it's full of the same criticisms as the Shoreham Hunter accident report.
Feathers McGraw is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 10:03
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,736
Received 162 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by Hebog
As for the CAA saying 'This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident' - it did contribute as if the maintenance records had not been fudged and the maintenance companies been honest about it not meeting CAA requirements for a Permit to be renewed it would not have been flying on that day. At the end of the day they have committed fraud by falsely declaring the aircraft meet the CAA requirements when it clearly didn't.
I think you're stretching things a bit, except in the sense that almost every accident investigation could superfluously cite "the aircraft was flying and not on the ground" as a contributing factor.

What airworthiness issues do you consider to have caused or contributed to the accident ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 10:57
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,520
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
RAT 5

As Feathers has mentioned the Thunder City operation had a very very nasty fatal accident a few years back, the report is here:

http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and...ports/8706.pdf

I think saying "the operation fell below the required standards" shows considerable restraint.
wiggy is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 14:52
  #891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: South of the Watford Gap
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dsc810
I understood from what has been written on the web that I saw a fair while back that MB had already stated that it would no longer be supporting or supplying spares or providing replacements for time expired components for ALL of its legacy ejection seats.
I think SES can supply cartridges for most seats:

Ejection Seat Servicing & Ejection Seat Cartridges
XL189 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 16:26
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re Insurance I am ex fastjet (not Hunter), current Airbus ATPL and have owned and flown my own light aeroplane for a few years. Last year I asked my insurers to quote for a Hunter as I thought it would be fun to fly one but they said no thanks. Now that might be down to me but I suspect most underwriters would not be keen to insure anyone to fly one in the UK after Shoreham.

Has anyone else actually sought a quote?
Bigpants is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 22:38
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One suspects that the insurers have finally woken up to the fact that there's something not quite kosher about some of the magnificent men in their flying machines.

Absolutely astonishing that insurance was not offered for a session of ego pumping derring-do. An inflated CV boasting fastjet and little Airbus experience perhaps no longer cuts the mustard. Maybe it never should have.
ratpackgreenslug is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 09:42
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The maintenance companies contributed by stating the aircraft met CAA requirements to fly when it clearing didn't when they signed the compliance statement to the CAA. This basically states that they confirm the aircraft has meet the AAN requirements and all MPDs have been adhered to. This was obviously not the case - had they been honest and said no it doesn't as items are out of date, MPDs have not been complied with etc then the aircraft would not have been flying.
Hebog is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 09:50
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 461
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And a system where 'professional' pilots don't record defects anymore ? This has cropped up in more than one recent accident report , trying to save money which is not safe !
bvcu is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 10:24
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, you could be correct my cv similar to Andy Hill although I had no intention of display flying a Hunter. Neither did I feel comfortable with the idea that an ex mil fast jet could be flown by a PPL on a permit to fly. The HAA might have done better had the CAA given them self administration a few years back. Hindsight etc
Bigpants is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 10:29
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by XL189
I think SES can supply cartridges for most seats:
Their website says that they "supply and replace original ejection seat cartridges, fully tested and certified".

This would seem to depend on their being able to source original, in-date ejection seat cartridges.

That said, someone must still be manufacturing these cartridges for as long as Hunters are being operated on behalf of the MOD.

Interesting that the prohibition on flying civil Hunters was not removed until after significant investment will be required before any of the existing fleet can regain a permit.
Sillert,V.I. is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 10:51
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,736
Received 162 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by Hebog
The maintenance companies contributed by stating the aircraft met CAA requirements to fly when it clearing didn't when they signed the compliance statement to the CAA. This basically states that they confirm the aircraft has meet the AAN requirements and all MPDs have been adhered to. This was obviously not the case - had they been honest and said no it doesn't as items are out of date, MPDs have not been complied with etc then the aircraft would not have been flying.
Yes, that's more or less what you said before.

But the fact that the aircraft was flying out of compliance was not judged by either the CAA or AAIB to have been a cause or contributory factor in the accident, as a number of posters have already pointed out.

Yes, if the Hunter hadn't been flying there would have been no crash, but you could equally make that comment in respect of pretty well every aircraft accident.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 11:53
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Bigpants - I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course. Display aerobatics in a Hunter is quite different from flying say a JP (ok, maybe not THAT FAST) and doing some aerobatics at a safe height, in a safe area. Like everything else in aviation, experience and competence counts.

Your reference to PPLs implies a lower standard of flying skill to a CPL or ATPL. True on qualification maybe but a bit of a generalisation. I believe some of the most be experienced warbird pilots in the UK fly under on a PPL.
Parson is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2017, 13:41
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "airworthiness issues" were not trivial things like burnt-out lamps as you suggest.


There were more fundamental issues discovered regarding maintenance of ageing aircraft. Issues which might not have contributed to this incident, but could have done in the future.
Pozidrive is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.