Fast jets flown by non-military pilots. Is it safe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast jets flown by non-military pilots. Is it safe?
I mean old military jets, we all fly fast jets. 
Just because we fly a fast 7-400 doesn't mean we'd be safe flying a military jet any more than a jet-jockey would be safe flying an airliner.
The recent AAIB Report of the L-39 crash was critical of the instructor. I'm not a fan of **** **** for other reasons but couldn't it happen to anybody? There but for the grace of good and all that?
My questions are -
Is it safe to allow any pilot other than a current military pilot to fly these jets?
The Report says he didn't use the emergency brake when the main brakes failed. But isn't there a danger anyone not flying a type daily might also forget?
There are other criticisms, but isn't there a danger anyone not flying military jets daily might make mistakes? We can all get rusty, but these aircraft are less forgiving.
Should the CAA allow them in private hands?
If they're privately-owned, should the CAA stipulate they can only be flown by current military pilots?
Or only under the supervision of a current military pilot?
The Report suggests Duxford should look at making the safety bank wider so people can't steer round it but that doesn't seem to me to be the answer to a more serious issue.
Link to AAIB Report
Am I being too cautious in my old age?
I have edited this post to remove a name.
Just because we fly a fast 7-400 doesn't mean we'd be safe flying a military jet any more than a jet-jockey would be safe flying an airliner.
The recent AAIB Report of the L-39 crash was critical of the instructor. I'm not a fan of **** **** for other reasons but couldn't it happen to anybody? There but for the grace of good and all that?
My questions are -
Is it safe to allow any pilot other than a current military pilot to fly these jets?
The Report says he didn't use the emergency brake when the main brakes failed. But isn't there a danger anyone not flying a type daily might also forget?
There are other criticisms, but isn't there a danger anyone not flying military jets daily might make mistakes? We can all get rusty, but these aircraft are less forgiving.
Should the CAA allow them in private hands?
If they're privately-owned, should the CAA stipulate they can only be flown by current military pilots?
Or only under the supervision of a current military pilot?
The Report suggests Duxford should look at making the safety bank wider so people can't steer round it but that doesn't seem to me to be the answer to a more serious issue.
Link to AAIB Report
Am I being too cautious in my old age?
I have edited this post to remove a name.
Last edited by PPRuNe Pop; 31st Jul 2003 at 14:19.
Which is not to say, of course, that there are not issues arising from the way military aircraft are operated privately.
It is entirely appropriate for the Regulator to limit these activities for safety issues. For example, if someone wanted to operate and aircraft like a Vulcan or Lightning you would expect sensible restrictions to be in place on the aircraft operation. The key issue being that of the public not being imperriled.
The sophisticated infrastucture that the military pilot enjoys will never be available to the civilian jet pilot. This might impact the pilots behaviour irrespective of his background.
You could also question the right of the middleman to sell ex military hardware as sporting toys - something they were never designed for.
The other interesting issue is measuring the performance of civillian jet pilots as a group. The comprehensive selection and training of the military pilot allows his behaviour to be thoroughly understood. Thus he can be given the best environment possible to complete his task. E.g. delivering munitions to targets as an expression of Government policy.
It seems to me that that monitoring the civvy jet pilots performance is much more difficult. His mission is very basic and simple - to enjoy the performance and handling of the hardware and little more than that. At the moment we can only tell when the system is falling down by the evidence from accidents. Accidents which, I would, suggest, have such basic causes that they might be unknown in todays military. This makes it all the more important to take seriously AAIB reports.
There is a huge difference between the professionally selected, trained, tasked and salaried military pilot and the sporting pilot with a large capital investment in his hobby.
The issues are unlikely to go away.
It is entirely appropriate for the Regulator to limit these activities for safety issues. For example, if someone wanted to operate and aircraft like a Vulcan or Lightning you would expect sensible restrictions to be in place on the aircraft operation. The key issue being that of the public not being imperriled.
The sophisticated infrastucture that the military pilot enjoys will never be available to the civilian jet pilot. This might impact the pilots behaviour irrespective of his background.
You could also question the right of the middleman to sell ex military hardware as sporting toys - something they were never designed for.
The other interesting issue is measuring the performance of civillian jet pilots as a group. The comprehensive selection and training of the military pilot allows his behaviour to be thoroughly understood. Thus he can be given the best environment possible to complete his task. E.g. delivering munitions to targets as an expression of Government policy.
It seems to me that that monitoring the civvy jet pilots performance is much more difficult. His mission is very basic and simple - to enjoy the performance and handling of the hardware and little more than that. At the moment we can only tell when the system is falling down by the evidence from accidents. Accidents which, I would, suggest, have such basic causes that they might be unknown in todays military. This makes it all the more important to take seriously AAIB reports.
There is a huge difference between the professionally selected, trained, tasked and salaried military pilot and the sporting pilot with a large capital investment in his hobby.
The issues are unlikely to go away.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These issues were revisited by the FAA some time ago after an F-86 found a new home in an ice cream parlor in Sacramento California awhile back. The picture was not pretty.
A Letter of Authorization is now required to operate these aircraft, and specific type training is included.
Occasionally, even this is not enough.
A Letter of Authorization is now required to operate these aircraft, and specific type training is included.
Occasionally, even this is not enough.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alty Meter
How will having current fast jet pilots help if they're current but on a different type?
Look at what the AAIB report says:
"The correct procedure following the loss of normal braking is to use the emergency brakes and this emergency procedure is clearly stated in the Flight Manual. The instructor pilot did not use the emergency brake lever nor did he instruct the student pilot to do so.
Instead he applied right rudder to deliberately steer the aircraft off the paved surface towards open ground. When the aircraft was running across the adjacent field, towards the M11, the instructor asked the student to raise the landing gear.
In these actions it appears that the instructor may have reverted to the procedures required when flying the Hawk aircraft, which were more deeply ingrained in him than the L-39 procedures."
BTW, it says somewhere else in the report the gear won't retract on an L39 if there's weight on the nosewheel as a precaution against accidental operation.
The instructor wasn't a serving Hawk pilot or serving on any other military fast jet but even if he was would it have made it better? Maybe worse because he's even more ingrained in emergency procedures of a different type?
Isn't the whole point the commander of any aircraft, instructor or not, should be on top of the type in question especially emergency procedures?
I can't see why an incident like this should be a reason for such a major change as Alty's suggesting. I'd go alontg with more frequent pilot proficiency checks.
The worst thing about things like this is it gives the press and the knockers ammunition to use against aviation. Like some of the papers started rasing questions about Duxford's safety record. If you take into account the types they fly there and the sort of flying they do I think the safety record is bloody good.
Wig wag
I don't think the instructor was a "sporting pilot with a large capital investment in his hobby" he was a professional pilot and ex-RAF Hawks. Just because one pilot 'fails' (AAIB word) to do certain things doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to.
I know it's harsh and there but for the grace of god but you can't get away from the AAIB findings about what happened in this incident.
How will having current fast jet pilots help if they're current but on a different type?
Look at what the AAIB report says:
"The correct procedure following the loss of normal braking is to use the emergency brakes and this emergency procedure is clearly stated in the Flight Manual. The instructor pilot did not use the emergency brake lever nor did he instruct the student pilot to do so.
Instead he applied right rudder to deliberately steer the aircraft off the paved surface towards open ground. When the aircraft was running across the adjacent field, towards the M11, the instructor asked the student to raise the landing gear.
In these actions it appears that the instructor may have reverted to the procedures required when flying the Hawk aircraft, which were more deeply ingrained in him than the L-39 procedures."
BTW, it says somewhere else in the report the gear won't retract on an L39 if there's weight on the nosewheel as a precaution against accidental operation.
The instructor wasn't a serving Hawk pilot or serving on any other military fast jet but even if he was would it have made it better? Maybe worse because he's even more ingrained in emergency procedures of a different type?
Isn't the whole point the commander of any aircraft, instructor or not, should be on top of the type in question especially emergency procedures?
I can't see why an incident like this should be a reason for such a major change as Alty's suggesting. I'd go alontg with more frequent pilot proficiency checks.
The worst thing about things like this is it gives the press and the knockers ammunition to use against aviation. Like some of the papers started rasing questions about Duxford's safety record. If you take into account the types they fly there and the sort of flying they do I think the safety record is bloody good.
Wig wag
I don't think the instructor was a "sporting pilot with a large capital investment in his hobby" he was a professional pilot and ex-RAF Hawks. Just because one pilot 'fails' (AAIB word) to do certain things doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to.
I know it's harsh and there but for the grace of god but you can't get away from the AAIB findings about what happened in this incident.
Last edited by Datcon; 31st Jul 2003 at 02:11.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alty,
Why pick on civvie fast jets? Ok, the instructor may not have been 100% current on type, but he had adequate FJ time that fulfilled the CAA requirements. Why say the CAA ought to restrict who flies/instructs on these aircraft? What criteria would they use? Tell me who is 'current' on an L39 these days in the UK, apart from some ex-Eastern Bloc asylum seekers called Boris! The CAA have very strict guidelines relating to who gets to fly a civvie FJ, and believe me, Johnny Rich Kid with 60hrs on a PA28 aint going to get his mits on something like a Hunter without LOTS of basic FJ training first (normally from ex-mil instructors)
There are 1000s of *uckwits out there flying private aircraft ranging from microlights to large Biz Jets, people who I wouldnt trust my son's Scalextrix set with, but do we call for these idiots to be restricted? No, of course not, because when they have 'accidents', the media doesnt pick up on it as much as the newsworthy 'Fast jet', or 'warbird'.
Getting a bit of a nanny state here......
Forgot to say, that as far as ejection systems go, the CAA insist they are optional on aircraft such as the Jet Provost, L29 etc, but mandatory on Hunter, Gnat, F86. Many Jet Provosts are currently operated quite legally without live ejection seats (To save money??) which is lunacy.
Succesful ejection relies on good training, an appreciation of the risks, and sound knowledge of the seat and its parameters. As was demonstrated in the L39 accident, pulling the handles below the minimum speed for the seat does not guarantee a succesful landing! One has to ask oneself why the 'experienced' ex-military back seater rode it out, yet the relatively inexperienced civvie P/UT perhaps saw the carriageway approaching, pulled the red handles and hoped for the best?
Why pick on civvie fast jets? Ok, the instructor may not have been 100% current on type, but he had adequate FJ time that fulfilled the CAA requirements. Why say the CAA ought to restrict who flies/instructs on these aircraft? What criteria would they use? Tell me who is 'current' on an L39 these days in the UK, apart from some ex-Eastern Bloc asylum seekers called Boris! The CAA have very strict guidelines relating to who gets to fly a civvie FJ, and believe me, Johnny Rich Kid with 60hrs on a PA28 aint going to get his mits on something like a Hunter without LOTS of basic FJ training first (normally from ex-mil instructors)
There are 1000s of *uckwits out there flying private aircraft ranging from microlights to large Biz Jets, people who I wouldnt trust my son's Scalextrix set with, but do we call for these idiots to be restricted? No, of course not, because when they have 'accidents', the media doesnt pick up on it as much as the newsworthy 'Fast jet', or 'warbird'.
Getting a bit of a nanny state here......
Forgot to say, that as far as ejection systems go, the CAA insist they are optional on aircraft such as the Jet Provost, L29 etc, but mandatory on Hunter, Gnat, F86. Many Jet Provosts are currently operated quite legally without live ejection seats (To save money??) which is lunacy.
Succesful ejection relies on good training, an appreciation of the risks, and sound knowledge of the seat and its parameters. As was demonstrated in the L39 accident, pulling the handles below the minimum speed for the seat does not guarantee a succesful landing! One has to ask oneself why the 'experienced' ex-military back seater rode it out, yet the relatively inexperienced civvie P/UT perhaps saw the carriageway approaching, pulled the red handles and hoped for the best?
Last edited by Zlin526; 31st Jul 2003 at 03:23.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodpecker,
Charles Church died attempting to force land his aircraft after a major engine failure. Unfortunately he got it wrong on the day. You seem to infer that he died because he was rich, or because he failed a training course! A PPL was all he needed to fly a Spitfire
I know a pilot who also died trying to land a Spifire after a similar engine failure to CC and he was one of the best handling pilots I ever had the privalege to fly with. He also held a PPL. I'm afraid that a CPL or ATPL does not confer a level of flying ability. Some of the worst handling pilots I have ever flown with have been airline captains.
Some of our most experienced air display pilots have also died in recent years, almost all of them military or ex-military pilots. What does that tell us?
Its all about what happens on the day.....
Charles Church died attempting to force land his aircraft after a major engine failure. Unfortunately he got it wrong on the day. You seem to infer that he died because he was rich, or because he failed a training course! A PPL was all he needed to fly a Spitfire
I know a pilot who also died trying to land a Spifire after a similar engine failure to CC and he was one of the best handling pilots I ever had the privalege to fly with. He also held a PPL. I'm afraid that a CPL or ATPL does not confer a level of flying ability. Some of the worst handling pilots I have ever flown with have been airline captains.
Some of our most experienced air display pilots have also died in recent years, almost all of them military or ex-military pilots. What does that tell us?
Its all about what happens on the day.....
There was that t055er who regularly flew death defying trips down the Severn estuary in a Provost for 'friends' willing to shell out £100. He went under the bridge one day.
Then crashed and died another day.
I am all for civvies flying ex-mil kit. But I think a full blown CAAFU checkride should be mandatory and it should be set at a similar bar to the normal SEP IR. If people are willing to train up to that standard - or already are at it due to experience - then they will pass.
If not. Sorry - not over my house, rich boy.
Cheers
WWW
Then crashed and died another day.
I am all for civvies flying ex-mil kit. But I think a full blown CAAFU checkride should be mandatory and it should be set at a similar bar to the normal SEP IR. If people are willing to train up to that standard - or already are at it due to experience - then they will pass.
If not. Sorry - not over my house, rich boy.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I consider those kind of aircraft flown by low time pilots with limited jet time and flown on a sporadic basis to be DEATH TRAPS.
Even the founder of Atlas Air, along with a reporter from "The Wall Street Journal" died on a sunny day in a L-39. I believe the FAA said it was slightly tail heavy and the canopy had shattered in-flight before they came straight down. Now a shattered canopy should not bring a plane down but who knows what happened up there.
The CEO of Oracle software owns and flies several of these jets. I wonder how much TT, jet time and how often he flies along with other folks who do the same.
Just last Saturday I watch a L-39 take off from the local airport and I wasn't too impressed. The pilot had a helmet on and the Pax was dressed in street clothes without a helmut. he proceeded down the taxi way and was jamming on the brakes, left and right and the nose was swerving. I don't think I'll ask him for a ride.
Even the founder of Atlas Air, along with a reporter from "The Wall Street Journal" died on a sunny day in a L-39. I believe the FAA said it was slightly tail heavy and the canopy had shattered in-flight before they came straight down. Now a shattered canopy should not bring a plane down but who knows what happened up there.
The CEO of Oracle software owns and flies several of these jets. I wonder how much TT, jet time and how often he flies along with other folks who do the same.
Just last Saturday I watch a L-39 take off from the local airport and I wasn't too impressed. The pilot had a helmet on and the Pax was dressed in street clothes without a helmut. he proceeded down the taxi way and was jamming on the brakes, left and right and the nose was swerving. I don't think I'll ask him for a ride.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTO, what an extraordinary statement!
You suggest that non military pilots flying fast jets have less "ego to bring along" . Congratulations! You've been watching Top Gun and must be the first person ever to be taken in by it!
Do you really believe that Professional military pilots are ego - driven, and not consummate Professionals yet civvies wealthy enough to emulate the people they presumably hadn't the skills or character to join are not? What cr@p!
Your knowledge and understanding of both pilots, civvy and military, as well as basic human nature are clearly sadly lacking.
Your moniker is apt. Reject take-off and stay on the ground. It would be better for all of us..
You suggest that non military pilots flying fast jets have less "ego to bring along" . Congratulations! You've been watching Top Gun and must be the first person ever to be taken in by it!
Do you really believe that Professional military pilots are ego - driven, and not consummate Professionals yet civvies wealthy enough to emulate the people they presumably hadn't the skills or character to join are not? What cr@p!
Your knowledge and understanding of both pilots, civvy and military, as well as basic human nature are clearly sadly lacking.
Your moniker is apt. Reject take-off and stay on the ground. It would be better for all of us..
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The instructor Andy Gent was a "non-military pilot".
What does that do to your theory?
When the AAIB report was talked about in Military Aircrew someone said
That says it all.
What does that do to your theory?
When the AAIB report was talked about in Military Aircrew someone said
"It described the instructors actions and then contrasted them against those needed in the type of aircraft he was instructing in, (not the type he had most experience in).
Not using the emergency braking system and trying to retract the undercarriage when it is interlocked so this cannot happen would suggest a few short-comings.
I don't know any of the people involved and have no axe to grind. But if I'm being instructed I expect the instructor to know the aircrafts systems. I expect to be taught them and my knowledge tested.
Yes we all screw up and the AAIB put it all together and publish."
Not using the emergency braking system and trying to retract the undercarriage when it is interlocked so this cannot happen would suggest a few short-comings.
I don't know any of the people involved and have no axe to grind. But if I'm being instructed I expect the instructor to know the aircrafts systems. I expect to be taught them and my knowledge tested.
Yes we all screw up and the AAIB put it all together and publish."
The truth is that the accident rate of privately owned jets in the UK is non too impressive. I think it is only a matter of time before innocents on the ground are harmed and we will see FAA style regulation which was introduced after the Sacremento F86 incident which 411A mentioned.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan W,
If you think privately owned jets have a high accident rate, you should see the figures for gyroplanes/gyrocopters!
Q. "how do you acquire a gyroplane?"
A. "Buy a field and wait"
Seriously though, I dont see the CAA taking many steps to ban them, or change anything about them. Maybe they see it as an acceptable risk, and if people are stoopid enough to fly(crash) them, its their life.......!
.....but then again, judging by the tone of this thread, maybe if all the gyro pilots were ex-military aces, maybe they wouldnt crash so often???
If you think privately owned jets have a high accident rate, you should see the figures for gyroplanes/gyrocopters!
Q. "how do you acquire a gyroplane?"
A. "Buy a field and wait"
Seriously though, I dont see the CAA taking many steps to ban them, or change anything about them. Maybe they see it as an acceptable risk, and if people are stoopid enough to fly(crash) them, its their life.......!
.....but then again, judging by the tone of this thread, maybe if all the gyro pilots were ex-military aces, maybe they wouldnt crash so often???
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the crews experience level and background, if they do not read the book properly then failures will result.
Big plane, small plane, fast plane, slow plane, the results are much the same.
Fly safe.
PS - keep the bang seats. How do you expect a civil pilot to survive something a military pilot would not contemplate?
Big plane, small plane, fast plane, slow plane, the results are much the same.
Fly safe.
PS - keep the bang seats. How do you expect a civil pilot to survive something a military pilot would not contemplate?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang seats are very much the last resort and I am suprised to see that the CAA require them on a Hunter, Gnat, (although the Folland is an excellent seat, but I digress) etc. as rollover/fall out is a quite conventional means of exit. I was lucky and never needed one but a couple of my mates punched out and both had admittedly temporary back injuries. One of them was so overcome with excitement that he had an unusual item on his laundry bill.
Bang seats are a complicated bit of kit that require expert and frequent servicing.
Sorry zlin 5xx/ but the JP is a benign straight wing aircraft that I would much sooner crash land in than most civvy single pistons. with all those knobs to bang your head on.
A sorry tale. I forget the details but many years ago a Lightning pilot lost both engines and his bang seat failed. He managed to dead stick into a field then struck a stone wall at about 30kt., at which point his bang seat (0ft/90kt limit) finally went off and killed him.
Bang seats are a complicated bit of kit that require expert and frequent servicing.
Sorry zlin 5xx/ but the JP is a benign straight wing aircraft that I would much sooner crash land in than most civvy single pistons. with all those knobs to bang your head on.
A sorry tale. I forget the details but many years ago a Lightning pilot lost both engines and his bang seat failed. He managed to dead stick into a field then struck a stone wall at about 30kt., at which point his bang seat (0ft/90kt limit) finally went off and killed him.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In current practice a military fast jet pilot has a risk of dying that should mean it's impossible to get life insurance. And all that is with the backup of a 'near cost not an issue' organisation dedicated to their needs. Most of that risk is however due to the tasks they are given, not the aircraft being difficult to fly.
But do not for one moment suggest that these people have a good idea of risk management - let alone risk minimisation. If these people are the only ones to use these machines then lookout.
If ex military pilots genuinely had no ego then this thread would be half the length. If people could see past the nonsense of listening to characters whose bodies have grown up but whose intellect has locked at about 9 years old, we might get a little further.
There are some fairly sensible rules governing the operation of these aircraft. Only people with money can afford to fly them - grow up and accept that 'Mr Rich Boy' is probably very good at something - that is why he can afford it.
He might just also be a very good pilot. Like it or not high achievers in one field are often high achievers in others. If he is an adequate pilot, the rules will help to protect everyone. I cannot afford the entry ticket - but I can see a lot of sour grapes in this thread from others in the same position. (do not for one moment suggest that all military FJ pillots are exceptional - it is simply not true).
The crux of the issue of ex-military jets (not FJ, let's face it a Lear can blow the doors off a lot of these machines), is they attract attention.
The organisations that support their operation (and remember the rules say there must be an organisation - not just Mr rich boy) need to understand that and make rational decisions. They need to understand the risks and educate the people they are training. Yes, teach them to operate the aircraft, but really educate them. Make them understand that if they try to act like military pilots they will die. That these machines are designed for organisations who accept an attrition rate that would ground any commercial operation. That they have systems that are configured in some very counter intitutive ways because of those organisations.
We are only talking about this incident because the supporting organisation plainly failed to do that.
The 'instructor' did not know the systems of the aircraft he was instructing on well enough to deal with a common enough failure - a situation that will kill you in a C150 or a glider, but one which no instructor should tolerate in him/herself.
The 'pilot' had not been taught enough about the aircraft systems to know what to do and what not to do. I do not know what stage he was at, but it would appear he was depending on his instructors knowledge, a situation which should not occur on any complex type. Being able to pole it around is nothing like enough! His family may well have a very good claim against the organisation and instructor for a basic 'lack of care'.
The organisation had a variety of manuals and although brake failures have occured before on these aircraft they had apparently (because it is not in the AAIB report) not done anything about their aircraft or the people instructing on them.
You might even add in that the CAA licensed the whole thing and apart from ensuring the organisation met the requirements and 'ticking the box' they do not seem to have added much value in terms of oversight.
Does that mean no one should fly these things? Of course not.
But it should be a real wakeup call for anyone who can afford to. Companies are very keen to take the money - what are they really giving back. A flight experience, or real training to operate these aircraft?
But do not for one moment suggest that these people have a good idea of risk management - let alone risk minimisation. If these people are the only ones to use these machines then lookout.
If ex military pilots genuinely had no ego then this thread would be half the length. If people could see past the nonsense of listening to characters whose bodies have grown up but whose intellect has locked at about 9 years old, we might get a little further.
There are some fairly sensible rules governing the operation of these aircraft. Only people with money can afford to fly them - grow up and accept that 'Mr Rich Boy' is probably very good at something - that is why he can afford it.
He might just also be a very good pilot. Like it or not high achievers in one field are often high achievers in others. If he is an adequate pilot, the rules will help to protect everyone. I cannot afford the entry ticket - but I can see a lot of sour grapes in this thread from others in the same position. (do not for one moment suggest that all military FJ pillots are exceptional - it is simply not true).
The crux of the issue of ex-military jets (not FJ, let's face it a Lear can blow the doors off a lot of these machines), is they attract attention.
The organisations that support their operation (and remember the rules say there must be an organisation - not just Mr rich boy) need to understand that and make rational decisions. They need to understand the risks and educate the people they are training. Yes, teach them to operate the aircraft, but really educate them. Make them understand that if they try to act like military pilots they will die. That these machines are designed for organisations who accept an attrition rate that would ground any commercial operation. That they have systems that are configured in some very counter intitutive ways because of those organisations.
We are only talking about this incident because the supporting organisation plainly failed to do that.
The 'instructor' did not know the systems of the aircraft he was instructing on well enough to deal with a common enough failure - a situation that will kill you in a C150 or a glider, but one which no instructor should tolerate in him/herself.
The 'pilot' had not been taught enough about the aircraft systems to know what to do and what not to do. I do not know what stage he was at, but it would appear he was depending on his instructors knowledge, a situation which should not occur on any complex type. Being able to pole it around is nothing like enough! His family may well have a very good claim against the organisation and instructor for a basic 'lack of care'.
The organisation had a variety of manuals and although brake failures have occured before on these aircraft they had apparently (because it is not in the AAIB report) not done anything about their aircraft or the people instructing on them.
You might even add in that the CAA licensed the whole thing and apart from ensuring the organisation met the requirements and 'ticking the box' they do not seem to have added much value in terms of oversight.
Does that mean no one should fly these things? Of course not.
But it should be a real wakeup call for anyone who can afford to. Companies are very keen to take the money - what are they really giving back. A flight experience, or real training to operate these aircraft?
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be an adequate level of experience, a proper structured training course and continuation training to keep any pilot safe when progressing to a new more advanced type, however slow or fast it goes.
Why the big deal about jets? There are single-engine piston aircraft around that are faster than some of the jets already mentioned and also quite a handful to operate. Pilots come out of the training schools having flown twin pistons with low hours and fly the A320/321/330 etc without any problem.
The "only military pilots" view has been around ever since I've been flying and will no doubt continue to flourish. I've known some very able single-seat ex-military pilots who have been nigh on impossible to train in a multi-crew environment, whilst others have taken to it like ducks to water.
I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of different training backgrounds but do think we should be careful not to generalise but treat each individual on his/her merits.
MP
Why the big deal about jets? There are single-engine piston aircraft around that are faster than some of the jets already mentioned and also quite a handful to operate. Pilots come out of the training schools having flown twin pistons with low hours and fly the A320/321/330 etc without any problem.
The "only military pilots" view has been around ever since I've been flying and will no doubt continue to flourish. I've known some very able single-seat ex-military pilots who have been nigh on impossible to train in a multi-crew environment, whilst others have taken to it like ducks to water.
I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of different training backgrounds but do think we should be careful not to generalise but treat each individual on his/her merits.
MP
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currawong's post is bang on the money and Gasax made the same point in part of his post.
According to the AAIB report, Mr Gent (the L39 crash last year) is ex-Hawks.
Does anyone know if Peter Jackson who had the L39 EFATO last week is Military, ex-Military or civvy?
Hats off to Mr Jackson for coping with the emergency and putting the aircraft down safely.
According to the AAIB report, Mr Gent (the L39 crash last year) is ex-Hawks.
Does anyone know if Peter Jackson who had the L39 EFATO last week is Military, ex-Military or civvy?
Hats off to Mr Jackson for coping with the emergency and putting the aircraft down safely.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the same the world over. One gut screws up and it takes a lotta hard work and time to get over the bad publicity.
Looks as if the pilot in the latest incident handled it well but that sort of thing doesn't make a good news story.
Going back to Alty Meter's question.
It don't matter what the pilot's background is if you don't read the books and know your airplane accidents will happen. Fact. The L39 crash last year turned from a minor drama into a crisis as your AAIB investigators show in their report.
Looks as if the pilot in the latest incident handled it well but that sort of thing doesn't make a good news story.
Going back to Alty Meter's question.
It don't matter what the pilot's background is if you don't read the books and know your airplane accidents will happen. Fact. The L39 crash last year turned from a minor drama into a crisis as your AAIB investigators show in their report.