Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Hunter crash

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
In February 2015 the ejection seat manufacturer ceased to provide technical supportor replacement parts for ejection seats fitted to aircraft which no longer operate in theiroriginal military role. Ejection seats installed in civil-operated ex-military aircraft fall intothis category and replacement cartridges manufactured by the original manufacturer are nolonger available. As a result, the ejection seat manufacturer considers that such ejectionseats should be deactivated to prevent the risk of inadvertent operation. This is contrary tothe current CAP 632 requirement for ejection seats in swept-wing aircraft to be operated ina fully operational and armed condition.

Ex-military aircraft are accepted onto the UK civil register on the basis of a satisfactorymilitary safety record. Where the presence of aircrew escape systems, such as ejectionseats, contributed to that safety record, the CAA expects that the aircraft will continueto operate with these systems in a serviceable condition. The CAA has approved thedisarming of ejection seats in some straight-wing ex-military aircraft, where it considersthe aircraft has a landing speed low enough to allow a pilot to make a forced landing.However, based on the higher operating speeds of swept-wing ex-military jet aircraft, theCAA requires these aircraft to operate with serviceable ejection seats to provide a meansof aircrew escape.
Click to expand...

That, to me signals the death knell of Historic fast jet displays.
 
John Lloyd said:
That, to me signals the death knell of Historic fast jet displays.
Click to expand...

Me too, kind of explains why the carts were life ex, but still, I can't believe someone willingly signed off the maintenance on this seat, especially as they were very possibly ex military.
 
Makes you wonder if the Gnat that ploughed in earlier in the year attempted to eject or even if the Folland seat had carts. If MB haven't got or can't / wont make them, what chance finding Folland carts? The South African Lightning seat also failed to operate.
 
Rigga said:
The report says everything from the AAIBs (and CAAs) point of view, in that they expect manuals to be kept up to date and in line with current trends, experiences and regulatory requirements. It seems that they expect Spitfire manuals to be the same (And I would assume that they are, too.)
As a reflection of the Thunder City EE Lightning's findings I find it really quite surprising that this aircraft was as apparently badly maintained as it was, given the publicity if the Lightning and Gnat reports - it points to someone willingly and completely ignoring their own situation for the 'fun' of airshows or, more realistically, the money earned from them. Meaning that those companies that rely on airshow income might be most at risk of cutting safety corners and endangering their hosts and spectators.
As an aside, from the way this report is worded, it will spark off a movement to ban vintage jets from all UK airspace...that would most likely be closely followed by an equally extensive EASA ruling...I hope not , but the words speak for themselves.

Another thing to note that this report is full of the "sideline FIndings" from the investigation and none of this report's items seems to be a cause of the Crash...which is still to be determined.
Click to expand...

Yes mate, it is a side line to the main report. The issue is that the owner / operators do not seem to question the maintenance providers actions too. I would suspect it is "oh they have done this so it must be OK". Not hard to to find who the maintenance provider was. I suspect the AAIB will dig up more unsavoury stuff on the operating side and the CAA will review and amend their regulations, I hope not to the end of vintage and classic jet flying, however it would seem Martin Baker lawyers have already caused that to be the likely outcome.
 
I Look Like Kevin Costner said:
Yes mate, it is a side line to the main report. The issue is that the owner / operators do not seem to question the maintenance providers actions too. I would suspect it is "oh they have done this so it must be OK". Not hard to to find who the maintenance provider was. I suspect the AAIB will dig up more unsavoury stuff on the operating side and the CAA will review and amend their regulations, I hope not to the end of vintage and classic jet flying, however it would seem Martin Baker lawyers have already caused that to be the likely outcome.
Click to expand...

That was my thought too mate, basically they've barely scratched the surface of the investigation and already found some serious deficiencies in the maintenance of the AAES, not a good sign.
 
The idea that owners won't take responsibility should not wash with the CAA - The owners are responsible for the airworthiness for their aircraft and that cannot be 'Subbed out" to anyone. However, the A8-25 (Pt M) guys may have a rough time explaining their actions. The maintenance guys will be guilty of doing what they're told and, of they did notice the (deliberate or not) errors made, not reporting it to the CAA as an MOR.

In the end, the sheer lack of seat spares (or lack of support for seat spares) will dictate the cessation of fast jet flying as happened with Vulcan engines.
As explained in the report, JPs and the like don't land fast enough to warrant keeping their seats armed so they have uncomfortable lumps of iron to sit on. I feel they are likely to survive.
 
Rigga said:
The idea that owners won't take responsibility should not wash with the CAA - The owners are responsible for the airworthiness for their aircraft and that cannot be 'Subbed out" to anyone. However, the A8-25 (Pt M) guys may have a rough time explaining their actions. The maintenance guys will be guilty of doing what they're told and, of they did notice the (deliberate or not) errors made, not reporting it to the CAA as an MOR.
Click to expand...


Without wishing to detract from the debate, believe me, daily, I have to fight to the teeth to make sure that the regs are not broken. The management want to push and compact down, but at what cost. All records are kept for 99 years and my certifying stamp is my responsibility based upon my auths. I see deviations daily but put them right. I am also seeing subbying out as a cost reduction solution. Standby for for more engineering failures. And fcuk the management. My stamp, my name. When it comes to aricraft, if it isn't correct, then no stamp. Simples.
 
Talk Wrench said:
Without wishing to detract from the debate, believe me, daily, I have to fight to the teeth to make sure that the regs are not broken. The management want to push and compact down, but at what cost. All records are kept for 99 years and my certifying stamp is my responsibility based upon my auths. I see deviations daily but put them right. I am also seeing subbying out as a cost reduction solution. Standby for for more engineering failures. And fcuk the management. My stamp, my name. When it comes to aricraft, if it isn't correct, then no stamp. Simples.
Click to expand...

The abiding rule that earns me my income. A legally binding signature, is a legally binding signature. If it is right then it is signed as right, if it is not right then no cert.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/article/32/made

2 years inside an a £5000 fine sort of focuses the morals and principles of the 'Sharp Pencil'.
 
Talk Wrench said:
Without wishing to detract from the debate, believe me, daily, I have to fight to the teeth to make sure that the regs are not broken. The management want to push and compact down, but at what cost. All records are kept for 99 years and my certifying stamp is my responsibility based upon my auths. I see deviations daily but put them right. I am also seeing subbying out as a cost reduction solution. Standby for for more engineering failures. And fcuk the management. My stamp, my name. When it comes to aricraft, if it isn't correct, then no stamp. Simples.
Click to expand...

...And, if we worked in the same company, I'd be the Quality Manager watching what you're doing and supporting your efforts. I make it my business to know, and I do know, what management would like to do and how they would try to do it...in my company I call them in for a 'chat' to put them right. This generally works. But sometimes it can be quite testing!
 
Air shows must adopt new safety measures, says CAA

Air shows must adopt new safety measures, says CAA

Air shows must adopt new safety measures or face cancellation, the Civil Aviation Authority has said.
The UK's aviation regulator said some show organisers had opposed the changes introduced after the Shoreham air disaster that killed 11 people in 2015.
New measures include enhanced risk assessments and tougher checks and training requirements for pilots and display directors. The CAA said "a number of air shows" would not happen unless they complied.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35726583
 
That's fine, unless the CAA adjust their current plans for the introduction of much increased fees, "a number of airshows" will not be going ahead in any case...
 
So the interim report is released and, against expectations, air displays can go ahead - but with the caveat that they must be in the mid-Atlantic or in any area that the public, vehicles, vessels, aircraft or spacecraft might be in view.

Vintage aircraft operators must also now submit plans for and prove their display competence 20 years before the plane is built or the pilot born.

Simples!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top