May AAIB Bulletin-DH88 and Hunter Reports

not a pilot or Hunter expert.

But there must be a general principle that if an aircraft manufacturer has chosen to add weight and cost by fitting two of something within the airframe (their roles duplicating each other) , that says something of their opinion on how safe the aircraft is with only one working. If a high performace, privately owned jet like a Hunter is designed to fly with two of anything working correctly, if would seem common sense not to fly if you are well aware that one is already broken. Murphys law clearly states what will happen next.

Having said that, I can only imagine that within the small world of the display pilots, there must be some pressure (even at subliminal level) to get the aircraft up there and please the crowd. I wonder if the same decision to fly would have been made if all else was equal but it was a practice flight rather than an airshow day?

Just my 2 pence

Untimate safety lies only in a padded cell

The trick is to be safe while doing something (rather than by not doing something). Ultimately, there is no good reason for flying vintage aircraft, though pleasure, rememberance and education are among those often cited, none would be a good enough reason in the case of a major accident involving bystander deaths. That’s what we are all afeared of.

Safety is no accident. How do we achieve that? By all involved taking a safe attitude. Pick up FOD; say “is that right?” if the aircraft seems odd to the groundcrew; don’t allow pilots to be pressured; be a safe pilot; be a safe groundcrew person or photographer; help make quality parts; report dangerous flying; praise safe flying; condemn dangerous flying. Everyone has a role to play.

Cheers

Creating that list would involve forty three committees of the CAA which would take so long to organise that the list for the sole representative of some pre WW1 aircraft wouldn’t be completed before the world runs out of avgas?

Moggy

True, I suppose it is how far you can take saftey without it being over the top. At the end of the day I would hope a pilot would not fly an aircraft that is unsafe. That the decision is down to them is hopefully enough.

Tha’ts great, so why do they not have this for classic/historic aircraft. A list of of Cat A,B,C defects and if it can be flown on any of these.

I would guess it is because you’d need a different list for each aircraft type. Creating that list would involve forty three committees of the CAA which would take so long to organise that the list for the sole representative of some pre WW1 aircraft wouldn’t be completed before the world runs out of avgas?

Moggy

[QUOTE=Moondance A UK registered civil airliner has a CAA approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL), which allows the aircraft to despatch with certain, specified, unserviceabilities. If it doesn’t feature in the MEL, (or the Configuration Deviation List – CDL) then the aircraft is going nowhere!
.[/QUOTE]

Thats great, so why do they not have this for classic/historic aircraft. A list of of Cat A,B,C defects and if it can be flown on any of these.

Yes but you do take your car out to Tesco without checking it over, you do short journeys if the tread is a little low on the tyres and the washer bottle has no water. I agree it is very sad that the pilot was so badly injured and I hope that his recovery is going well. Unfortuanatly it is easy to say with hindsight that he should not have flown, but I am sure he did not take a plane into the air that he thought would give him trouble. He felt that one generator running was fine, the AOP seems to say as much in the report.

Err it’s not quite the same is it,300 + mph and several thousand feet in hieght isn’t the same as going forwards or backwards at ground level.The average car driver doesn’t know or understand basic mechanics,not an excuse just laziness,but to compare with a high performance jet!!!!!!!.
I know alot more people are killed in cars but alot more people drive and make alot more journeys with conflicting movements than there are Hunter pilots,plus you can always stop at your petrol station and top up water/tyres oil etc etc,not at 21,000 feet :rolleyes:

(QUOTE=WebPilot)I guess that both airliners and pricey display aircraft like Hunters have to earn their living[/QUOTE]

I don’t think the mention of civil airliners and display aircraft in the same sentence is appropriate. A UK registered civil airliner has a CAA approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL), which allows the aircraft to despatch with certain, specified, unserviceabilities. If it doesn’t feature in the MEL, (or the Configuration Deviation List – CDL) then the aircraft is going nowhere!

Most allowable defects in the MEL have a time limit (Rectification Interval). in which they MUST be fixed, which can vary from a single flight to get the aircraft to a maintenance facility, or up to 120 days for something more trivial and less safety critical.

I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere, but who makes that call. Saftey critical system must be correct and recurrent problems must be addressed, but after how long?

Ultimately it has to be the pilot.

I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere, but who makes that call. Saftey critical system must be correct and recurrent problems must be addressed, but after how long?

You can go so far and say that no aircraft can fly with a defect, you would ground half the airliners in the world.

True enough, but it has to be a judgement call – is something safety critical or not. I guess that both airliners and pricey display aircraft like Hunters have to earn their living so there is pressure to get them in the air but the report does conclude that “safety is compromised if recurrent faults are allowed to persist” which is clearly not a “no fault” judgement.

Indeed you are right, but cars can cause as much damage as planes. I was on the London to Brighton run on Sunday and saw what can happen when one car goes out of control. It can make a lot more mess than any crash I have seen. People get in cars without even checking lights/oil/water I am not saying flying aircraft with fault is correct, but a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is safe and what is not. You can go so far and say that no aircraft can fly with a defect, you would ground half the airliners in the world.

Yes but you do take your car out to Tesco without checking it over, you do short journeys if the tread is a little low on the tyres and the washer bottle has no water. I agree it is very sad that the pilot was so badly injured and I hope that his recovery is going well. Unfortuanatly it is easy to say with hindsight that he should not have flown, but I am sure he did not take a plane into the air that he thought would give him trouble. He felt that one generator running was fine, the AOP seems to say as much in the report.

..but obviously the consequences of the car going u/s mid-journey are generally less severe than an aircraft, especially when the aircraft is a fast jet. That said, the possible consequences of taking chances were well demonstrated this weekend – on Friday our car was MOT’d and while it passed, the only just legal condition of one tyre was pointed out for early replacement. On Saturday, while the other half was bimbling down the A3, the tyre blew out. The car went out of control and span – luckily nothing hit it and there were fortunately no injuries and no damage. But she drives more sedately than I do. Could have been much more nasty.

My view is that taking chances with aircraft, especially unforgiving high performance aircraft, is adding a risk too many. Although the report said there was a history of generator problems, it’s the time when something else crops up that it causes trouble. This time it was lucky, the pilot got out and no-one on the ground was injured, but a valuable aircraft was lost and next time who knows what might happen. The aircraft hits a house, people are injured or killed and then the warbird community has the press making half baked suppositions about dodgy practices and maintainance, the dangers of civilians flying military kit etc etc.

http://www.dasc.mod.uk/Images/Poster-cat-Lg/20031.jpg

Yes but you do take your car out to Tesco without checking it over, you do short journeys if the tread is a little low on the tyres and the washer bottle has no water. I agree it is very sad that the pilot was so badly injured and I hope that his recovery is going well. Unfortuanatly it is easy to say with hindsight that he should not have flown, but I am sure he did not take a plane into the air that he thought would give him trouble. He felt that one generator running was fine, the AOP seems to say as much in the report.

😡 Why oh why are pilots/mechanics taking up aircraft that are NOT 100% fit.It isn’t war,it would,nt had mattered if the aircraft had’nt flown until all the gremlins were cured.
If your car has a problem you don’t plan a major journey,do you 🙁
Maybe i misunderstood it but the problem was there before it [the plane] was taken up.
Now there is an injured pilot and an aircraft lost 🙁