More from AAIB on Shoreham

Not surprised to see so much chatter in the press re: Shoreham, As for the Cartridge issue, Principle here has always been one of Ronson, First time, Every time, and that’s what governs the expiry dates, That they will or in many cases will not go off when required at much later dates is immaterial to the principle and any responsible operator will not only bin them before there sell by date, but rightly expect to be spit roasted if any accident later happens and can be attributed even in part to that factor.

In this case only the ‘Pilot’ can give witness to what actually happened in those final seconds, and all should wait until that information is made fully available before speculation and hysteria take hold of those just looking for something to dance around the fire too.

However this and similar threads beg another question no one really wants to ask. Yearly we witness the usual toll of older air frames arriving on the ground in an unintended fashion, and each time there is the same ”soul searching” discussions taking place, I say that with tongue in cheek as in the end unless this activity is utterly banned it will keep happening, Those of us that have frequented these forums for years have seen this over and again, Plane comes down and the Lynch mob mounts up rope in hand riding around aimlessly, in there view someone will swing for this and often enough it is the wrong person or more importantly for the wrong reasons.

Returning to the Cartridge matter, The real problem here in my view is in the control of this vital part overall, ‘There is no Civil equivalent of an armourer’. as previously mentioned, and there you have it in one sentence. Until the CAA/FAA or who ever is in overall control ensure that this situation is rectified by placing this aspect under some sort of civil authority rather than the current ad-hoc methods this one will keep surfacing, and as we see time and again blind the public and the industry to the real issues that need to be addressed.

We saw it in SA a few years ago, yet again at Shoreham, None of these incidents was caused by out of date cartridges, but that information was waved high by the uninformed, Yet it was indicative of a much deeper and far more insidious problem in the operation of aircraft particularly complex ex military air frames in private (Public). hands, jet powered or otherwise, That of independent oversight, Yes I accept the CAA in this case has overall oversight of the operation and the operators but not at the day to day level and even the most dedicated operator can and will miss things either by mistake or simply through daily pressures to preform, If the situation was enacted were this all relied on secondary inspection by an independent third party divorced from the operational side of the air frame in all respects a lot of what happens would simply end up with the aircraft unable to fly until compliance was met, A kind of daily PtF endorsement, it’s either right or get your coat and come back when it is sort of thing, Yes it would add to operating costs overall but better that than what we see happen far to often.

In the end as with all accidents the report will reveal the overall ‘Official’ determination of the cause, recommendations will be made and changes enacted. Insurance premiums will soar and air show operators will alter there methods but will this stop another of these horrific incidents, Doubtful it will, not until those involved change the way they look at things drastically, fully accept there responsibilities and alter the way they operate, Acceptable Risk is not something we need to hear if we wish to continue see these aircraft displayed were they belong.

I’m intrigued by the comment that the cartridges are only allowed to be installed for two years, yet their shelf life is six. What happens when they are in the aircraft that shortens their life?

Vibration, g, temperature, humidity, pressure, acoustics; particularly repeated cycling of these.

Two years is a play-it-safe guesstimate by the manufacturer; military operators usually have guidelines that determine a service lifetime once installed.

Some stores-ejection carts have to be discarded a month after installation if not used, due to the above factors. Seat carts presumably fare better, being internal.

Could someone with a more technical understanding than me explain something.
I’m intrigued by the comment that the cartridges are only allowed to be installed for two years, yet their shelf life is six. What happens when they are in the aircraft that shortens their life?

Thanks for that. The CAA point is quite clear. There was no issue with acceptance of the engine as an airworthy unit.

Amazing response to a report that stated the CAA could not confirm the maintenance provider had a legal AMOC to the MPD with them or not. Government department bun fight. The maintenance issues raised do strike a cord mind. Differing manual amendment states for the same marks of aircraft with the same modification states has seen as an issue by the AAIB, not surprised by that.

Hi Bruce: Should have included the link. The statement is very brief:

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-AAIB-special-bulletin/

Thanks for that. The CAA point is quite clear. There was no issue with acceptance of the engine as an airworthy unit.

In a newspaper last week it said he voluntarily attended a police station to give a statement. cannot remember which paper.

According to news reports the pilot has now been questioned so maybe some more light will be shed at some point.

in the light of Martin-Baker’s recent decision to cease supporting legacy seats

It isn’t recent – about 18 minths ago??

Hi Bruce: Should have included the link. The statement is very brief:

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-AAIB-special-bulletin/

Ah, looks like a bit of disagreement between the agencies then.

Do you have a link for the CAA press release please?

Some comparisons have been made with Thunder City at the time of the Lightning accident. This is clearly unfair and suggests only a superficial reading of the report. I see no smoking gun, or damning indictment, so let’s not be too quick to judge.

Bruce

Extract from the CAA’s press release yesterday:

“In relation to the validity of the alternative means of compliance (AMOC) for ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, we have already informed the AAIB that this was in place and was valid at the time of the accident.

Work under the alternative means of compliance was carried out in January 2014 with the next inspection due in January 2016 making the organisation and the aircraft compliant with the Mandatory Permit Directive.”

My use of bold.

No it would not have. However the AAIB have looked at all facets of the maintenance of the airframe with a fine tooth comb as one expects in a air accident (as is their remit). There are things they are concerned about that drove them to raise a special report. The engine inspections overdue or not recorded is more a concern to me than the cartridges. If that had happen to an airline that a range of checks had not been carried out, the frames would have been checked very quickly (and I have seen it happen). If the maintence required to be carried out it is not carried out in the time scales required and no extension / variation applied/granted.. Effective Continued airworthiness management seems to have failed as far as the operator/owner organisation was concerned. AAIB concern..

Agreed, indeed I was using the cartridge issue as an example. The engine is no different, as far as I can see. There is no suggestion that any sort of failure of it, was a cause in the crash. At some point, someone other than the operator/maintenance organisation signed it off as fit to fly.

As has been said, vintage jet operations are going to become even more costly than they already are.

Bruce

Absolutely agree. If nothing else it shines a large spotlight on a relatively small group of individuals. Only distantly related; one of my other hobbies is playing bass guitar. Recently I saw a post on a bass guitar forum noting that there is a decline in the number of bands playing live, a decline in the number of opportunities for bands to play live and an increasing number of older chaps playing bass, with fewer younger people filling the void. I think the notion has been that there will always be rock bands, because there were a lot of them in the ’70s and ’80s. Likewise, playing the bass guitar was seen as something that people will always do. The problem is that increasingly people aren’t going out to see and support local bands and increasingly don’t see the point or purpose of learning the bass guitar! The market now is leaning in favour of lighter instruments and lighter amplifiers to accommodate those guys that ruined their backs lugging heavy equipment into pubs and up three flights of stairs into rehearsal spaces in the ’70s and ’80s. There are still plenty of us playing bass guitar, and still plenty of us playing in bands, but the general consensus is that it is now a more niche pastime than before.

Perhaps a tortured analogy, … … .

You’re right there. 😀

The point is simple.

If the aircraft was carrying parts that were technically not airworthy, it should not have been flying. If it hadn’t been flying, the accident wouldn’t have happened. That is why this report has been released. However, there is clearly some obfuscation here. The parts concerned do not, by my reading of the report have anything to do with the accident. If the aircraft had been fitted with cartridges in calendar life, it would have changed nothing.

No it would not have. However the AAIB have looked at all facets of the maintenance of the airframe with a fine tooth comb as one expects in a air accident (as is their remit). There are things they are concerned about that drove them to raise a special report. The engine inspections overdue or not recorded is more a concern to me than the cartridges. If that had happen to an airline that a range of checks had not been carried out, the frames would have been checked very quickly (and I have seen it happen). If the maintence required to be carried out it is not carried out in the time scales required and no extension / variation applied/granted.. Effective Continued airworthiness management seems to have failed as far as the operator/owner organisation was concerned. AAIB concern..

Its an unfortunate subject and one which the media circus will certainly make a meal of

Absolutely agree. If nothing else it shines a large spotlight on a relatively small group of individuals. Only distantly related; one of my other hobbies is playing bass guitar. Recently I saw a post on a bass guitar forum noting that there is a decline in the number of bands playing live, a decline in the number of opportunities for bands to play live and an increasing number of older chaps playing bass, with fewer younger people filling the void. I think the notion has been that there will always be rock bands, because there were a lot of them in the ’70s and ’80s. Likewise, playing the bass guitar was seen as something that people will always do. The problem is that increasingly people aren’t going out to see and support local bands and increasingly don’t see the point or purpose of learning the bass guitar! The market now is leaning in favour of lighter instruments and lighter amplifiers to accommodate those guys that ruined their backs lugging heavy equipment into pubs and up three flights of stairs into rehearsal spaces in the ’70s and ’80s. There are still plenty of us playing bass guitar, and still plenty of us playing in bands, but the general consensus is that it is now a more niche pastime than before.

Perhaps a tortured analogy, but my point is pretty simple. It seems a fairly core belief that since the WW2, and perhaps peaking in the Cold War era, boys are fascinated with loud, fast aircraft, technology and machinery in general. Teenage boys would want a motorbike or car to work on, and they would know every component in the car, having pulled it to pieces every weekend to replace and repair it. Increasingly this isn’t so, and those that spend their weekends restoring aircraft, running aviation museums, running stalls at airshows and piloting historic aircraft (and discussing the things online) look increasingly elderly. Perhaps because of the UK’s shift away from manufacturing towards the economic sector, people seem to have a less hands-on approach to machinery and technology. If it breaks you dispose of it now, rather than have it in bits on the kitchen table. Schoolboys probably don’t make as many Airfix kits any more, or can differentiate between the RAF fast jets that streak past the classroom windows. They probably don’t draw Eurofighters on the backs of their jotters either. In the current climate it wouldn’t take much to halt the historic fast jet movement for good, as I don’t feel you necessarily have the public in your favour, as they might have been a few decades ago.

The point is simple.

If the aircraft was carrying parts that were technically not airworthy, it should not have been flying. If it hadn’t been flying, the accident wouldn’t have happened. That is why this report has been released. However, there is clearly some obfuscation here. The parts concerned do not, by my reading of the report have anything to do with the accident. If the aircraft had been fitted with cartridges in calendar life, it would have changed nothing.

Military Fire crews are trained in the handling/de-activation/make safe of explosives on cockpits and ejector seats just as they are with the treatment of weapons. I don’t think its something civilian firemen train for.

It was something that certain members of the police force were trained for (maybe still are). It was either part of the
M11 or M25 that was designated as an emergency landing area. So police we trained how to make seats safe.

Military Fire crews are trained in the handling/de-activation/make safe of explosives on cockpits and ejector seats just as they are with the treatment of weapons. I don’t think its something civilian firemen train for.

As for Meddles comment re current display teams the Reds have had a recent incident under differing circumstances with a more modern MB bang seat, and remember they lost a pilot which dropped out of formation (again differing circumstances admittedly) I’m not defending anyone here (having only worked in aviation publishing) but most of the jet warbird owners are small by nature so that maybe would mean the end is nye.

Its an unfortunate subject and one which the media circus will certainly make a meal of

Tim

Not an expert, but have a little experience of MB seats in Hunters, Canberras, Hawk & Meteor, but it does seem that the AIIB have hung their hat on what is easily traceable, i.e. Seat cartridges & waiting for ‘experts’ to neutralise/make safe the seats & canopy explosives. I must admit that I thought fire fighters were taught how to make safe ejection seats without having to wait for some expert to travel from some remote corner of the world…..mind you there is now a proliferation of different types flying in the UK all with subtly different mechanisms, Russian, American, MB, cant think there are many with Folland seat experience, then not to mention the canopy….. Now think about the Vulcan & Canberras, the latter usually with slackish cables behind the seat that set off the canopy &/or the drogue gun….
I can see why the CAA are worried, but the military are of course usually expecting a crash to have an aircraft where the seat has already left the aircraft, very few hit the ground with the seat still on its rails & the gun not fired.
Then there is the safety case which then must reflect the insurance cost & as stated in the report the loss of expertise & no real civvy equivalent of an armourer.
Sad to say this will ground a lot of these aircraft in civilian use, but in the end it is for the safety of the spectator or innocent bystander in this modern legalistic society. As an aside how many of the pilots in these aircraft have the ejection seat training or even the survival training imposed on service fast jet personnel.
Keith

Just like Thunder City’s Lightning then! Between this forum and a couple of others, the tone generally appears to be that of almost endless apologism, and an overarching fear of what the press may or may not state any time there is a new announcement. I remember particularly those that suggested that some of those killed at Shoreham were probably freeloaders, and therefore somehow deserving of their fate. At the same time the notion that the pilot might be to blame was met with hostility.

I personally don’t think the Shoreham crash would have been any ‘better’ had the ejector seat been in full working condition as it seems that the pilot appears to have tried to keep control of the aircraft, and would then have been ejecting at very low level. Ultimately it looks like the Shoreham and Oulton park crashes were the result of pilots running out of luck or talent. There were those that previously commented on the sloppy formation flying of the Gnat display team, including the incident of one of the Gnats losing a lot of altitude quickly whilst displaying at Abingdon a few months prior to the Oulton crash. The Abingdon incident appears to be somewhat forgotten, but I imagine that if one of the Reds, or Blue Angels, had broken formation and lost a lot of altitude over a very short period of time (to the point that spectators imagined a crash was about to unfold) then more rigorous steps would have been taken. I know it sounds harsh, but at the moment all I see is aircraft enthusiasts rushing to protect and cover over some fairly obvious failings within the historic fast jet community. Perhaps smaller organisations shouldn’t be operating historic jets, if the sort of complacency sets in that allows time-expired explosives to be left in ejection seats; there must be a reason Martin Baker don’t wish to support the non-Military operation of their products. Perhaps old jets are just too complex and too reliant on archaic and obsolete technology for even the most inspired enthusiast groups to keep running, regardless of how good their intentions are, or how much theoretical knowledge and workplace discipline they can instill in the hangar. Consider the punishment you would receive in the RAF if you allowed silica gel packets to be ingested into an engine. Furthermore, perhaps the guys flying them are just too old. There is a reason the RAF don’t have old fast jet pilots. The Gnat Display Team looks like something of a retirement gig or weekend dabble for guys that want to make loud noises, and hardly the live it, breathe it, working ethos that the RAF and the Reds crew have. Maybe some age restrictions are required next airshow season.