CAA tinkers with display rules in interim publication.

I’d say that four losses (three of them involving fatalities and the other a serious, career-ending injury) in relation to the number of Hunters operational under CAA jurisdiction at any one time constitutes a statistically poor safety record.

How many Hunter losses have been proved to be due to pilot error, and how many to mechanical failure ?

How do these losses compare to those when it was flown by the RAF or FAA ?

(Not including the time when six were lost in one day)

But under CAA control, there are few David, and you cannot factor in accidents in the USA as they are being operated under a totally different set of rules and standards, so have no bearing on UK operations.

Not strictly true . Any losses in the USA or elsewhere can have a direct effect on U.K operations and the CAA. For instance if there was an engine failure in a previously unknown component I don’t think for one minute the FAA would hold back from notifying the CAA.

Yes David, but then again it depends on maintenance standards etc, an example is the Lycoming O-235 piston engine in France have had a series of cylinder failures that have only happened in France, there is / was an AD out that covers French engines only And although we were all made aware of it, UK engines were not involved.you will find thousands of ADs issued in countries that are not required in others.

The rule is ADs from the country of manufacture and those from yours are mandatory. When EASA was born, the U.K. Abandoned hundreds of CAA ADs as the standard was dumbed down to a common European standard, which was probably the lowest countries standard, as it is easier to dumb it down than to bring every other country up.

Remember it’s only the UK that has grounded the Hunter, the CAA would have made the FAA aware of the incident and as far as I am aware they have not been grounded.

But under CAA control, there are few David, and you cannot factor in accidents in the USA as they are being operated under a totally different set of rules and standards, so have no bearing on UK operations.

Not strictly true . Any losses in the USA or elsewhere can have a direct effect on U.K operations and the CAA. For instance if there was an engine failure in a previously unknown component I don’t think for one minute the FAA would hold back from notifying the CAA.

The text I was referring to is:
“In February 2015 the ejection seat manufacturer ceased to provide technical support
or replacement parts for ejection seats fitted to aircraft which no longer operate in their
original military role. Ejection seats installed in civil-operated ex-military aircraft fall into
this category and replacement cartridges manufactured by the original manufacturer are no
longer available. As a result, the ejection seat manufacturer considers that such ejection
seats should be deactivated to prevent the risk of inadvertent operation. This is contrary to
the current CAP 632 requirement for ejection seats in swept-wing aircraft to be operated in
a fully operational and armed condition.”

I’d say that four losses (three of them involving fatalities and the other a serious, career-ending injury) in relation to the number of Hunters operational under CAA jurisdiction at any one time constitutes a statistically poor safety record.

‘I didn’t think the Hunter had a poor safety history in civilian hands David’

G-BTYL T7 Crashed June 93 Peak District

http://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/pages/peakdistrict/peakdistrictG-BTYL.htm

But under CAA control, there are few David, and you cannot factor in accidents in the USA as they are being operated under a totally different set of rules and standards, so have no bearing on UK operations.

…the OEM/design authority has withdrawn support for the seats and no longer supplies cartridges. So technically either the CAA certifies the fitted cartridges longer or every aircraft using that type of seat is grounded by virtue of being unable to operate a live seat with fully compliant servicing..

http://www.ses-safety.com/Ejection-Seats.html

‘I didn’t think the Hunter had a poor safety history in civilian hands David’

From memory losses include F.4 G-HHUN – Wallace Cubitt in the T.7 -the Shoreham example and the F.6A in Wales. Add to that U.S losses and the accident rate is high for a machine that flies comparatively few hours.

The AAIB will report once they’ve got as much of a picture as they can about what happened.

For me the seat question is an interesting one, if I understand it correctly the CAA require the seats to be live however the OEM/design authority has withdrawn support for the seats and no longer supplies cartridges. So technically either the CAA certifies the fitted cartridges longer or every aircraft using that type of seat is grounded by virtue of being unable to operate a live seat with fully compliant servicing.

In trying to think of other jets of this sort of size and vintage only the Canberra springs to mind which I’m guessing the sole flightworthy PR9 having a later out of service date uses a different seat type which is still supported?

I didn’t think the Hunter had a poor safety history in civilian hands David.

Yes Wes you can be assured it did deviate from its planned display, don’t read this the wrong way, but the fact that it tragically went in proves that.

What I didn’t get from the two AAIB reports or anywhere else ….

Patience. The full AAIB will be out when its ready, then you’ll know as much as everyone else.

Moggy

All we have is great many unanswered questions and unresolved details. Surely an objective and pragmatic enquiry, whilst hearing evidence from those involved and their relatives, has no business meeting the demands of anyone, either individuals or groups or the media. The conclusions and judgments which follow should only address measures to improve safety in all aspects, if such are found to be relevant.

What I didn’t get from the two AAIB reports or anywhere else is did the pilot of the Hunter at Shoreham deviate from his flight plan?
I witnessed the event from the crowd line, and to this day wonder why the pilot did a fly past, re-positioned the aircraft and then did the ill fated loop so far from crowd centre?
Normally most maneuvers like loops are crowd centre, so everyone can enjoy the spectacle.
I would have thought this would have been an important element in the investigation, even if the flight was following the prescribed plan, to try and assess exactly where the flight went wrong.

No doubt the AAIB also feel their report has to go some way towards meeting
the demands of the relatives of those who died. As well as making displays safer ?
Even though the safety record of displays in the UK is already pretty good.

Maybe they feel unfortable with the safety record of the Hunter in civil hands.

Well when I read the Shoreham AAIB prelim report it all struck me as smoke and mirrors, a lot of it wasn’t relevant to the incident, such as the fracas over the life ex cartridges, end of the day, they never caused the incident and the concerns of a live seat lying on the ground next to the wreck would be no different if the carts were in life.. One thing that did come over was the CAA’s dithering on giving the company support and clear instruction as to the cartridge life issue.

I still cannot fathom why the type is still grounded, I cannot see any logic in it, if the accident was simply a pilot error and not an aircraft issue, one would have thought pending inspection and confirmation that all operators systems were robust then a phased introduction into service would be taking place, similarly if anything had been found aircraft wise, one would have thought that would have been addressed and a phased entry back into service would also have been carried out.

Curious

The organizer of the Clacton Airshow was on BBC Essex this evening. He reckoned any changes shouldn’t
affect them too much. Just the one with vintage jets being restricted to flypasts.

I wonder if the Red Arrows will again be stopped from flying over crowds at the start of their display ?

I also note there could be restrictions on aircraft carrying out manoeuvres pointing towards the crowd line,
which I would assume also affect the Red Arrows ?

So why does the CAA think they need to be involved in this? The real experts of risk assessment are insurance companies, and they price their premiums accordingly.

Public liability coverage for an airshow pre-Shoreham was at £50 to 100 million for even a small provincial show precisely because the insurers had already taken into account the risk to non-attending public that the CAA had ignored all these years.

Suddenly the CAA decides that something Has to Be Done, and of course They will be the ones to Do It. Even though they’re not yet sure what exactly happened, or why. Hence, wishy-washy policy documents like this full of media-aligned statements about ‘protecting the public’

Does the Duchy of Sealand fancy organising some shows…?

Because two ex military jets crashed killing 12 people in three weeks and the CAA do have the responsibility for safety of people on the ground and in the air have realised their procedures are not as robust as they deemed it necessary to be. What is your problem with that? ! spoke to an ex Jag driver mate who was involved with the jag display team and knew both pilots involve professionally and personally in the accidents. His views on the currency requirements of the CAA for fast jet displays? Not strong enough.

So why does the CAA think they need to be involved in this? The real experts of risk assessment are insurance companies, and they price their premiums accordingly.

Public liability coverage for an airshow pre-Shoreham was at £50 to 100 million for even a small provincial show precisely because the insurers had already taken into account the risk to non-attending public that the CAA had ignored all these years.

Suddenly the CAA decides that something Has to Be Done, and of course They will be the ones to Do It. Even though they’re not yet sure what exactly happened, or why. Hence, wishy-washy policy documents like this full of media-aligned statements about ‘protecting the public’

Does the Duchy of Sealand fancy organising some shows…?