L39 / Dux / East TV News / Widow

🙂 but moggy your argument is based on hindsight,he did’nt have that,he made a snap decision,probably based on instinct and probability and possible local knowledge.:)

No comment to make other than the indisputable fact that if he’d stayed with the aircraft he would have survived. Conjecture about non-existent 38 ton trucks doesn’t change that in any way.

Moggy

Moggy- simple facts are that you cannot always rely on the instructor to get it right and be your brain. If they did always get it right we wouldn’t have any crashes involving training aircraft .
If your about to be sitting in the fast lane of the M11 and the seat is the only option between almost certain death and maybe surviving albeit injured I would be interested in what your decision would be.
I have known instances in the past where an instructor has been incapacitated and a pupil has ejected and vice versa -there are no hard and fast rules about when you can and cannot eject.
Every instance is completely different – I know of examples where
a seat has been well within parameters only for the aircraft to roll
during the ejection sequence and end up with the seat shooting the pilot into the ground.
I am loathed to criticise this guy’s actions because he decided
his course of action under extreme pressure and only he has paid
a price for it.

I have been in two minds about posting on this thread as Gary was a good friend of mine, we had flown together a number of times and spent endless hours in the clubhouse putting the world to rights, so some of the sarcastic comments have been rather hard to take.

That said, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to ensure that anyone instructing or ?coaching? on aircraft of this complexity need to be fully conversant with all the specifications and procedures.

PPL instructors have to go though a course, be examined, then regularly revalidated ? though part of this is because they are being paid so there is a commercial imperative that they are safe and capable.

I?m not in any way suggesting that the pilots who train fast jet students are not capable, but there is a difference in training someone on a Jet Provost, where ex-RAF pilots have a familiarity with all the systems and emergency procedures and an L39, which, obviously from what happened in this accident, has dissimilar handling characteristics, which can catch people out.

If there are any ambiguities in POH?s as a result of translations, for instance, surely it is the duty of those operating the aircraft to ensure these are resolved and the pilots flying the aircraft understand them?

I?m not going to speculate on why Gary decided to eject. His friends have talked for hours about this, but we?ll never know. I went to Duxford the day after the accident, and there were skidmarks on the northbound carriageway consistent with a large truck doing an emergency stop just yards away from where the aircraft came to rest.

On a more positive note, one of the projects Gary was developing before he died was an idea for a series of training DVDs for jets, as he thought they would be helpful for someone starting to fly them to have at least some idea of what they?re letting themselves in for in terms of walk-around checks, cockpit and start-up procedures and flying and aerobatics.

Another friend was involved and has since taken it upon himself to try and make happen what Gary had thought about. Others have donated time and aircraft.

The result is that a training DVD for the Jet Provost 5 has just been completed. I was involved in the ground filming at North Weald, as I was asked to design the sleeve for the DVD, so was there to take still shots.

So, in a sense we are trying to do a little of what his widow Tina is asking for ? impart information to help ensure that trainees and instructors can operate the aircraft safely and confidently.

I can?t give any links as that would be advertising. The DVD is dedicated to Gary?s memory and I?m proud to have been part of the team that brought it to fruition.

YR

Originally posted by David Burke
The probability was that he did stand a better chance ejecting
rather than being hit by a 38 tonne lorry travelling at seventy miles an hour. Although the seat wasn’t within it’s parameters- this was largely as a result of going down the embankment.
There is no golden rule that you wont survive if your too low for the seat parameters – I have known pilots not to survive ejections with plenty of height in a good seat.

Hmmm.

Too much wrong with the above paragraph to even start disecting it. Suffice to say it sounds much like the people who argued compulsory seat belts in cars were a bad idea as you might get trapped whereas you could survive by being thrown clear.

Moggy

The probability was that he did stand a better chance ejecting
rather than being hit by a 38 tonne lorry travelling at seventy miles an hour. Although the seat wasn’t within it’s parameters- this was largely as a result of going down the embankment.
There is no golden rule that you wont survive if your too low for the seat parameters – I have known pilots not to survive ejections with plenty of height in a good seat.
He does have a manual separation handle so it’s not really a case of staying with the seat. In all fairness to the guy he made the decision for himself and he did what he thought was best.
I remember many years ago a Tornado navigator looked out of the canopy on a low level flight and decided that they were about to crash. Out both of them came because of command ejection and a perefectly servicable Tornado crashed into the ground.

Originally posted by Moggy C
The student’s role is not to think he knows better than the instructor.

Moggy

Hi Moggy,it makes you wonder what must’ve been going through the instructors mind at the time,knowing he can’t eject and by the laws of probability he would be hit by a passing vehicle,not a nice thought,certainly leaving it to lap of the gods.

Originally posted by trumper
i wonder if he thought he stood a better chance ejecting than being hit on the ground by a 40 ton lorry at 70 mph [or so if restricted].

The student’s role is not to think he knows better than the instructor.

His instruction would have told him it wasn’t a 0/0 seat. Maybe his SAS training had equipped him with a belief that he could freefall a couple of hundred feet strapped to a big heavy seat and survive?

Moggy

Anyone who has driven up and down the M11 will realise just how unusual it was that the plane or any obstruction was’nt hit by a passing vehicle.
That in itself must’ve been a miracle so i wonder if he thought he stood a better chance ejecting than being hit on the ground by a 40 ton lorry at 70 mph [or so if restricted].
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,just a shame we are not equipped with it at times.

Having read two articles on this subject I think what the lady is raising is a valid point.
Quote, ” Mrs Clark said more stringent checks should be carried out on instructors. There is a system of self assessment for instructors but there should be proper tests to prove an instructor knows all the procedures.”

There have been previous accidents with warbirds where the level of instruction has been called into question. As I understand the situation you do not have to be a QFI to instruct on warbirds but just be somebody who has flown the type.

The main point in the incident was that the fully serviceable emergency braking system was not used. Why?

It does also state in the AAIB report that the chap in the front had had adequate briefing about the use of the particular seats, and what operating conditions they could be sucessfully used in.

Whatever happened, unfortunately he decided to pull the handles, it is sad but there is no point in putting the instructing pilot through more than he has already had to cope with.

I wish she would just leave it alone, we have all been through enough of this.

it was interesting in the AAIB report that they stated that the aeroplane was actually steered to avoid the bank at the end of the runway which is there to stop any overruns on to the M11.?!. the Pilot also stated that no command to ‘eject’ was given… you aren’t told ‘not’ to eject to avoid possible confusion.. therefore the guy decided to take that action himself.. possibly with good reason, may’ve thourght pilot incapaciated or something.. whatever, its obviously sad and difficult for all those involved..

Neil.

Moggy Your probably right, unfortunately its the sensationalist slant that the journo’s take on these matters taking advantage of her grief

I think she is just a desperately sad lady (I mean in the ‘unhappy’ sense) who was very proud of her husband’s achievements and wants to tell the world about him.

Moggy

I don’t see the relevants of saying that her husband was ex-SAS
if anyone else had ejected out of the aircraft would it mean they were less competant, but because he was ex-SAS then there must have been a good reason:confused:

Route B

Route A

Originally posted by Bob
She feels that her husband, who was ex-SAS, would not have ejected without reason. :

Pilot, steward or baggage handler I wonder?

Moggy

DamienB,
Whoever chose Route A over Route B when they were building the M11 is the person we should be looking for.

I found I had printed the two route options which used to be linked to on the Duxford Times site and my reading of it is that Route A was picked on a noise reduction basis.

Route B meant that the main A505/M11 interchange at Duxford would be within ½ mile of Duxford village and Whittlesford village, whereas lopping off the end of the runway and taking Route A pushed that interchange to ¾ mile from both villages.

I saw the item and am none the wiser – I gather she is trying to improve the safety training given to pilots learning to fly these ex Warsaw pact aircraft and feels the CAA is the way to go about it. She feels that her husband, who was ex-SAS, would not have ejected without reason.
It is sad that she has lost her husband and the children a father, but if it was an accident which it has been found to be, then maybe she wishes to tighten up the regulations regarding the operation of these jets.

Quite why Ted Inman was giving an interview about the changes afoot to prevent aircraft overshooting the runway at the M11 end of Duxford also went right over my head.
I mean, what can they do to stop it. Build a bloody great concrete wall or install arrester gear across the threshold, then fit all aircraft operating out of Duxford with arrester hooks?
Move the runway by half a mile towards Royston? Or perhaps the IWM has the power to change the wind direction when flying is taking place.

:confused: :confused: :confused: