Thunder City Lightning crash report out

Yes, my understanding too. Although, all of the Lightnings were grounded..

All 3 are not. A valid operating license for Bucc and Hunters is a different one than that for the Lightning. Lightnings were grounded pending investigation

I also thought that TC had the licence for flying PAX trips in any of their a/c suspended after the Lightning crash and this still holds…..?

I had always assumed it was this aspect of TC that has ‘closed’, the ‘experience’ flights side of the business, rather than the whole operation as such?

all 3 Buccaneers are still owned by Thundercity, and the one flying last week most certainly was theirs. They could not have done that without a valid operating license and a permit to fly for each aircraft.

All 3 are not. A valid operating license for Bucc and Hunters is a different one than that for the Lightning. Lightnings were grounded pending investigation

That doesn’t seem to gell with the ownership of atleast one of the Buccaneers that was always quoted as in private ownership . Regards the statement from Thunder City -it was posted on their site circa November 2009 -maybe they need to update their website!

Exactly. ZU- BCR was simply operated by the AMO, it’s privately owned. Just becasue the Lightings were not operated properly, doesn’t mean that the Buccs are not. They are after all, an Ex SAAF type, so some of the personel may be very familliar with the type. What ultimately lost them a Lightning, apart from sloppy practices, was a lack of type experienced personel and understanding of the type.

That doesn’t seem to gell with the ownership of atleast one of the Buccaneers that was always quoted as in private ownership . Regards the statement from Thunder City -it was posted on their site circa November 2009 -maybe they need to update their website!

One was sold at the Auction and is airworthy again, I cannot see a problem with that as South Africa operated Buccs so there will be a pool of talented people who had Bucc Experience in their Military, and no doubt companies that used to maintain parts for them, unlike the Lightning.

Not true, there were apparently no auction offers, so all 3 Buccaneers are still owned by Thundercity, and the one flying last week most certainly was theirs. In fact TC displayed a Buccaneer and a Hunter at the Overberg airshow in April, the first show at that venue since the Lightning tragedy. They could not have done that without a valid operating license and a permit to fly for each aircraft.

Also not true is that the statement from TC management (posted by Gamekeeper) is old. It was released soon after the report was made public a few weeks ago.

One was sold at the Auction and is airworthy again, I cannot see a problem with that as South Africa operated Buccs so there will be a pool of talented people who had Bucc Experience in their Military, and no doubt companies that used to maintain parts for them, unlike the Lightning.

Canopener Al
“Thunder City stopped operating last year.. “

Thunder City Buccaneer was flying again on Monday 3 September. :eek::D:D

And not, it seems, to the benefit of Safety, Passengers, Aircrew, or Attendees at Airshows.
It might, however, be pertinent at this juncture to point out that the SACAA Report was (most likely) written by some persons who’s first language was not English. There were a number of (English) spelling, grammatical, and punctuation, errors.
Thus, we may conclude that some of the TC complaints may be valid – not (I suspect) that they will change the findings.
Some people did things to that aircraft that they should not have done.
Some people did NOT do things to that aircraft that they should have done.
Criminal culpability? Depends on your Criminal Code – and who you know!
Resmoroh

As I said much earlier, things run very differently in Africa

Years old and Thunder City stopped operating last year..

Doh!

Thanks Al

Richard

From an African based website…..

Last week the SA CAA released a report on the crash of Thunder City Lightning ZU-BEX 14 November 2009.
Thunder City Rejects SACAA report.
Thunder City was not aware that the SACAA aircraft accident report had been issued, thus we have not had the time to study it in detail; nor were we afforded the opportunity to comment prior to its release, nor were any senior members of Thunder City staff interviewed or statements taken. Our initial findings, after a cursory read, leave us in no doubt that this report is seriously flawed and smacks of a witch hunt.
Even at a superficial level, while the report appears to be thorough, we have found blatant falsehoods, errors, illogical conclusions as well as glaring omissions. Therefore, once we have studied this report in depth, we will pursue all options open to us to ensure that a true and balanced conclusion is reached.
As it stands, is a scandalous and libellous work that at the outset seeks to apportion blame while claiming not to.
It is our intention to embark on a further independent investigation with suitably qualified experts and to present such findings when complete. In the interim Thunder City will seek a court injunction to have this report withdrawn.

Thunder City Management

Years old and Thunder City stopped operating last year..

Well, that’s interesting, although my opinion is that Thunder City’s position is untenable

Richard

From an African based website…..

Last week the SA CAA released a report on the crash of Thunder City Lightning ZU-BEX 14 November 2009.
Thunder City Rejects SACAA report.
Thunder City was not aware that the SACAA aircraft accident report had been issued, thus we have not had the time to study it in detail; nor were we afforded the opportunity to comment prior to its release, nor were any senior members of Thunder City staff interviewed or statements taken. Our initial findings, after a cursory read, leave us in no doubt that this report is seriously flawed and smacks of a witch hunt.
Even at a superficial level, while the report appears to be thorough, we have found blatant falsehoods, errors, illogical conclusions as well as glaring omissions. Therefore, once we have studied this report in depth, we will pursue all options open to us to ensure that a true and balanced conclusion is reached.
As it stands, is a scandalous and libellous work that at the outset seeks to apportion blame while claiming not to.
It is our intention to embark on a further independent investigation with suitably qualified experts and to present such findings when complete. In the interim Thunder City will seek a court injunction to have this report withdrawn.

Thunder City Management

The above posts prove to me that I do not remember as much as I thought I did. 😮

Thank you all for you continued contributions. Am now re-reading the Report yet again and looking for my Course notes from 1971 before I add anymore.

Thanks MJR, a good informative post, every day a learning day;)

John.

The canopy has an accumulator for the jack in case of hydraulic failure, though i’m certain that in this instance there was such a catastrophic hyd failure that accumulator pressure was rapidly lost followed by undercarriage failure and loss of control.

John.

That is the Services accumulator, and it does nothing without at least 550psi line pressure behind it, because it’s nominal cylinder pressure is only 1500psi, 250psi less than than the wheel brakes accumulator. It’s simply there to take up large system demands, hence why in a hydraulic loss it will give you a very small number of “gentle” system demands, and perhaps 2 canopy raises on a twin tub, where the fluid integrity is STILL there. Ever tried opening the canopy with less than 2000psi indicated on the services Acc gauge? It will do zip, especially on the T5 lid.Once you have both HYD warnings up, and a catashrophic loss of fluid, which 451 undoubtedly had, YES, he would have had a hand full of turns out of the accs as the HYD resevoirs emptied to atmos through the burned up lines, and that’s it, since no recuperation could happen. This was borne out by the sequence of events in the report. Im sure tha had they found all of the engine driven pumps, all would have been proved to be serviceable.

He couldn’t have got Hyds to the canopy jack anyway, since the locking handle was jammed engaged, and the selector button withdrawn into the sleeve. Undouptedly the last 6-700 psi of the Services pressure and the 1500psi of the Acc were dumped into the U/C selection, before the u/c became totally aireated. This was only enough for 1 main and the nose. He quite rightly attempted to blow down from Controls1 and Controls2, but Im sure he probably knew that would be ineffective, since both Con1 and 2 circuits were well below 1850psi by now, hence the SWP captions, and by this time circuit integrity was completely gone, and controls ineffective. All very very sad, and Im sure if he knew the systems, he also knew he was in a very very serious situation, all be it not knowing egress was going to let him down after all of this. Again if he had followed SOP and climbed 5k-10k to straight and level immediately on the captions, he may have had other options with the 3-4 minutes he had left, like go by the FRC’s, it’s difficult to say, and easy to criticise. Personally I think a veteran liek Brian Carrol for instance would have got out, but thats just my opinion.It was his airfield though and the runway was in sight, so I can see why he went that route. Not knowing about the fire undoubtedly coloured his thinking. If he’d had RHT1 and 2 fire captions, Im sure he would have landed immediately, and none of us would be debating this now.

EDIT. Good one Phantom Phil :-). lets remember the early days, when it was a Rosey set up.

THUNDER CITY

As much as this report has highlighted the true ‘beast’ that was Thunder City, I thought I’d look at what was achieved before all went sour…

Gents

As per Card 24 of the FRC’s issued march 82, AP 101B-1003, 5&6-14……..

Failure to Eject

If canopy failed to jettison:
Canopy unlock handle Pull up
Firing handle … Pull again

This clearly indicates that once the canopy has left the airframe then the seat firing handle will need to be pulled again to initiat the seat firing mechanism.

John.

It’s also worth noting that after a HYD 1 failure the emergency undercarriage lowering is inoperative, and as per card 22 of the frc’s it is clearly stated that upon a HYD 1 and HYD 2 do not attempt to land.

quote…..

If HYD (double) warnings persist:

Do not attempt to land
EJECT when control is lost or when fuel is insufficient for recovery (see Ejection, Card 24R)

John.