[quote=“Batfink” post=26376]Interesting turn of events to over come one of the “flying” issue…
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/flying-with-the-pathfinders-24082015[/quote]
I notice that this article appears on the full RAF web site and is not repeated on the ATC website.
Quite telling really…
i did chuckle at the quote
when it is taken to be not repeated for others rather than unique for the individuals…!
it is interesting the media route that is being taken…
This particular unit does this all of the time - they publish to the RAF website but not the ACOs - I don’t think there is anything untoward with it or conspiracy to not share via HQAC…
This particular unit does this all of the time - they publish to the RAF website but not the ACOs - I don’t think there is anything untoward with it or conspiracy to not share via HQAC…[/quote]
Maybe they feel more confident that the RAF will publish it. I send things to one of our two local rags as I know the editor of one is pro youth and it will get in, the other is a waste of time unless it’s from 3 local schools.
Well then some food for thought for our anally retentive leaders, although the simple solutions would pass them by as it would mean loss of control which would raise questions over the need for them in their jobs. As for experience who cares how many hours and what rank they are or were, if they’re not getting airborne with cadets, they aren’t much use to anyone. I wouldn’t mind betting a number of these accursed civvie pilots are commercial pilots flying all over the place with as much experience as military pilots, some ex-military now carrying on as civvies and some current military who prefer civvie rules at the weekend.
Given the problems we have had and may experience again, there needs to be what my manager refers to as ‘green field thinking’, as an organisation we cannot afford to lose flying in either form again, within the next 5 years. If this isn’t going to be easily managed via the military sources, then we need to go outside the military and if that means some loss of cushy jobs for retirees, so be it.
Whichever way you look at it good on 'em for getting AIR cadets in the AIR!! A feat that has eluded the great and the good.
I agree in some respect. However I never said ‘accursed Civvie pilots’ at all. Personally if it were my son or daughter, and it will be very soon, I’d rather they have all the equipment they need to get out of an aircraft and survive.
I fully understand that something had to be done after the loss of the 2 air cadets but it would look like they have now cut off their noses to spite their faces. Weather restrictions means that if the met man puts a prob 30 tempo in the forecast between 0700 and 1600 it stops AEFs flying for the day. Just because the met man thinks there is weather coming in but is unsure exactly what time. I remember the days of the chipmunk and bulldog when the only weather limits were wind, viz of 4k and cloud base of 1000ft. AEFs now need the same 4k but 2500ft minimum cloud base and a wind gusting no greater than 25kts, no probs or tempos in the forecast and must have a diversion airfield within those limits. That coupled with cadet sizing restriction which have been sent out makes it all extremely difficult.
I can understand HQAC trying to fill the gap in flying. I remember the days of 60 cadets going flying on a Sunday and us all being on our way home by 1700 but it is now an issue that some wings are not filling their allocation as cadets can’t be bothered or don’t want to get up at 0600 on a Sunday morning to find that they won’t go flying due to the forecast saying there is a shower coming in at some stage during the day.
Personally I think that the whole regulations need to be re-assessed. The knee jerk reaction to the tragic deaths is choking the corps flying task and no-one is bothered. I’m a little unsure as to whether CAC is aware of the full situation.
4Km, 1000ft was all very well, but left no margin for error, particularly when most AEF pilots are not instrument rated on single piston aircraft. The minimum you can fly in a Tutor (legally) is 500ft, and you must remain 500ft vertically clear of cloud. 1000ft just didn’t cut it. I think the new regulations can be a little restrictive weather wise, but not overly so. The 25kt x-wind limit is reasonably sensible, however personally the cloud base limits could be little lower (1500’ perhaps). 4km isn’t very much either; certainly so without a radar service.
I said accursed as that is the attitude displayed by people, as they view them as the once in a while weekend flyers, when many do it as a job and are as enthusiastic if not more so than military/ex-military pilots.
Nothing has changed really wrt to cadets flying on Saturday or Sunday, until very recently there were AM and PM slots with 50ish getting up. However serviced as we are by 5 AEF and having allocations chopped and then more recently cancelled at the last moment it’s not difficult to understand the reluctance, regardless of how ‘exclusive’ the opportunity is. We’ve had details cancelled on Friday which means people who have arranged to do things around it having a spare day. One of my staff swapped a Sunday shift for two Saturdays only to find out on the Friday afternoon he needn’t have bothered, yes he had a Sunday off but hardly compensation for consecutive Saturdays. When you look at it wrt cadets it’s not just the cadet it’s the whole family that can be affected in some way. I would go so far as to say in our area at least there has been a loss of confidence in the AEF set up. Would I volunteer to take cadets for AEF, not for a long time and I know speaking to other staff the feeling is the same. Why should we be going through hoops to ensure the time off, when the service providers aren’t doing the same. Weather I can understand, not having the staff I can’t.
I’m not surprised by knee jerk reactions anymore. Something happens and rather than rational thought, the legs go into action and chaos reigns.
I’m not sure of the set up at 5 but I know that most AEF pilots are volunteers the same as you or I. Many of them work in the airline industry and are mad busy the whole year and for them to give up one of their days off to come and fly with their respective AEFs they fully understand the implications of flying being cancelled. Trust me. AEF commanders can only provide a service if they have the aircraft and man power to support the task. Many AEFs don’t have the issue as some are in areas which are ‘affluent’ in service or retired pilots willing to help out. Sadly there are some areas where this is very difficult.
Woodvale, for example, have only 5 full time pilots which include 2 UAS OCs, 2 UAS QFIs and 1 AEF flight commander. These 5 individuals are tasked with flying 130 students and 4500 cadets each year. Admittedly we do have 25 volunteer pilots on our books which include 4 service pilots, 2 test pilots and 17 full time airline pilots. There are only 2 retired pilots on the books and we will be loosing them at the end of the year due to aging out.
Recruitment is very difficult.
Scrounger, I don’t think that 5 AEF have completed any tasking since they moved from RAF Wyton, shutting up shop there in mid February. My Sqn is supposed to fly with them; however I don’t think we have had any cadets in the air with 5 for nearing 18 months due to weather, ‘technical issues’ and lack of grow bags. Add that to no gliding…
I certainly did not hide this from potential recruits at an event at the weekend as I did not want them to join under false pretences.
With regard to 5AEF tasking, they have been doing camp flying…
I suggested “daily” weekend “deployment” to alternative locations but apparently in this age of risk assessments & budget allocation = not an option.
far be it from me to question the mindset of a parent wanting the absolute best for their child, and to be in the safest of hands with everything in place to make it so but…
…how many occasions have members of the ACO (or UAS/RAF in the Tutor) successfully bailed out and used their parachute?
as a civilian “GA” pilot friends ask me about wearing a parachute, particularly those who are ACO related and are surprised to hear it isn’t even considered.
now i understand there are subtle differences between GA and RAF/AEF/VGS aircraft, particularly in the methods of getting in and out and the available options to do so (namely jettisoning the canopy) but has any of this proved to be successful?
has anyone in the ACOs history jettisoned the canopy, released their seat belt, stood up, jumped over the wing and pulled their D-ring?
i once heard, although i will take it with a pinch of salt, that the parachutes in use require 1500-2000ft altitude to have a chance in deploying in time to allow the user to arrive on the ground “unharmed”
far be it from me to question the mindset of a parent wanting the absolute best for their child, and to be in the safest of hands with everything in place to make it so but…
…how many occasions have members of the ACO (or UAS/RAF in the Tutor) successfully bailed out and used their parachute?
as a civilian “GA” pilot friends ask me about wearing a parachute, particularly those who are ACO related and are surprised to hear it isn’t even considered.
now i understand there are subtle differences between GA and RAF/AEF/VGS aircraft, particularly in the methods of getting in and out and the available options to do so (namely jettisoning the canopy) but has any of this proved to be successful?
has anyone in the ACOs history jettisoned the canopy, released their seat belt, stood up, jumped over the wing and pulled their D-ring?
i once heard, although i will take it with a pinch of salt, that the parachutes in use require 1500-2000ft altitude to have a chance in deploying in time to allow the user to arrive on the ground “unharmed”[/quote]
You’re along the right lines, but it’s not as high; the minimum height to commence abandonment in 1500ft, therefore that is with consideration that one would lose height while in the process of jettisoning the canopy etc. This minimum height rises to 3000ft when conducting spinning, to allow for the fact it’d be considerably more difficult to action the drills in such circumstances.
You’re right, as far as I know there has never been a successful abandonment of the Tutor, but does that mean we should cease wearing the kit? I’ve never flown in a civilian aircraft, but I can’t understand why you wouldn’t fly with a parachute. I just can’t. Realistically, the only times one would consider abandonment over conducting a PFL would be either an uncontrollable engine fire which is burning you, or you have lost a considerable amount of the control surfaces (i.e. through a serious structural failure following a collision). These instances aren’t exclusive to the military.
As far as I know, abandonment procedures have only ever been initiated in the cases where Tutors have collided with other a/c. They were tragic cases and it must have been utterly terrifying, but they don’t represent the only incident where an abandonment should be considered. An engine fire may well occur at 8000ft in straight and level flight, in that case a successful parachute deployment is much more likely.
If anyone would like to re-educate me on the mindset of a GA pilot who chooses not to wear a parachute, I genuinely would appreciate it. Because, as I say, I try to understand it, but I just can’t.
The decision over whether cadets should be allowed to fly without survival kit is a tough one indeed.
By far the vast majority of my flying (a mere 110 hours + change) has been conducted in Cessnas with fixed doors whilst wearing t-shirt and chinos and without parachute or even a 5-point harness. This involves short journeys over water (not too far offshore) without needing to wear life preservers or survival suits.
My civvy ventures into aerobatic manoeuvres (extended spinning basically) were in a C152 aerobat with a proper harness. The door can be removed by pulling a wire but still no chute.
Most of this carried no significant risk and the majority of problems anticipated would be an engine or fuel failure in which case I’d land ahead and scramble out of the wreckage of my aircraft. Possibly the most dangerous phase of the flight was the turn onto final from base and the risk of spinning at that stage and no jetissonable canopy or parachute will save you there.
The main risk appears to be associated with aerobatics and the associated loss of situational awareness that can arise and the subsequent risk of banging into another aircraft thereafter. As far as I know, airframes aren’t failing and so long as your wing doesn’t get shorn off by a passing aircraft you can continue controlled flight in a generally downward direction to a reasonable landing place of your choice. Carrying out aeros in areas of radar cover and while talking to a controller minimise this risk, as does the use of collision avoidance systems.
What this amounts to is this: By all means require parachutes for aeros but aeros should not be the bulk of the flying task (however much fun they may be) and the majority of flying can be carried out in sufficient safety and comfort without them. Even flights directly over water can be done without life preservers so long as you are in gliding distance of dry land (question - do Tayside pilots wear life preservers? Chutes? Most of their circuits are done over the Tay!)
True gliders have other problems. People tend to take the wings off them and stick them back on and there have been incidents (in the civvy world at least) where control cables or whole wings haven’t been secured correctly with the subsequent loss of control/airframe/life. This increases the chance that a normal flight will result in a catastrophic failure and increase the desire for a parachute.
From what I’m led to believe tayside aviation fly with LSJs but no parachute.
In my time (on ACO duty) I have been a passenger in Tutor, Vigilant, Gazelle and C-17.
Only the latter two did not require a chute, and in the case of the C-17 I only had a lap belt!
Thinking about this more, why would that be?
Well the C-17 is in no position to be barrelling rolling into a derry turn after coming from a Cuban 8, we may have been subject to a Khe Sanh approach or two but it was a fairly standard transport flight. The Gazelle equally as benign.
Given the “training” element of the Tutor and Vigilant and with it the demonstration of what the output is for a given input the aircraft is “tested” more in its operational window, the chances of things going wrong are bound to be higher.
At risk of sounding like an H&S bore…it is about appreciation of and understanding of the risk.
Flying straight and level is as risky as driving along the M1 at 65mph, while completing stalls, advanced turning/high bank angles, loops and rolls is like driving flat out round Silverstone. in the driving world both require seat belts but only one requires a helmet and likewise in flying both have seatbelts but only one has a parachute.
GA pilots do so for pleasure and critically leisure. As incubus has said casual wear can be/is the norm. no flight suit/oversized fire retardant grow bag to be worn. No need for leather gloves, civilian flying is as troublesome as getting on a river taxi. Walk on and off you go.
As such parachutes are not required, the risks aren’t there as the pilot would not be completing manoeuvres or getting the aircraft in a state where they would be deemed “at risk” enough to warrant it.
I accept the argument by Stand Out regarding an engine fire at 8000ft, but answer it with is there an example?
Firstly following a pre-flight check of the aircraft, pre-start up and then pre-take off checks any issues should have come to light by that time. as we know take off is the most dangerous time during any flight. The engine is the coolest it will be during the flight but working the hardest it will need to, the pilot is unfamiliar with the weather conditions, the aircraft is pointing away from the ground limiting the pilot’s view of any potential escape routes…
Taking the engine aspect into account it is during this time that it is (statistically) going to go wrong. The climb to 8000ft, is going to take at least 8 minutes, if anytime is going to “let go” it is going to be during that high power, high rev climb with the cold engine rather than a benign stage of straight and level flight, all things being equal.
Now I am not saying it will never happen, but understanding the risks it is highly unlikely (based on what is achieved to get to straight and level flight at “height”).
With regard to a collision/loss of control surface there is little argument to go without. The Tutor from Benson that collided with a glider although had two tragic deaths, one was not the glider pilot who parachuted clear…
I will add I am not indicating AEFs/VGSs should go without survival kit, simply indicating the types of flying from a flying club in a four seater “cruiser” are quite different to that of a two seater “military trainer”
On the subject of experience/hours of the civilian pilots I do share the reservations of Scrounger.
However looking again at the risks, is there an issue? Returning to the analogy of driving the civilian pilot is flying no different to driving down the M1 at 65 in lane one, flying straight and level with some basic manoeuvres demonstrating attitude and speed changes when moving the controls shouldn’t challenge any pilot and shouldn’t need 1000s of hours experience.
Looking at an old version of ACTO 035 before the changes it stated
[quote]g. The pilot holds at least a PPL and has a minimum of 500 hours flying experience, of which 300 hours, and at least 60 hours in the last 12 months, are as first pilot.
h. The flights are not to include any of the following:
(1) Stalling and spinning.
(2) Aerobatics (but see para 4).
(3) Low flying.
(4) Practice forced landings.
(5) Practice emergencies of any kind.
(6) Short landings.
RELAXATION OF CONDITIONS
3. A Regional Commandant or CCF Sect Cdr may, based on his knowledge of the pilot and aircraft, relax the criteria at 2g above to a minimum in one or all of the following criteria:
a. Total hours: 250.
b. Total First Pilot hours: 150.
c. Hours on type: 20.
d. Currency: 10 hours in past 3 months, and 3 landings in past month on the aircraft type in which the cadet is to fly.
with particular interest on my bold.
Hours – 500 is a lot of hours, that is the equivalent of 3.5 month’s work for a standard 36 hour week M-F, yet the CAA permit that pilot to take up three of their friends. HQAC being over protective?
Even by lifting the restriction to 250 hours that is a lot of time in the air to just get in the air, nothing more than flying.
restriction in flight – the civilian pilot’s hands are tied. There is nothing “high risk” that can be flown
parachutes are worn – these ARE required for aerobatics…so despite what we say about HQAC, they have recognised the appropriate level of restriction with a parachute…
Thanks Steve, good points well made.
Sadly deployment wouldn’t really help as with the LAFT contract your really confined to going to other Tutor bases. Hence EFT upping stick from Cranwell to Fenton post prop #2. I think 5AEF has far too big a catchment area though.
As for the other points in the past few posts, they’ve been summed up quite well. The 1500 minimum abandon height also puts another perspective on the greater weather restriction than previously (although I’ve no doubt it could work below 1500’), following on from the discussion a couple of days ago.
Interestingly, the point about the engine being under the most stress in take off and climb: the Lycoming is a stubborn beast, and it must be fresh in the mind that both EFATOs were prop failures and not engine. (touchwood) I think statistically there have probably been more low stress failures due to ancillary parts within the power system (oil/fuel pumps etc).
Seems no news from anyone or anywhere? Any up-dates about??
Popular rumour is they’ve found more issues courtesy of a popular maintenance contractor and it may take longer than anticipated. #totalsafety
Starting to think that Gliding isn’t “Paused” but gone, we are looking at 18 months already, most of the cadets on my Squadron have never been offered the opportunity to glide at a VGS.
Once our aircraft are allowed to glide again, staff currency needs to be regained, and then we need to find the staff to spend every weekend at a VGS. Chances are that in the past 18 months they have discovered what it means to have freedom at the weekend to spend time with the family.
I know that there was some gliding for cadets at the aerospace centre, but 18 months on how many airframes do we have certified, could we not send these to regional locations, and start to get staff currency up and then cadets gliding.
It would have been quicker (maybe cheaper) to get some new airframes in, especially winch launch… rather than still here 18 months on, with no definitive answer on when normal service will be resumed (weather permitting)