There have been issues with the prop hub on the tutor before. Also blade off one took the hub covering too!
I don’t believe this is a coincidence!
Maybe we are just inspecting everything a little closer now!
The 2004 incident involved a failure of the hub causing the entire blade to depart the airframe
The two recent incidents haven’t involved the prop blade leaving the hub, but the blade fracturing mid length - as can be seen in both lots of press photos - for whatever reason.
Post Nimrod, yes.
I have been told that the Tutor T1 is grounded until November.
Also this will have a nock-on in the RAF/RN where there will be no UAS flying and no EFT.
To get around this and keep people current they will be using our aircraft; namley the Vigilant T1 (the ones that are not grounded).
ATC coming to the rescue of the RAF
although in limited number would the Firefly not also be suitable??
however thinking as i type i guess in doing so would restrict normal Firefly operations…
[quote=“the silverback” post=3667]I have been told that the Tutor T1 is grounded until November.
Also this will have a nock-on in the RAF/RN where there will be no UAS flying and no EFT.[/quote]
Worse case scenario perhaps at some AEFs I suspect, and of course EFT will always come ahead of UAS and AEF flying. Considering Tutor aircrew haven’t been “told” how long the aircraft if grounded for, only estimates of when they could start coming back online, I suspect your source is erroneous, or very pessimistic! 
[quote]To get around this and keep people current they will be using our aircraft; namley the Vigilant T1 (the ones that are not grounded).
ATC coming to the rescue of the RAF[/quote]
Nice rumour! It’s been spreading nicely. 
I’m not entirely sure what the Vigilant would bring to those on EFT, other than teaching inappropriate flying techniques for what they are trying to achieve. To say they need to keep current in flying doesn’t really rub either. Long holds are normal in flying training, and with the selectivity of those we are training these days, they shouldn’t take long to get back to speed!
[quote]although in limited number would the Firefly not also be suitable??
however thinking as i type i guess in doing so would restrict normal Firefly operations…[/quote]
Which Fireflys? Barkston and Melin at Cranwell, who were the last MoD Firefly uses IIRC, now use the Tutor.
Yes, the Fireflies were retired a while ago. Dunno if they could make a comeback, if so, should I buy shares in Swiftair Maintenance?!
Sounds a plan!
I’ve now got an image in my head of pilots still looking for the big blue handle whilst landing when they get to conversion on the Typhoon
Any updates folks?
New prop (MT, as opposed to Hoffmann) on two aeroplanes at Cranwell and being flown by the contractor. Apparently a certain number of hours need to be flown on each prop before they can be signed off. Once that’s done, I suspect it can be signed off and the mod to the fleet can commence once the props have been sourced. Obviously not a quick fix with the size of the fleet.
In the meantime, if the AAIB come back and say it was a meteor strike, or a mouse in the prop, or it was a defect in a bolt, it could fly again very quickly! I suspect that’s not going to happen though.
[quote=“chaz” post=4664]New prop…
In the meantime, if the AAIB …[/quote]
Chaz, many thanks for the informal gen. It’s sounding positive, that’s the main thing.
Out of interest, does anyone know whether it would be the mainstream CAA AAIB that would take primacy for Tutor (with it’s civil registration), or since it’s an aircraft flying a military mission (I mean EFT mode, not AEF), would it actually be the MAA that would take primacy? I think this point may have been raised before, but not certain that it was answered.
wilf_san
I was told that Grob have never had an incident with the Tutor prop.
The only incidents have been Tutors where the prop has been modified by our very own MOD.
Seems like 6 AEF knew something we didn’t years ago…
Notice anything missing on this photo from their first flight certificate? 
[attachment=36]115E.jpg[/attachment]
[quote=“wilf_san” post=4672][quote=“chaz” post=4664]New prop…
In the meantime, if the AAIB …[/quote]
Chaz, many thanks for the informal gen. It’s sounding positive, that’s the main thing.
Out of interest, does anyone know whether it would be the mainstream CAA AAIB that would take primacy for Tutor (with it’s civil registration), or since it’s an aircraft flying a military mission (I mean EFT mode, not AEF), would it actually be the MAA that would take primacy? I think this point may have been raised before, but not certain that it was answered.
wilf_san[/quote]
It’s AAIB that has primacy with the Tutor fleet due to it’s operation as COMO. The chaps from VL take primacy only in purely military aviation incidents. If there is any level of civil involvement be it ownership or operation, it’s always my friends at Farnborough. That said, with major military incidents, AAIB take primacy with input from the MOD team.
I doubt any other operator puts as many hours on them as the RAF do. It was a point made when the second incident happened at Cranwell. Why Cranwell again? Well, if you look at most other Tutor units, bar Barkston and Wyton, none will have anywhere near the same number of aeroplanes on the flightline each day with the same volume of usage over four units (16, which now incorporates MELIN, 115 Sqn, EMUAS and 7 AEF). Well over a dozen aeroplanes flying 4 times a day on a busy weekday is a lot of flying as opposed to some of the pure UAS/AEF units, which might have 5 or 6 on a busy day.
The MoD don’t own the aeroplanes, therefore any modification would be done by the contractor and approved by the CAA if it was requested. As it happens the Tutor is available from Grob with two prop options: Hoffmann, as has been fitted to the Tutor since its introduction into service, and MT, whose prop is now being proven on our own airframes.
No one has modified anything as such. However as with all things components get replaced at all levels of servicing, be it with the contractor, back at Grob, or at the prop supplier. The people who make components (such as bolts etc) quite possibly will change.
Surely airworthiness is now the province of EASA, not the CAA? The Tutor T1 must be operating on EASA continuous C of A by now, with ARC annually. Any grounding would be as a result of an EASA AD, rather than the CAA.
T
Too. Many. Acronyms!
[quote=“tmmorris” post=4718]Surely airworthiness is now the province of EASA, not the CAA? The Tutor T1 must be operating on EASA continuous C of A by now, with ARC annually. Any grounding would be as a result of an EASA AD, rather than the CAA.
T[/quote]
Thanks tmorris. You just reminded me… I’ve run out of alphabet soup!
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn’t we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we’d all be put out in K.P.
[quote]Surely airworthiness is now the province of EASA, not the CAA? The Tutor T1 must be operating on EASA continuous C of A by now, with ARC annually. Any grounding would be as a result of an EASA AD, rather than the CAA.
[/quote]
Not quite, EASA rules are now legally binding, but the national authority of a given country is still the enforcer if you like of those rules in the country an aircraft is registered in. So whilst the Tutors probably fly on an EASA Certificate of Airworthiness (I’m not sure if the military a/c come under a different set of rules) it is still issued and revoked by the CAA.