Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The fact that an aircraft has swept wings is irrelevant and I think that people think that the swept wings carry some ejection seat mandate.
Well, they do under CAA regulations which refer specifically to swept wing ex-military aircraft. A permit to fly will not normally be issued for an aircraft with swept wings, fitted with and ejection system which is inoperative.
Here in the US we have an organization called the Classic Jet Aircraft Association (CJAA) that does just that. Many operators don't mind compliance, but what's frustrating is dealing with an errored regulation or a civil servant that does not understand the system they are supposed to be regulatingOnce again, if the operators or other experts think that they can argue a case for a change in this requirement they need to do so with the CAA. If not then these types of aircraft may well find themselves grounded.
None of this is new and none of it is a result of the accident involving the Hunter at Shoreham. Until now, and the announcement that Martin Baker are no longer going to support these older seats, there has never been a problem with these regulations.
It's worth noting that had the South African Lightning's ejection system worked when required (the pilot did attempt to eject) he may very well have survived.
Cheers
Steve
And it would be for military operators with fit, trained pilots in highly maintained aircraft and egress systems.Ejection was pretty much SOP for the Lightening in RAF service for a variety of reasons.
And it would be for military operators with fit, trained pilots in highly maintained aircraft and egress systems.
Why the CAA considers ejection the safest way of abandoning a swept wing ex-military aircraft I don't know. I don't make the rules.
Cheers
Steve
All cases are different, but the CAA seems to consider that the ejection system, as fitted in the original design of a swept wing aircraft, is the only safe way of abandoning such an aircraft in flight. If it can be shown that the aircraft can safely be abandoned by other means then the CAA would be obliged to examine such evidence.
The fact that other authorities are prepared to allow such aircraft types to fly with non operational safety systems would be (and should be) irrelevant to the UK CAA.
The problem is, they have university graduates working for them who have no aviation experience - mostly they are life-long public 'servants'.If you did you'd probably have a better insight than some of those making the rules!
The problem is, they have university graduates working for them who have no aviation experience - mostly they are life-long public 'servants'.
Three out of four of those on the board are ex-RAF, and don't look to have any commercial experience at all - doesn't bode well for 'out-of-the-box' thinking, which is what it takes to surmount issues like this.
By way of example, last month's regular pre-season BADA symposium, an event attended by over 350 military and civilian air show organisers and pilots, was addressed by a CAA representative with little or no understanding of aviation matters who had most recently served as a Civil Servant with the NHS.
Ex RAF is better than ex-RAAF (Real Amateur Air Force)
About 30 years ago I had an ex-RAAF CASA (Australia has to be different and have CASA not CAA) operations idjit tell me that only RAAF aircrew should be allowed to fly the Wirraway and Hudson.
My answer, "that lot are trained to abandon the aircraft the instant it has a problem, but the airline pilots that fly those aircraft are trained to get both the aircraft and its passengers on to the ground safely" was not appreciated.
Later when going through the very painful process to get the first MiG on the Aus register the ex-RAAF noddy in charge of ops said he would never allow any MiG on the register because of its high approach speed. I pointed out that the American flight manual for the type gave an approach speed lower than a Piper Comanche 400 so he would have to deregister them and an number of other aircraft. He said that was bull but Australia's top warbird pilot of the day (Jack Mac) said the manual was right. He then did the usual "only RAAF pilots" crap and Jack shot him down.
He then tried the how are you going to keep the ejection seat serviceable line. Jacks answer was that the bang seat MUST be made inert otherwise it encourages cowboys to push aircraft to the limit at airshows and then, when it bites, the cowboy will punch out leaving the aircraft to crash into the crowd. End of that discussion.
(After the meeting a retired Polish Air Force ground crew member who was translating and advising said at least 50% of all MiG 15/17 ejections resulted in the pilots loosing both arms as they ejected because they forgot the correct ejection sequence. He had previously pointed to repairs on one of the aircraft in the hangar that showed it had been successfully belly landed.)
The RAAF/CASA idjit then claimed that the engine was dangerous and prone to blowing up in flight. My answer was that engine had a 2000 TBO in the USA with at least two operators (in Chino and Reno). His answer was the Yanks have much lower standards than Australia. I pointed to the row of Cessna 412 ambulance aircraft sitting outside and said the Americans require those engines to be overhauled at 1400 hours and Australia lets them run to 2800. He had no answer to that but continued to obstruct at every turn for months.
Eventually we beat him when the owner got a far more senior CASA ops person from another state as test pilot. On the test flight that pilot insisted on a discrete radio channel and open mike, just in case. His first words after calling rotation was "1.6 miles DME hands off". His grin on the ground after the flight made a Cheshire cat look positively gloomy
Tok Pidgin?