Gnat Crash At Carfest
Discussion
converted lurker said:
However, stick to a current type with a current service pilot if you are displaying high performance aircraft.
And that's a guarantee of 100% safety is it......You should get a job writing for the Daily Mail
However, I am surprised what should be safety conscious pilots being prepared to fly a jet without active and maintained bang seats.
You only have to remember what happened to Dave Stock, and I know that the RAAF a few months ago grounded it's airworthy CAC Sabre after Martin-Baker notified all historic MB seat users that they were ceasing supply of parts to maintain older seats (meant to say, and yes I know the Gnat doesn't use MB seats in this case)
Edit: also, seen it reported by more reliable sources than new journo's that the seats in these Gnat were indeed 'live'.
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 2nd August 11:56
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 2nd August 12:01
converted lurker said:
Eric Mc said:
Define a "current type".
If you ban any historic aircraft from air displays that would be the end of air displays.
I said current type with regard to high performance aircraft, ie fast jet. If you ban any historic aircraft from air displays that would be the end of air displays.
I could live with the Strike Master/JP and the Hunters.
converted lurker said:
Display flying is a very dangerous form of flying. A current service pilot and type stands the best chance of surving it in a fast jet.
Hardly a controversial view.
But a rather different view from Hardly a controversial view.
converted lurker said:
stick to a current type with a current service pilot if you are displaying high performance aircraft.
A Gnat belongs in a museum.
Which would rule out Hunters Mig 15s F86s and the Sea Vixen as well as Gnats.A Gnat belongs in a museum.
Eric Mc said:
And to be honest, in the UK the Gnat is about as sophisticated as historic aircraft get. If Gnats were banned, I think Hunters would have to be as well as they have very similar performance and that would be a real shame.
Hunter was the winner in a fly-off in which the Gnat single seat fighter was also a contender, I think. Contemporaries, and despite the obvious differences, very similar original 'brief' for the role and design. Gnat was developed alongside the Midge, as a private venture by Folland at Hamble-le-Rice. Presented originally as a single seat fighter, and taken up by, amongst others, the Indian Air Force, who achieved some success with the type against Pakistan's Sabres. The trainer version was a later addition, and was taken into RAF service, but didn't last much more than about a decade and a half. Nowhere near as successful a career as the current Hawk. It was initially discounted as a contender for RAF service, as there were doubts that Folland could cope with production in sufficient numbers, but the takeover by Hawker Siddeley soothed the furrowed brows of the procurement staff and an order was placed. In RAF service, it was the 'Fast Jet' feeder aircraft, converting pilots from Jet Provost, so a significant performance difference there, maybe not in outright speed, but definitely in handling characteristics. It also displayed with the Yellowjacks (No 4FTS) for a season, before the slimming down of the many part time, front line fighter squadron aerobatic teams, and the creation of the Red Arrows, who flew the type before switching to the Hawk.As an observation, the original fighter was designed to be built/assembled relatively easily, and without complex tools and equipment. This was to enable it's construction in what we would now describe as "developing countries". HAL in India put together some aircraft as kits of parts built by Folland, and slowly progressed to construction of the components, and assembly entirely in-house. The Indians found issues with the aircraft's control systems, regarding performance and reliability, which led to the development of the HAL 'Ajeet' from the original Gnat. The Ajeet continued to serve into the 1990s, I think. I don't know if the issues that affected the control systems in the Indian's single seat fighters were corrected in the UK trainer version by the time that reached production, though, so that might not be relevant to the sad loss of this aircraft. The last Gnat T.1 was built in 1965, and I think it went straight into Red Arrows service. The last of the type in RAF FTS service was retired in 1978.
Don't the CAA also look at "in service" incidents as well, hence why the Lightning will never be certified to fly here.
I think the Hunter had a much better safety record than the Gnat.
That said, the Meteor had a horrendous accident rate, although I believe that was more to do with pilots not being used to handling jets coming straight from piston fighters.
Classic Air Force have only just allowed a "non-ex-RAF/military" pilot to fly their two. I believed Jon Corley is the first "civilian" person to fly a Meteor in the UK, such is the unique handling characteristics of the jet.
As I am typing this a JP has just gone over really low
I think the Hunter had a much better safety record than the Gnat.
That said, the Meteor had a horrendous accident rate, although I believe that was more to do with pilots not being used to handling jets coming straight from piston fighters.
Classic Air Force have only just allowed a "non-ex-RAF/military" pilot to fly their two. I believed Jon Corley is the first "civilian" person to fly a Meteor in the UK, such is the unique handling characteristics of the jet.
As I am typing this a JP has just gone over really low
converted lurker said:
Motorsport is conducted in such a way that unless you are a participant or spectator you can't get killed or injured. Aerial display flying can kill people who have not chosen to participate or view the flying display and as such there has to be a strict safety biased regulation of the activity.
Personally I love an air display and have displayed aircraft to the public. However, stick to a current type with a current service pilot if you are displaying high performance aircraft.
A Gnat belongs in a museum.
Your not the same bloke who put in a flying complaint to me about the Lancaster stating that it should be in a museum are you?Personally I love an air display and have displayed aircraft to the public. However, stick to a current type with a current service pilot if you are displaying high performance aircraft.
A Gnat belongs in a museum.
ecsrobin said:
Your not the same bloke who put in a flying complaint to me about the Lancaster stating that it should be in a museum are you?
No, I have no issue with fly bys on a Lancaster with four engines. They don't pull g and flick into a spin. Although the recent engine fire could have been fatal quite easily. The training standards of the bbmf are also, in my view, higher.Edited by converted lurker on Sunday 2nd August 19:59
converted lurker said:
No, I have no irk key with fly bys on a Lancaster with four engines. They don't pull g and flick into a spin. Although the recent engine fire could have been fatal quite easily. The training standards of the bbmf are also, in my view, higher.
I'm certainly not going against you, you're welcome to your viewpoint - I would say though that the pilots in these planes are enormously well trained, and beyond anything else want to go home to their family at the end of the day. I'm led to believe that the 'lines' in which they pull manuovers is limited to 'worst case scenario' lines. I would agree that there's many more accidents like this at airshows than general flying, but with the proviso that the public are shielded as far as possible and the pilot knows and accepts the risks. 2013BRM said:
interesting, what makes the Gnat riskier than the JPs and Hunters> they're equally fast
Try a >360 degree per secon roll rate and hideously complicated and precise emergency drills for a start. The Gnat had a much higher training failure rate than the Hunter or JP. It is indeed a hot-ship.Obviously highly trained service pilots in "modern" types haven't suffered any losses at airshows recently? Aviation can be a dangerous game and accidents can and indeed do happen. IMHO the key is to protect the spectators, not stop the flying. I can't comment because I was't there, but I presume there was a "flightline" at Carfest?
converted lurker said:
Amateurs in 50 year old jets are just pushing those odds.
At least two of the six Gnat Display Team pilots were far from amateurs, one being an ex-ETPS grad and ex-BAe Typhoon TP. However, I understand your statement regarding the Gnat in respect of possibly the other 4 team members. Even the late-great Ray Hanna, who lead the Arrows for 4 years flying the Gnat, wouldn't fly one again solo when he was given the chance back in the late 1980's (being some 15+ years since he'd last flown one) and flew it from the front seat with the then current Gnat type rated, Bob Thompson in the rear seat.
converted lurker said:
Not many no. Notably the Red Arrows did at Bournemouth. Just goes to show that even with much better, newer, easier, aircraft flown by more current better trained pilots things can still go terribly wrong. Amateurs in 50 year old jets are just pushing those odds.
Sorry, but your opinions are incredibly inflammatory. You clearly have no evidence or knowledge what training 'amateurs' go through in order to gain CAA Display approval and keep it. Additionally nearly every aerobatic/display team I can think of has at least one ex RAF pilot on it ( sometimes 5 or 6) so am unsure how you define 'better trained'. Poorly researched opinions!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff