Lightning lost in South Africa
Discussion
At an airshow, twin stick but only Pilot onboard who it seems sadly did not make it.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/395843-ligh...
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/105...
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/395843-ligh...
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/105...
mybrainhurts said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe the CAA were right to be reluctant to grant a permit to fly to the British based Lightnings after all.
Bit premature, Eric. Do we know how maintenance is regulated in SA? And lesser aeroplanes have come to grief in the UK.
Thought Thunder City had four examples?
The pilot was reporting hydraulic problems, apparently.
Lightnings are extremely complicated beasts to keep going. I've just been reading the biography of Air Vice Marshall John Howe who served two tours on Lightnings. 74 Sqdn in 1960/61 and 19 Sqdn in 1974 and he said that they were very, very difficult planes to look after.
mybrainhurts said:
I understand that but, if someone has the resources to keep one flying, why can't the CAA put in place a system to monitor such an operation in the UK.
I can't see how the SA ones can be regulated and that always did worry me.
Thundercity operated and maintained them rigidly according to BAe/RAF maintainance standards/proceedures. Their team of tech's were taught and led by Barry Pover, who was a hugely experienced ex-Lightning man, and who emigrated out to Cape Town when he sold his 2 x F.6 Lightnings and the T.5 that has just crashed, to Mike Beachyhead after spending a fortune and 5 or so years trying to get the UK CAA to certify them here in the UK.I can't see how the SA ones can be regulated and that always did worry me.
Sad day for ThunderCity and sincere condolences to the family of Dave Stock.
Eric Mc said:
Maybe the CAA were right to be reluctant to grant a permit to fly to the British based Lightnings after all.
The Campaign Against Aviation look at any excuse to stop everyone flying.The fact is all aircraft can be kept flying with proper maintenance and checks.
A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault, it can be repaired and should not be a reason for grounding.
There is only one main issue and that is the spars, however this should be on an individual basis. Not a reason to try and ground an entire model.
Ayahuasca said:
elster said:
A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault
An ejection seat failure definitely is though. You can replace an ejector seat, it still doesn't mean grounding all aircraft.
In this case if it was an ejector seat failure, then that isn't a problem with the aircraft, but the maintenance checks.
elster said:
Ayahuasca said:
elster said:
A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault
An ejection seat failure definitely is though. You can replace an ejector seat, it still doesn't mean grounding all aircraft.
In this case if it was an ejector seat failure, then that isn't a problem with the aircraft, but the maintenance checks.
It is a well known fact that over half the Lightings produced have been lost, mainly in the North Sea.
They are temperamental aircraft at the best of times!
I agree though, that an ejection seat failure should not happen.
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
So a modification is needed, not a clamp down on them.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff