Lightning lost in South Africa

[DieselGriff]

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...

[Eric Mc]

Sad in all respects. One of the pair operated by Mike Beachyhead no doubt.

[Ayahuasca]

Sad indeed.

'Ejection failure'

[muckymotor]

Very sad for the loss of the pilot, my favourite aircraft too.

[Eric Mc]

Maybe the CAA were right to be reluctant to grant a permit to fly to the British based Lightnings after all.

[mybrainhurts]

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?

[FourWheelDrift]

mybrainhurts said:

Thought Thunder City had four examples?

2 flying F6 and 2 flying T5.

[Eric Mc]

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?

Were they all airworthy?

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]

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.

[Eric Mc]

Pilot now named as David Stock.

[mybrainhurts]

Is he the owner?

[mybrainhurts]

Listed somewhere as Thunder City test pilot.

[aeropilot]

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.

Sad day for ThunderCity and sincere condolences to the family of Dave Stock.

[elster]

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.

[aeropilot]

mybrainhurts said:

Listed somewhere as Thunder City test pilot.

Yes he was.

But his day job was as a civilian SA industry test pilot doing a lot of the work with the BAe Hawk aircraft now in service with the SAAF. He had been a Mirage 111 pilot during his service with the SAAF.

[Ayahuasca]

elster said:

A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault

An ejection seat failure definitely is though.

[elster]

Ayahuasca said:

elster said:

A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault

An ejection seat failure definitely is though.

It isn't a terminal fault, it is something that if regularly checked would be shown up.

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.

[spitfire-ian]

elster said:

Ayahuasca said:

elster said:

A hydraulic fault is not a terminal fault

An ejection seat failure definitely is though.

It isn't a terminal fault, it is something that if regularly checked would be shown up.

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.

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!

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.

[elster]

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.

[Eric Mc]

It's never as simple as that.

If the RAF didn't see fit tio amend the Lightning over its 28 year service, what chance does a small bunch of enthusiasts have of devising technical fixes that can be tested and certified on a limited budget?