BBMF still grounded?

[Asturias56]

Local social media is still saying there will be flt pasts from the BBMF over the next few days

The RAF/BBMF website hasn't any information on current status

Any idea on status?

[BonnieLass]

According to this, as of June 3rd, BBMF is still grounded

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24363598.lancaster-flypast-not-going-ahead-d-day-memorial/

On occasions when tragedies like this happen, family of the lost person say things like "they would have wanted it to go ahead as planned". However the caveat is that they still do not know what caused the accident and putting the aircraft up as planned with that still being unknown is a massive risk, and one that despite the importance of the events taking place for D-Day, it is too great a risk to take.

[GeeRam]

RAF said that BBMF wouldn't be taking part in any of their upcoming scheduled D-Day commemoration events, due to grounding pending investigation, so I wouldn't be expecting to see them return to the air anytime in the next few weeks at the very least.

[Asturias56]

Thanks guys/girls

[Thud105]

No Dakota even? This is probably the last major D-Day commemoration that will be attended by a significant number of D-Day vets.

[kenparry]

AFAIK the grounding is only of those powered by Merlins

[Thud105]

I thought it was entire BBMF. Happy to be corrected.

[bobward]

Are the Biggin Hill and other group Spitfires still flying?
Fighter Control suggests that the Grace Spitfire was up yesterday.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I thought it was entire BBMF. Happy to be corrected.
My impression too. If this event began with an engine failure then the Merlin connection is obvious and will not be resolved until the failure mode is known, and mitigating inspections or procedures put in place.

That said, the potential for engine failure is a normal operating hazard and should have been survivable. That a "survivable emergency" degenerated into a tragedy is, perhaps, an opportunity to step back and review organisational aspects of training, authorisation and supervision. I must add that I venture this opinion entirely without criticism; a family member was a non-flying member of the Flight, and I had the privilege of working alongside some of the aircrew in their day-jobs, and I have never worked with a more professional group of individuals.

I also feel compelled to comment on the OPs remark about the RAF/BBMF Website; it's an absolute disgrace. It should be the first point of contact for the public yet, 11 days after the accident, the "Latest News" is an update on the Dakota's maintenance, dateline 20 March.

[Jobza Guddun]

BBMF grounding affects every platform, everybody else appears to be operating their aircraft as normal.

[Ken Scott]

The Dakota is still undergoing major servicing, not due back until the autumn.

[Geriaviator]

Two Daks flypast in lunchtiime news coverage of the Normandy commemorations.

[Ninthace]

Local news showed a Dakota doing parachute drops in the Honiton area today.

[Ken Scott]

No doubt, but not the BBMF Dakota.

[chevvron]

No doubt, but not the BBMF Dakota.
That one had to be partly re-built after it's mishap at Farnborough in about 1990. I did the runway inspection when it was moved to the hangar; the mainspar was distinctly curved (the wingtip rested on the ground) and the port prop had broken off at the reduction gear because the prop was still turning when the blades hit the tarmac.
It flew again with Transport Flight then DRA decided it wasn't in the business of using aircraft to transport boffins so Transport Flight was disbanded and the Dakota transferred to BBMF.

[talk_shy_tall_knight]

Dakota flew over Dartford this morning heading northish

[Stuck On The Ground]

Apropos of not very much, it seems strange that the Dakota was scheduled for deep maintenance this year when it would have been front and centre in the commemorations for the two most notable airborne assaults in history, OVERLORD and MARKET GARDEN.

Maybe it will be available to remember VARSITY next year, not that it is likely that will be recorded to any great extent.

[stevef]

The Dakota is still undergoing major servicing, not due back until the autumn.

Blimey - are they gold-plating it! A civvy Check 4 (Major Inspection) usually took around 5 - 6 weeks with 12 - 20 engineers/contractors on hand and that often included engine changes, fuel tank bay inspections, floor beam and wing attach angle/doubler replacements and corroded spar & miscellaneous airframe repairs as necessary. It's not a difficult aircraft to work on.

[212man]

Apropos of not very much, it seems strange that the Dakota was scheduled for deep maintenance this year when it would have been front and centre in the commemorations for the two most notable airborne assaults in history, OVERLORD and MARKET GARDEN.

Maybe it will be available to remember VARSITY next year, not that it is likely that will be recorded to any great extent.

Yeah, it’s strange because scheduled maintenance is normally planned around historical events rather than flying hours or calendar dates.

[212man]

12 - 20 engineers/contractors on hand

​​​​​​​You probably answered your own incredulity right there…..

[Stuck On The Ground]

Yeah, it’s strange because scheduled maintenance is normally planned around historical events rather than flying hours or calendar dates.

Or perhaps they could have done it early so that it was available this summer? Then it would have been available for the historical events, on account of these machines’ raison d’etre (reason to be Mr 212) is to commemorate historical events.

[212man]

Or perhaps they could have done it early so that it was available this summer? Then it would have been available for the historical events, on account of these machines’ raison d’etre (reason to be Mr 212) is to commemorate historical events.
Thanks for the language lesson. Actually, I’ll be in France next week “en vacances”. Maybe you should write to the Chief Engineer and ask him to explain his irrational and disappointing decisions.

[Stuck On The Ground]

Thanks for the language lesson. Actually, I’ll be in France next week “en vacances”. Maybe you should write to the Chief Engineer and ask him to explain his irrational and disappointing decisions.

You assume that the chief engineer is a ’He’. Oh dear.

The point being a little forethought might have been appropriate.

[stevef]

You probably answered your own incredulity right there…..

We had a hard core of guys in the AMOs who knew the Dak inside out and lot of the routine work was offloaded onto contractors. We usually had fixed target dates due to operational committments and almost always delivered on time.
As said, a real shame ZA947 couldn't attend one of the C47's most auspicious historical events.

[GeeRam]

Apropos of not very much, it seems strange that the Dakota was scheduled for deep maintenance this year when it would have been front and centre in the commemorations for the two most notable airborne assaults in history, OVERLORD and MARKET GARDEN.


Its not strange, because it wasn't scheduled for this year, it was scheduled for last year to be ready for this year (it missed all last year's season) but the extensive corrosion issues to be dealt with, has extended the work all through the winter and now through most of this season. Its been with ARCo at Duxford since Oct 2022.
Ex-BBMF boss Clive Rowley wrote an update in March on the Dak's woes on the BBMF website.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/battle-of-britain-memorial-flight/news/bbmf-c-47-dakota-za947-major-maintenance-update/

[212man]

You assume that the chief engineer is a ’He’. Oh dear.

The point being a little forethought might have been appropriate.
Yes, I recognised that potential ‘faux pas’ (false step) after I posted but couldn’t be bothered to amend it to a non-binary pronoun. Whoever they are, I suggest you inform them of their lack of “a little forethought” and let us know your response.

[ninja-lewis]

The Dakota's Major maintenance programme became due at the end of the 2021 display season. Due to contractual delays, the Major maintenance programme couldn't begin until July 2022. BBMF servicing and out-of-phase maintenance over the winter allowed an extension of 10 hours to give the Lancaster crew a chance to build multi-engine tailwheel currency before pre-season training on the Lancaster began.

https://www.memorialflightclub.com/blog/bbmf-c-47-dakota-flying-april-2022

The Major maintenance was scheduled to be completed in time for the 2024 display season. But early inspections discovered significantly worse airframe damage and corrosion. The potential repairs involve a risk of irreparable damage to the wing.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/battle-of-britain-memorial-flight/news/bbmf-c-47-dakota-za947-major-maintenance-update/

[212man]

The Dakota's Major maintenance programme became due at the end of the 2021 display season. Due to contractual delays, the Major maintenance programme couldn't begin until July 2022. BBMF servicing and out-of-phase maintenance over the winter allowed an extension of 10 hours to give the Lancaster crew a chance to build multi-engine tailwheel currency before pre-season training on the Lancaster began.

https://www.memorialflightclub.com/blog/bbmf-c-47-dakota-flying-april-2022

The Major maintenance was scheduled to be completed in time for the 2024 display season. But early inspections discovered significantly worse airframe damage and corrosion. The potential repairs involve a risk of irreparable damage to the wing.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/battle-of-britain-memorial-flight/news/bbmf-c-47-dakota-za947-major-maintenance-update/
Fake news - it was lack of foresight and awareness of historical events. I’d say more, but prefer not to be banned…..

[stevef]

July 2022 - September 2024 ... :eek:
Wear and tear issues on the flying control systems? I know from personal experience there's nothing major in rectifying any defects in those areas. And as for removing a nacelle causing irreparable damage to the wing ...
All very interesting.

[Stuck On The Ground]

The Dakota's Major maintenance programme became due at the end of the 2021 display season. Due to contractual delays, the Major maintenance programme couldn't begin until July 2022. BBMF servicing and out-of-phase maintenance over the winter allowed an extension of 10 hours to give the Lancaster crew a chance to build multi-engine tailwheel currency before pre-season training on the Lancaster began.

https://www.memorialflightclub.com/blog/bbmf-c-47-dakota-flying-april-2022

The Major maintenance was scheduled to be completed in time for the 2024 display season. But early inspections discovered significantly worse airframe damage and corrosion. The potential repairs involve a risk of irreparable damage to the wing.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/battle-of-britain-memorial-flight/news/bbmf-c-47-dakota-za947-major-maintenance-update/

Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.

212 person, thank you for the graciousness of your comments.

[Jobza Guddun]

Fake news - it was lack of foresight and awareness of historical events. I’d say more, but prefer not to be banned…..

Haven't bothered with the links, but SOTG isn't actually far off with that snippet.

People are fully aware of the historical dates and these are considered in planning assumptions - but not driven by them.

Perhaps the more pertinent question should be "why do BBMF aircraft rarely, if ever, come out of contracted maintenance on schedule?" and discuss that - without throwing all the spears at the contractors.....

[stevef]

Haven't bothered with the links, but SOTG isn't actually far off with that snippet.

People are fully aware of the historical dates and these are considered in planning assumptions - but not driven by them.

Perhaps the more pertinent question should be "why do BBMF aircraft rarely, if ever, come out of contracted maintenance on schedule?" and discuss that - without throwing all the spears at the contractors.....

A manpower issue? Or maybe over-kill by the overseeing authorities? I've spent many years on DC3/C47 aircraft (including two ZA947 majors) and am surprised at the time this check's taken. Just as well it's not a commercial aircraft.
No slight on the guys in the hangar intended.

[Thud105]

Whatever the reasons, it is irrefutable that the RAF failing to put a C-47 over Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day is more than a little embarrassing. After all, quite a few civilian operators managed to do it, without the resources of a major air force. And surely they had enough notice - the date has been 'in the diary' for the last 79 years.........

[DogTailRed2]

Whatever the reasons, it is irrefutable that the RAF failing to put a C-47 over Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day is more than a little embarrassing. After all, quite a few civilian operators managed to do it, without the resources of a major air force. And surely they had enough notice - the date has been 'in the diary' for the last 79 years.........
Did any countries militaries put historic aircraft over Normandy this year? I thought all historic were civilian and modern aircraft were used for official purposes?

[tucumseh]

11 October 2004

Grounding of aircraft

Mr Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what principles govern the grounding of Ministry of Defence aircraft. (189370) PQ Ref 3755P

Mr Ingram: The only principle which governs the grounding of Ministry of Defence aircraft is that of airworthiness: if there is deemed to be an unacceptable risk in continuing with flying operations, aircraft will be grounded.

To ground the entire BBMF fleet must mean a systemic problem.

[Thud105]

Did any countries militaries put historic aircraft over Normandy this year? I thought all historic were civilian and modern aircraft were used for official purposes?


That's a fair question DogTailRed2, and I don't know the answer, so perhaps a better question would be "If the RAF's BBMF had been asked to fly its Dakota over the Normandy beaches on the 80th anniversary of one of THE most significant days in world history, and one of THE most significant days in the history of the Dakota, could it have done so?"

[langleybaston]

Did any countries militaries put historic aircraft over Normandy this year? I thought all historic were civilian and modern aircraft were used for official purposes?

I suppose a vintage FW 190 or Bf/Me 109 over the beach might have been a little rich.

[ACW599]

Out of pure curiosity, is a high-performance piston engine such as a Merlin or Griffon maintained "on condition"? Or do they have fixed overhaul lives?

[DogTailRed2]

That's a fair question DogTailRed2, and I don't know the answer, so perhaps a better question would be "If the RAF's BBMF had been asked to fly its Dakota over the Normandy beaches on the 80th anniversary of one of THE most significant days in world history, and one of THE most significant days in the history of the Dakota, could it have done so?"
The wing corrosion problem was too severe I suspect to be repaired in time. Maybe we should ask ourselves should Normandy be a time of remembrance or a time of spectacle?

[DuncanDoenitz]

11 October 2004

Grounding of aircraft

Mr Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what principles govern the grounding of Ministry of Defence aircraft. (189370) PQ Ref 3755P

Mr Ingram: The only principle which governs the grounding of Ministry of Defence aircraft is that of airworthiness: if there is deemed to be an unacceptable risk in continuing with flying operations, aircraft will be grounded.

To ground the entire BBMF fleet must mean a systemic problem.

I'm sure Mr Ingram was correct at the time, and in context, but according to the official statement BBMF is not currently grounded; it's observing a "pause in flying".

However the operational status may be reported in the media, lots of thought goes in before officialdom invokes the G-Word; precisely for the liability and complexity of rescinding it.

[tucumseh]

I'm sure Mr Ingram was correct at the time, and in context, but according to the official statement BBMF is not currently grounded; it's observing a "pause in flying".

However the operational status may be reported in the media, lots of thought goes in before officialdom invokes the G-Word; precisely for the liability and complexity of rescinding it.

If I recall, the gliders were also 'paused'.

Perhaps a grounding is when you know your way out of it, and a pause is when you don't!

Adam Ingram... The man who was told in precise detail of the Nimrod problems over a year before XV230, and continued his denials after the accident.

[Skylark58]

Out of pure curiosity, is a high-performance piston engine such as a Merlin or Griffon maintained "on condition"? Or do they have fixed overhaul lives?

Merlin and Griffon TBO 500 hours I believe

[212man]

Merlin and Griffon TBO 500 hours I believe
I assume that the BBMF actually use calendar based maintenance rather than hours alone. There have been several civilian warbird accidents where low utilisation combined with hours based maintenance was a factor. This accident was referred to earlier. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ec48e5274a13140000f3/Hunting_Percival_P56_Provost_T1__G-AWVF_10-10.pdf

[NutLoose]

It will be a combination of both I think you will find

[Bengo]

Perhaps a grounding is when you know your way out of it, and a pause is when you don't!


Exactly. A grounding should be driven by a known ( usually engineeering) problem with at least broadly understood solution.
A pause covers a myriad of other causes where it is a good idea to stop flying until the holes can be re-misaligned.

N

[212man]

It will be a combination of both I think you will find
Sorry, I meant that but tried to limit typing on my phone.

[4468]

In the late 1980s I was on a type that had two catastrophic yet inexplicable identical causes over 24 hours. Miraculously no lives were lost!

We were told the fleet couldn’t be grounded, because if they couldn’t identify a cause then how would they clear the aircraft for flight once again. So we were ‘reassured’ by the Station Commander and Squadron Commander flying together to reassure us that the aircraft was absolutely safe! 😳

Yeah right!

I accept there is a difference between operational and non operational flying. Though a life is a life!

[tucumseh]

In the late 1980s I was on a type that had two catastrophic yet inexplicable identical causes over 24 hours. Miraculously no lives were lost!

We were told the fleet couldn’t be grounded, because if they couldn’t identify a cause then how would they clear the aircraft for flight once again. So we were ‘reassured’ by the Station Commander and Squadron Commander flying together to reassure us that the aircraft was absolutely safe! 😳

Yeah right!

I accept there is a difference between operational and non operational flying. Though a life is a life!


This is essentially what happened with the Chinook Mk2 in 1993/4.

Boscombe grounded the trials aircraft (which flies under a PE Fleet Release, and was an immature prototype on 2 June 1994). They knew the way out of it (follow regs), and Controller Aircraft reflected this in his mandate to ACAS that it not be relied upon in anyway.

But the RAF, already flying under an illegal Release, did not ground. But nor did they 'pause' (officially). To do either would reveal/admit serious offences. Instead, aircrew were told the type was airworthy, and the pilots that ZD576 was serviceable and fit for purpose, when it was none of these.

[Davef68]

The pause in flying is completely understandable - there is no 'need' to fly the aircraft, so until the cause is firmly established, there is no point in taking any risks.

It's the first fatal accident in the BBMF's history, with their future CO, and fatal flying accidents are incredibly rare these days. Squadron Leader Long's death was the first in the RAF since 2018, so perhaps there is a greater element of psychological recovery compared to the days when they were much more common.

[BonnieLass]

BBMF have confirmed that they will not take part in Trooping The Colour this coming weekend. However several other aircraft including a Typhoon in D-Day markings using the callsign "memorial" will conduct flypasts along with Red Arrows.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czddq0dnd4yo

[Easy Street]

Agree entirely with davef68 that there could be 'people' considerations as much, or even more than 'equipment' ones at work here. It is also very unsurprising to see participation in the London flypast cancelled; flying single engined aircraft over the city has always been marginal from a regulatory and risk management point of view so their withdrawal until an 'equipment' cause has been ruled out would be an obvious precautionary step to take.

[Thud105]

"so until the cause is firmly established, there is no point in taking any risks." Its been nearly three weeks since this tragic accident, I can't really believe that the cause wasn't 'firmly established' within the first 24 hours.

[Asturias56]

It will have to wend its way on paper through many levels, probably including a rinse from m' legal friends , before a report is made. That's the way Govt works these days

[DogTailRed2]

I just hope the BBMF can weather the storm and continue operations. The RAF faces a busy time what with Russia and everything else going on around the world. Loosing a front line pilot on a demonstration flight is not priority (to get that flight back in the air quickly) I would imagine.

[Video Mixdown]

"so until the cause is firmly established, there is no point in taking any risks." Its been nearly three weeks since this tragic accident, I can't really believe that the cause wasn't 'firmly established' within the first 24 hours.
I think it's axiomatic that accident investigators don't jump to conclusions, but have to find incontrovertible evidence that proves the cause of the accident. If that involves metallurgical or fatigue tests on components it could take some time to receive and analyse the results.

[DuncanDoenitz]

"so until the cause is firmly established, there is no point in taking any risks." Its been nearly three weeks since this tragic accident, I can't really believe that the cause wasn't 'firmly established' within the first 24 hours.

And lets say the fault can be unequivocably attributed to (let's pick a random defect) fatigue cracking of a con rod. That still leaves (let's pick some random contributory factors); provenance of current records of 80-year old engines, crew training, authorisation and supervision, effectiveness of SOPs, choice of runway, weather, crew-fatigue ......

[aw ditor]

Duxford Spitfires seem to operating' today.

[pr00ne]

Duxford Spitfires seem to operating' today.

Spitfires weren’t grounded, the BBMF was, and not by a regulatory organisation, but effectively by themselves.

[NutLoose]

BBMF grounding affects every platform, everybody else appears to be operating their aircraft as normal.

With good reason, you obviously are not involved in aircraft engineering, the grounding is in place for safety reasons, End Of.

Until the findings and cause is established you simply CANNOT rule out causes other than mechanical failure.

As the BBMF are a more or less a self contained unit, you need to show that their procedures and processes are spot on and working correctly, if there is an item that isn’t, then the procedures and processes failure may be attributed to or could have contributed to the accident, and as they work on the whole fleet, then due diligence needs to investigate if the rest of the fleet could thus also be affected.
Hence to groundings.

I realise everyone wants to get their fix of seeing the BBMF doing their thing and sharing these precious commodities with the public,.
But an aircraft is just a collection of parts and can be rebuilt, including the one involved in the accident, unfortunately pilots cannot be and their safety and their lives are paramount in all of this.

So stop wittering on about lack of updates on the BBMF website and let the investigators and the BBMF do their job and find a cause whatever it is, to prevent it happening again.

Remember flight safety is built upon the knowledge gained from aircraft accidents and loses dating back to when the Wright Brothers first took to the air, it is a progression of lessons learnt over the years to hopefully prevent accidents and to help save the lives of those that fly today and in the future.

i for one wish the BBMF family. both air and ground crew well at this time, they and the aircraft will be under scrutiny and even though I feel it was more of a mechanical issue, I realise what a strain and self doubt it puts into the minds of people at times like this, what if we did this, why didn’t we find it, etc

So, in passing, let them take the time they need to find, understand the problem and to rectify it for future operations.


​​​​​​…

[falcon900]

With good reason, you obviously are not involved in aircraft engineering, the grounding is in place for safety reasons, End Of.

Until the findings and cause is established you simply CANNOT rule out causes other than mechanical failure.

As the BBMF are a more or less a self contained unit, you need to show that their procedures and processes are spot on and working correctly, if there is an item that isn’t, then the procedures and processes failure may be attributed to or could have contributed to the accident, and as they work on the whole fleet, then due diligence needs to investigate if the rest of the fleet could thus also be affected.
Hence to groundings.

I realise everyone wants to get their fix of seeing the BBMF doing their thing and sharing these precious commodities with the public,.
But an aircraft is just a collection of parts and can be rebuilt, including the one involved in the accident, unfortunately pilots cannot be and their safety and their lives are paramount in all of this.

So stop wittering on about lack of updates on the BBMF website and let the investigators and the BBMF do their job and find a cause whatever it is, to prevent it happening again.

Remember flight safety is built upon the knowledge gained from aircraft accidents and loses dating back to when the Wright Brothers first took to the air, it is a progression of lessons learnt over the years to hopefully prevent accidents and to help save the lives of those that fly today and in the future.

i for one wish the BBMF family. both air and ground crew well at this time, they and the aircraft will be under scrutiny and even though I feel it was more of a mechanical issue, I realise what a strain and self doubt it puts into the minds of people at times like this, what if we did this, why didn’t we find it, etc

So, in passing, let them take the time they need to find, understand the problem and to rectify it for future operations.


​​​​​​…
I wonder whether there isn’t perhaps some middle ground to be found here. Of course everyone empathises with BBMF families affected by the tragic loss of life, and of course everyone recognises that flight safety comes first, but surely there is more which could be shared to address the significant and mostly well intentioned body of onlookers who are interested to understand what happened and the potential knock on effects for BBMF?
By having a website which routinely provides insights behind the scenes ( to great positive effect) it kind of goes with the territory on planet earth in 2024 that the bar is set at a level which requires the communication process to be continuous. Obviously they can’t communicate what they don’t know, but there is definitely more which could be said to allow a better understanding of what is going on.
I understand the cross contamination question which needs to be answered before other aircraft in BBMF can fly again, but I would hope that their systems and processes would enable this aspect to be completed relatively quickly, although as I say that, I am reminded that previous RAF specialist unit incidents have not reflected well on the underlying safety processes and documentation……

[NutLoose]

I wonder whether there isn’t perhaps some middle ground to be found here. Of course everyone empathises with BBMF families affected by the tragic loss of life, and of course everyone recognises that flight safety comes first, but surely there is more which could be shared to address the significant and mostly well intentioned body of onlookers who are interested to understand what happened and the potential knock on effects for BBMF?
By having a website which routinely provides insights behind the scenes ( to great positive effect) it kind of goes with the territory on planet earth in 2024 that the bar is set at a level which requires the communication process to be continuous. Obviously they can’t communicate what they don’t know, but there is definitely more which could be said to allow a better understanding of what is going on.
I understand the cross contamination question which needs to be answered before other aircraft in BBMF can fly again, but I would hope that their systems and processes would enable this aspect to be completed relatively quickly, although as I say that, I am reminded that previous RAF specialist unit incidents have not reflected well on the underlying safety processes and documentation……

Until you know EXACTLY what happened and why, you simply cannot post anything but investigations are ongoing, there is no place for guess work in aviation and posting we think this might have been the cause and if it isn’t you open up a whole can of worms..

HYPOTHETICAL. examples

We believe it was an engine fault that was recently overhauled by XYZ and that turns out to be incorrect, you are opening up a case to be sued.

It was pilot error and it wasn’t, again you could end up in court and cause considerable distress to his or her widow / widower.

So you keep silent until the facts are known and anything that needs to be are corrected. By all means put out the odd press release saying investigations are still on going as we seek to find the root cause of the accident, and leave it at that.

The world has grown use to the press being intrusive into everyone’s lives, publishing and be damned, people then simply think that everything should be the same, well it shouldn’t, unlike some of the rags today, publishing half truths, lies and miss information is not going to improve aviation safety anytime soon, and please do not bring the Chinook inquiry into this thread.

When the time is right, the facts have been collected and answer’s sought, then is the time to inform the public of their findings, not before.

As for other operators and industry, they to have a vested interest in the findings and I believe they will be the first to know if anything is found as most work with each other in times like these with a cross flow of technical information, experience and knowledge.

[Video Mixdown]

I wonder whether there isn’t perhaps some middle ground to be found here. Of course everyone empathises with BBMF families affected by the tragic loss of life, and of course everyone recognises that flight safety comes first, but surely there is more which could be shared to address the significant and mostly well intentioned body of onlookers who are interested to understand what happened and the potential knock on effects for BBMF?
By having a website which routinely provides insights behind the scenes ( to great positive effect) it kind of goes with the territory on planet earth in 2024 that the bar is set at a level which requires the communication process to be continuous. Obviously they can’t communicate what they don’t know, but there is definitely more which could be said to allow a better understanding of what is going on.
I understand the cross contamination question which needs to be answered before other aircraft in BBMF can fly again, but I would hope that their systems and processes would enable this aspect to be completed relatively quickly, although as I say that, I am reminded that previous RAF specialist unit incidents have not reflected well on the underlying safety processes and documentation……
It's hard to understand what you're looking for. An investigation is going on and it would be folly to drip-feed partial information that could well be misinterpreted. As others have said, it's not just the primary mechanical failure that has to be investigated, but any prior and subsequent circumstances that prevented a successful forced landing and caused the resultant fatality.

[BonnieLass]

BBMF have also closed their visitor center for an indefinite period.

It isn't just cos they need to find out the cause of what happened, which is obviously important. But they also need to be able to digest what happened in a personal way too.

BBMF is a small family within the larger RAF, they lost not only a brilliant pilot but they also lost a friend, someone who they and their families interacted with off duty. It will take a while to come to terms with the accident, find out why the accident happened and for those within BBMF to feel able to face the public again. The last thing they need is for well meaning public and journalists asking questions about what happened and when they will return to flying.

This isn't just another accident, this is a death in the family, an extended family who need time and space to recoup, digest and just be able to be there for one another at, what is still a very raw time.

BBMF are in the public eye but that doesn't mean that they must put on a smiley face and carry on regardless when something like this happens. They need time, they need space and not just for the thorough investigation, but for themselves too.

[Jobza Guddun]

With good reason, you obviously are not involved in aircraft engineering, the grounding is in place for safety reasons, End Of.

Until the findings and cause is established you simply CANNOT rule out causes other than mechanical failure.

As the BBMF are a more or less a self contained unit, you need to show that their procedures and processes are spot on and working correctly, if there is an item that isn’t, then the procedures and processes failure may be attributed to or could have contributed to the accident, and as they work on the whole fleet, then due diligence needs to investigate if the rest of the fleet could thus also be affected.
Hence to groundings.

I realise everyone wants to get their fix of seeing the BBMF doing their thing and sharing these precious commodities with the public,.
But an aircraft is just a collection of parts and can be rebuilt, including the one involved in the accident, unfortunately pilots cannot be and their safety and their lives are paramount in all of this.

So stop wittering on about lack of updates on the BBMF website and let the investigators and the BBMF do their job and find a cause whatever it is, to prevent it happening again.

Remember flight safety is built upon the knowledge gained from aircraft accidents and loses dating back to when the Wright Brothers first took to the air, it is a progression of lessons learnt over the years to hopefully prevent accidents and to help save the lives of those that fly today and in the future.

i for one wish the BBMF family. both air and ground crew well at this time, they and the aircraft will be under scrutiny and even though I feel it was more of a mechanical issue, I realise what a strain and self doubt it puts into the minds of people at times like this, what if we did this, why didn’t we find it, etc

So, in passing, let them take the time they need to find, understand the problem and to rectify it for future operations.


​​​​​​…

I'm not sure why you've pulled me up here? I answered about whether it was all of BBMF that were grounded, and simply pointed out other operators were still flying their aircraft???? No supposition, no speculation, no inference. Simply said what was happening at that time - 5 Jun.

"You obviously are not involved in aircraft engineering." Actually you're very wrong.

Go be condescending to someone else. I'll show some restraint and put this down to you being pi55ed or tired, or both seeing it was 0315.

Jobznotaguddun.

[NutLoose]

I didn’t pull you up per se, it was meant to be a generic catch all for those complaining about the lack of new information forthcoming, my apologies, on re reading, it appears to infer I was, that wasn’t my intention.

[Jobza Guddun]

Fair enough Nutty, no hard feelings.

ATB

[falcon900]

Until you know EXACTLY what happened and why, you simply cannot post anything but investigations are ongoing, there is no place for guess work in aviation and posting we think this might have been the cause and if it isn’t you open up a whole can of worms..

HYPOTHETICAL. examples

We believe it was an engine fault that was recently overhauled by XYZ and that turns out to be incorrect, you are opening up a case to be sued.

It was pilot error and it wasn’t, again you could end up in court and cause considerable distress to his or her widow / widower.

So you keep silent until the facts are known and anything that needs to be are corrected. By all means put out the odd press release saying investigations are still on going as we seek to find the root cause of the accident, and leave it at that.

The world has grown use to the press being intrusive into everyone’s lives, publishing and be damned, people then simply think that everything should be the same, well it shouldn’t, unlike some of the rags today, publishing half truths, lies and miss information is not going to improve aviation safety anytime soon, and please do not bring the Chinook inquiry into this thread.

When the time is right, the facts have been collected and answer’s sought, then is the time to inform the public of their findings, not before.

As for other operators and industry, they to have a vested interest in the findings and I believe they will be the first to know if anything is found as most work with each other in times like these with a cross flow of technical information, experience and knowledge.

The expression I used was middle ground. Nobody has suggested a blow by blow account of progress of the investigation , and there has certainly been no suggestion of premature conclusions being promulgated.
As to what to communicate, they have communications people to decide that, but the need to communicate something is obvious and they have an audience who are more than sympathetic to the situation.
They are part of the RAF, and completely pulling the shutters down is the wrong approach. It is unprofessional, and likely to be counter productive as the less they say the more those for whom we seem to share a dislike in the media are likely to make mischief.
Even an explanation of the cross contamination uncertainty might have helped address some of the comment about the Dakota missing the D Day commemorations ( although Rushi stole the limelight on that in the end) .
Anyway, the train seems to have already pulled out of the station on this one, and time will tell where the next information or misinformation will come from, but I am pretty confident that will be long before any formal outcome from the investigations is published.

[Video Mixdown]

The expression I used was middle ground. Nobody has suggested a blow by blow account of progress of the investigation , and there has certainly been no suggestion of premature conclusions being promulgated.
As to what to communicate, they have communications people to decide that, but the need to communicate something is obvious and they have an audience who are more than sympathetic to the situation.
They are part of the RAF, and completely pulling the shutters down is the wrong approach. It is unprofessional, and likely to be counter productive as the less they say the more those for whom we seem to share a dislike in the media are likely to make mischief.
Even an explanation of the cross contamination uncertainty might have helped address some of the comment about the Dakota missing the D Day commemorations ( although Rushi stole the limelight on that in the end) .
Anyway, the train seems to have already pulled out of the station on this one, and time will tell where the next information or misinformation will come from, but I am pretty confident that will be long before any formal outcome from the investigations is published.
I can't sympathise with that view. What difference does it make to you whether you read the accident report next month or in six months? I suppose there will always be sad sacks who invent lies about knowing stuff to big themselves up on spotter web sites. The media will not take any notice - they learned long ago not to repeat such rubbish about something so tragic.

[falcon900]

I can't sympathise with that view. What difference does it make to you whether you read the accident report next month or in six months? I suppose there will always be sad sacks who invent lies about knowing stuff to big themselves up on spotter web sites. The media will not take any notice - they learned long ago not to repeat such rubbish about something so tragic.

My goodness, it must have been a tiring and emotional afternoon. I have no need of sympathy, any further knowledge about the cause of the accident at this point, nor a need to “big myself up”. For the record, I don’t remember inventing anything, let alone lies about the current situation.
I admire your confidence in the media, and as I said in my previous post, time will tell.

[Video Mixdown]

My goodness, it must have been a tiring and emotional afternoon. I have no need of sympathy, any further knowledge about the cause of the accident at this point, nor a need to “big myself up”. For the record, I don’t remember inventing anything, let alone lies about the current situation.
I admire your confidence in the media, and as I said in my previous post, time will tell.
I was not accusing you personally of anything. My comment referred to the sort of people who do such things.

[falcon900]

Ok. Fair enough. It sounds as if we both want the best for the BBMF.

[DuncanDoenitz]

What I find baffling is the complete absence of anything at all on the BBMF Websiite. I'm not talking about how the investigation is going; I mean just a statement that an accident has occurred, flying paused, safety-is-our-watchword stuff.

Three weeks after the tragedy and the latest "news" is Clive Rowley's piece about the Dakota maintenance from March. Why even have a website with a "News" tab?

[Nick H.]

Terry Holloway is quoted at length in yesterday's Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/fatal-crash-could-signal-the-end-to-spitfire-flying-in-uk/ Here are some snippets:

'Terry Holloway, a retired group captain who was responsible for the BBMF’s engineering practices in the 1990s, [said] “There are a lot of people, me included, who have concerns about the RAF itself being very risk averse, and the MAA in particular being risk averse. There is a concern that if the MAA decides to ground permanently Merlin-engined aircraft, that will spread into the civil sector". Mr Holloway said he feared that the outsourcing of vintage RAF aircraft overhauls to the private sector over the last few decades had led to a loss of engineering knowledge. Military regulators who oversee the BBMF could lack the in-depth knowledge needed to confidently declare that its aircraft are safe to fly again. Risk-averse regulators could err on the side of excessive caution, he warned. “The other concern in the civilian warbird industry is because the BBMF is effectively the benchmark model for similar aircraft operations in civilian hands.” A decision by the MAA to ground the BBMF could provoke civil regulators into looking twice at civilian “warbird” operations. Arguing for the military authorities to provide more transparency into their investigation into the fatal crash of the BBMF Spitfire in May, Mr Holloway pointed out that civilian-operated vintage aircraft made it across the Channel for the D-Day 80th anniversary commemorations earlier this month.“The BBMF fleet remains grounded whereas the civilian Spitfire fleet continues to fly quite safely without any problems,” Mr Holloway speculated that the cause of the crash could have been a problem with the fighter’s 27-litre Merlin engine.“I hope that’s not the underlying cause of the problem because if it is, understandably, people would want to say, ‘Well, can we accept the risk that there isn’t another one out there waiting to happen?’”

[Easy Street]

I hope Mr Holloway has been misquoted there. I don't know any engineers who would argue that the lack of an immediate recurrence was evidence that there was no problem, especially with such a small sample size.

Don't a lot of warbird operators use aftermarket parts? I thought BBMF used original Merlin parts only but may be completely wrong.

[Stitchbitch]

Don't a lot of warbird operators use engines which fit the same space as a Merlin but are otherwise of modern design and manufacture?

Civil warbird operators use Merlins in their Spitfires and Hurricanes, and Packard Merlins in their P-51s.

There are a number of engine shops in the UK and USA that can depth maintain the Merlin.

Most warbirds use engines fitted with ‘transport’ heads, rather than the original heads, these were designed for longer operating life and used in the airliners/transport aircraft of that time (Lancastrian and York).

[Easy Street]

Civil warbird operators use Merlins in their Spitfires and Hurricanes, and Packard Merlins in their P-51s.

There are a number of engine shops in the UK and USA that can depth maintain the Merlin.

Most warbirds use engines fitted with ‘transport’ heads, rather than the original heads, these were designed for longer operating life and used in the airliners/transport aircraft of that time (Lancastrian and York).

Thanks, I edited my post while you were replying to my original - I realised I'd had a brain fart, it was modern new build parts I'd heard of being used, not whole engines.

[DogTailRed2]

I believe some warbird operators use modern components. I recall reading that TFC used pipe of the type used by Concorde for their Hurricane restoration. Fuel tanks have modern crash proofing. Tyres from airliners. G Meters. No doubt clips and fixings will be replaced with modern for safety critical parts. All done in a sympathetic way for historical purposes. Then there are some of the American warbirds that have fully modern avionic setups.

[treadigraph]

Most warbirds use engines fitted with ‘transport’ heads, rather than the original heads, these were designed for longer operating life and used in the airliners/transport aircraft of that time (Lancastrian and York).

Is that the case? I know the racing Mustangs tend to use them, wasn't aware there was a more widespread use...

[TCAS FAN]

Isn’t it time for the MAA to be ditched in favour of putting all the BBMF on the civil register? Haven’t the AAC and FAA done it already?

[Easy Street]

Isn’t it time for the MAA to be ditched in favour of putting all the BBMF on the civil register? Haven’t the AAC and FAA done it already?

Do we even know that the MAA or its regulations are a problem here? In any case, we found out at Shoreham that there was at least one thing the MAA did a better job of regulating than the CAA.

I also note that civil registered single engined aircraft don't fly at low level over London. Losing the ability to take part in the monarch's birthday events would take a very significant chunk out of BBMF's annual public exposure.

[NutLoose]

There is a concern that if the MAA decides to ground permanently Merlin-engined aircraft, that will spread into the civil sector". Mr Holloway said he feared that the outsourcing of vintage RAF aircraft overhauls to the private sector over the last few decades had led to a loss of engineering knowledge

hmmm… rather like buying from abroad and not home based designs, where you lose the capability to design and build.

yes a lot of things are made new, very few Spitfire’s today are flying with all the original structure and skins, all you really need for a rebuild is the original data plate and they can be remanufactured, but it’s not a case of nailing any old bit of tin on a wing, it has to be the same spec, or if it isn’t made today, a newer spec needs to be approved.

one such company

https://supermarine.net

and as for engines I suggest you while away a few hours here.

https://www.51-factory.com/merlin_overhaul.html

[Jobza Guddun]

Terry Holloway is quoted at length in yesterday's Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/fatal-crash-could-signal-the-end-to-spitfire-flying-in-uk/ Here are some snippets:

Mr Holloway said he feared that the outsourcing of vintage RAF aircraft overhauls to the private sector over the last few decades had led to a loss of engineering knowledge.

Probably true, although the same could be said for the front-line fleets too. Sqns were always made up of people with first-, second- and even third-line experience, which saw a huge amount of trade knowledge present. Contractorisation has taken most of that away, with the resultant effect on availability rates (alongside spares provision).

To be fair, BBMF (with specialist support from 71 Sqn and elsewhere) have largely completed a Major on a Spitfire XIX, PM631. It was due flight test at the time MK356 crashed.

[Geriaviator]

Too bad any risk aversion did not apply to Chinook helicopters.

[aw ditor]

Presumably th Mk 19 had/has a Griffon.

[DogTailRed2]

Are we (not just us but the media et al) looking too deeply into this accident? I think this all comes down to the risk averse, sue everyone world we live in.
Aircraft are machines. Machines fail, even more so when they are aircraft.
The BBMF are a well respected organisation that has successfully flown vintage aircraft for many years. The cause will be found, measures put in place and then it's up to that organisation (and pilots) to determine if it is safe to continue.
What a world we will live in if every accident results in lawsuit, accusation and ban.
We just need to give the BBMF time to recover.

[NutLoose]

Presumably th Mk 19 had/has a Griffon.

correct, not sure if its an ex shack modification though.

[Video Mixdown]

Are we (not just us but the media et al) looking too deeply into this accident? I think this all comes down to the risk averse, sue everyone world we live in.
Aircraft are machines. Machines fail, even more so when they are aircraft.
The BBMF are a well respected organisation that has successfully flown vintage aircraft for many years. The cause will be found, measures put in place and then it's up to that organisation (and pilots) to determine if it is safe to continue.
What a world we will live in if every accident results in lawsuit, accusation and ban.
We just need to give the BBMF time to recover.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Isn't all that happening anyway?
I don't agree that 'machines fail' is a useful statement. Machines don't just fail, there has to be a reason for it.
Was it designed, manufactured and installed correctly?
Has it been inspected, serviced, maintained and operated correctly?
I expect the engineers among us can add more factors that might cause a failure. They all have to be investigated.

[GeeRam]

correct, not sure if its an ex shack modification though.

It is.

All 3 of the BBMF PR.XIX's were modified by BAE/RR to be able to use the Shack Griffon 58's which at the time were just about to leave service. I can't remember now if RR got around to doing the same change to their own MK.XIV before it crashed at Woodford. RR of course then ended up buying the already converted ex-BBMF PR.XIX from Euan English's estate as its replacement, after Euan was killed not long after he bought the PR.XIX off MOD after MOD sold it to pay for the restoration of LF363 after its forced landing at Wittering.

[DogTailRed2]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Isn't all that happening anyway?
I don't agree that 'machines fail' is a useful statement. Machines don't just fail, there has to be a reason for it.
Was it designed, manufactured and installed correctly?
Has it been inspected, serviced, maintained and operated correctly?
I expect the engineers among us can add more factors that might cause a failure. They all have to be investigated.
Everything has a failure rate.

[NutLoose]

You mean…

https://live.staticflickr.com/5514/30915222196_2beeea02fc_b.jpg

[Video Mixdown]

Everything has a failure rate.
It has, but apart from external factors like a bird strike it is not random. It can be managed. If there is a catastrophic failure that leads to fatalities that management process was flawed in some way.

[212man]

It has, but apart from external factors like a bird strike it is not random. It can be managed. If there is a catastrophic failure that leads to fatalities that management process was flawed in some way.
I don’t think that’s true. A component might have a design reliability of one failure per 1000,000,000 hours (Commercial airlines for example). If one example fails after one hour is it mis-designed? There may not be another failure until 1000,000,001 hours. But it will be considered an unreliable component. Conversely, another component might not fail until 1000,000,999 hours but will be perceived to be a reliable and successful component. Both with the same failure rate.

[Video Mixdown]

I don’t think that’s true. A component might have a design reliability of one failure per 1000,000,000 hours (Commercial airlines for example). If one example fails after one hour is it mis-designed? There may not be another failure until 1000,000,001 hours. But it will be considered an unreliable component. Conversely, another component might not fail until 1000,000,999 hours but will be perceived to be a reliable and successful component. Both with the same failure rate.
I'm not an engineer, but I should think that if a component that was supposed to last millions of hours fails after one hour there must have been something wrong with it that quality control somehow missed. That makes it a QC issue, not a mechanical one.

[212man]

I'm not an engineer, but I should think that if a component that was supposed to last millions of hours fails after one hour there must have been something wrong with it that quality control somehow missed. That makes it a QC issue, not a mechanical one.
My example was extreme, for effect. Of course, we’re not talking about an individual component - we are talking about a component population and a fleet wide hours total. But the basic premise is correct.

[DogTailRed2]

I'm not an engineer, but I should think that if a component that was supposed to last millions of hours fails after one hour there must have been something wrong with it that quality control somehow missed. That makes it a QC issue, not a mechanical one.
Can happen. Charles Church was a victim of a flaw in casting / manufacture of the camshaft in Spitfire ED606 (iirc)). Led to a big shift in non destructive testing of Spitfire camshafts.

[treadigraph]

I thought Charles Church's Spitfire had a crankshaft failure?

I do recall a fuss - after an accident/incident - about the way some Merlin components were being treated during rebuilds, could have been in the wake of Church's crash.

[flyingorthopod]

I thought Charles Church's Spitfire had a crankshaft failure?

I do recall a fuss about the way some Merlin components were being treated during rebuilds after an accident/incident, could have been in the wake of Church's crash.

That's what I thought. But I was fairly young at the time - we were on cub camp and he lost power over us before crashing in to the neighbouring field.

[GeeRam]

I thought Charles Church's Spitfire had a crankshaft failure?

I do recall a fuss about the way some Merlin components were being treated during rebuilds after an accident/incident, could have been in the wake of Church's crash.

Yes, crankshaft failure near the No.3 journal, due to high cycle fatigue as determine by RR.

And yes, I seem to recall the same thing regarding history of engines/parts post investigation. Can't recall now all these years later, which company had done the rebuilt of the Merlin in ED606 though.....whether it was a US builder or a UK one?

[TCAS FAN]

I also note that civil registered single engined aircraft don't fly at low level over London. Losing the ability to take part in the monarch's birthday events would take a very significant chunk out of BBMF's annual public exposure.

No problem with CAA, they just issue an Exemption to permit it. Precedent has already been set by many other flights by BBMF when regulated by MAA.

[Ninthace]

I'm not an engineer, but I should think that if a component that was supposed to last millions of hours fails after one hour there must have been something wrong with it that quality control somehow missed. That makes it a QC issue, not a mechanical one.
In Operational Research terms this is called the Light Bulb problem. You have a light bulb over a production line. When the bulb blows, you lose production while the bulb is changed. If you can schedule the change before it fails, you lose less production but you get through more bulbs. The question is, how long do you let the bulb go for, before you change it? The same principle applies except of course the cost of component failure can be much higher. It is always a trade off, but hopefully a calculated one.

[Video Mixdown]

In Operational Research terms this is called the Light Bulb problem. You have a light bulb over a production line. When the bulb blows, you lose production while the bulb is changed. If you can schedule the change before it fails, you lose less production but you get through more bulbs. The question is, how long do you let the bulb go for, before you change it? The same principle applies except of course the cost of component failure can be much higher. It is always a trade off, but hopefully a calculated one.
Correct. There are, of course, ways to minimise the risk of actual component failure by regular inspection and enforcement of life-limits. It's no different to the tyres and brakes on your car. Nobody wants to waste money replacing perfectly serviceable parts, and regular examination will show when they are coming to the end of their useful (and legal) life. A prudent owner will replace them well before they become dangerous.

[treadigraph]

That's what I thought. But I was fairly young at the time - we were on cub camp and he lost power over us before crashing in to the neighbouring field.
:(
I saw him fly over a friend's house as i was leaving, then got glimpses of him doing aeros on the axis of the road I was driving up towards TRRL at Crowthorne. Cut across to the A30 around Sandhurst and saw a fleet of blue lights heading west...

Can't recall now all these years later, which company had done the rebuilt of the Merlin in ED606 though.....whether it was a US builder or a UK one?

I believe it was an offshore UK company.

[GeeRam]

:(
I believe it was an offshore UK company.

Aaahh.......the same one that at around the same time frame, had the contract from MOD for engine supply to BBMF by any chance?

[NutLoose]

Guys, you are all assuming it was an engine problem, there are more to an aircraft than the engine, fuel supply, pumps, mags etc as examples, please do not second guess causes, they will be released when the cause has been found.

[treadigraph]

Aaahh.......the same one that at around the same time frame, had the contract from MOD for engine supply to BBMF by any chance?

I've honestly no idea who they did work for! Just a vague recollection from a magazine article...

[Ninthace]

Correct. There are, of course, ways to minimise the risk of actual component failure by regular inspection and enforcement of life-limits. It's no different to the tyres and brakes on your car. Nobody wants to waste money replacing perfectly serviceable parts, and regular examination will show when they are coming to the end of their useful (and legal) life. A prudent owner will replace them well before they become dangerous.
In real life, with multiple components that might fail, the maths behind it is complicated as you normally have more variables than you have equations to solve them.

[Asturias56]

If its statistically based it can happen at any time - the likelihood is that it won't fail immediately - but it can - and sometimes does.

[Video Mixdown]

I’d be interested in hearing of any component that ‘just failed’ for no reason at all.

No design error, manufacturing fault, incorrect installation or assembly, fatigue cracking, corrosion, overstressing, life expiry, storage & handling error, bad maintenance, inadequate lubrication, misuse etc. etc.

It’s my belief that every single failure will have a cause and a way of preventing it from happening again, even if that means removing all those parts from service and designing a completely new replacement. Whole aircraft fleets have been grounded, or indeed scrapped, whilst this happens.

[Ninthace]

Nothing fails for no reason, but the reason may not be apparent, detectable or preventable so will apparently not have a cause.

[Video Mixdown]

Nothing fails for no reason, but the reason may not be apparent, detectable or preventable so will apparently not have a cause.
Do you have an example? That may have been true in the distant past but I simply don’t believe that it can be true today.

[Diff Tail Shim]

I’d be interested in hearing of any component that ‘just failed’ for no reason at all.

No design error, manufacturing fault, incorrect installation or assembly, fatigue cracking, corrosion, overstressing, life expiry, storage & handling error, bad maintenance, inadequate lubrication, misuse etc. etc.

It’s my belief that every single failure will have a cause and a way of preventing it from happening again, even if that means removing all those parts from service and designing a completely new replacement. Whole aircraft fleets have been grounded, or indeed scrapped, whilst this happens.
You an aircraft engineer? Can you explain just culture? Nobody has come out from the investigation to point to a failure of anything yet. The airframes were never designed to fly 80 years post build. The finite element analysis never existed then. Can you explain fatigue in alloys and the processes? The airframes (and I ripped a spitfire apart from.gate guard 35 years ago) was never built for a good fatigue life. Far from it. Comet finish as far as stress. Prof Reason and Swiss Cheese. I don't have to look that up.

[Video Mixdown]

You an aircraft engineer? Can you explain just culture? Nobody has come out from the investigation to point to a failure of anything yet. The airframes were never designed to fly 80 years post build. The finite element analysis never existed then. Can you explain fatigue in alloys and the processes? The airframes (and I ripped a spitfire apart from.gate guard 35 years ago) was never built for a good fatigue life. Far from it. Comet finish as far as stress. Prof Reason and Swiss Cheese. I don't have to look that up.
I am obviously not an aircraft engineer and never claimed to be. I’m sure you know this stuff inside out because of your training and experience.
I am not pointing fingers at any reason for this particular accident because I know nothing about its circumstances.
It is self-evident that old aircraft were not built to modern standards and don’t improve with age, but our understanding of fatigue damage (for example) and techniques of metallurgical testing and microscopic examination must mean that incipient damage can and should be detected early and faulty parts repaired or replaced.
Your mention of the DH Comet crashes is a good example. Those crashes were inexplicable at first, but scientists and engineers determined to to find the cause and they did, changing aircraft design forever.
I’m quite sure you would not fit a part to one of your aircraft and sign it off as serviceable if you had no idea whether it was suitable and strong enough to do its job.
PS
I have in fact been peripherally involved in a number of aircraft accident investigations, mainly in gathering photographic and video evidence. I know that attention to the smallest detail can reveal a cause that is otherwise obscure.

[Ninthace]

Do you have an example? That may have been true in the distant past but I simply don’t believe that it can be true today.
An O- ring hardening with age.

[Video Mixdown]

An O- ring hardening with age.
Do you not think that if an O-ring is so old that it has hardened with age it must be way past the time it should have been replaced? That is entirely predictable and adhering to a servicing schedule would surely have prevented it.

[Ninthace]

Only if the rate is predictable, nor does it need to be hard with age, just less flexible than it ought to be. Temperature, pressure cycles, passage of fluid all have a bearing and it could fail prematurely, yet when removed and inspected, it may appear perfectly serviceable. Have you never ever swapped out what appears to be a perfectly serviceable component in a u/s system to find the system is now working?

Things are not always as straightforward as you seem to think they should be. For example, 3 weeks ago, our home CMEV just stopped. It would not work from any of the switches. Turning the entire supply circuit on and off from the control board achieved nothing. The expert diagnosed a failed unit. On the day the unit arrived, we had a power cut. Our back up power cut in then after less than a minute the grid returned. Guess what, the CMEV is working again and has run ever since. A check now would probably find all the relays serviceable and no break in supply.

[stevef]

An O- ring hardening with age.
I've personally never seen or heard of an aircraft component O ring hardening with age once it's been installed in its medium and regularly used. I agree that they do harden in their protective packets eventually, (way past their expiry date) but they will detereriorate early if exposed to extreme storage temperatures. They're routinely replaced when disturbed or during the lifed component overhaul though.

[Ninthace]

It was not the example I had in mind, but does the name Challenger mean anything?

[Video Mixdown]

Only if the rate is predictable, nor does it need to be hard with age, just less flexible than it ought to be. Temperature, pressure cycles, passage of fluid all have a bearing and it could fail prematurely, yet when removed and inspected, it may appear perfectly serviceable. Have you never ever swapped out what appears to be a perfectly serviceable component in a u/s system to find the system is now working?

Things are not always as straightforward as you seem to think they should be. For example, 3 weeks ago, our home CMEV just stopped. It would not work from any of the switches. Turning the entire supply circuit on and off from the control board achieved nothing. The expert diagnosed a failed unit. On the day the unit arrived, we had a power cut. Our back up power cut in then after less than a minute the grid returned. Guess what, the CMEV is working again and has run ever since. A check now would probably find all the relays serviceable and no break in supply.
To be honest I don't see how a seal can fail yet still appear to be in perfect condition under close examination. Either it was damaged, was not fitted properly or its housing was contaminated or damaged in some way, otherwise it would not leak.
I regret I don't know what a CMEV is, but it is clearly not an aircraft component. Would you install such a device in an aircraft you were going to fly in knowing it was exhibiting random failures? I don't think I would, and I guess any responsible engineer would label it unserviceable and send it for detailed testing, although these days maybe it would just be scrapped and a new one fitted.

[Ninthace]

We are talking generalities, rather than specific components to illustrate principles. No you would not fit a component with a history of random failure (hopefully), but until it fails the first time, you do not know that do you? There is nothing magic about engineering principles in aircraft, no matter how careful you are, **** will happen from time to time, and sometimes you will have no idea why because you do not have the means to find out. See #109.

[EXDAC]

Do you not think that if an O-ring is so old that it has hardened with age it must be way past the time it should have been replaced? That is entirely predictable and adhering to a servicing schedule would surely have prevented it.

The Piper PA-28 series fixed gear aircraft have a cylinder head on the main gear legs. It is sealed by an O ring that can only be changed by removing the landing gear from the wing. There is no scheduled replacement for these O rings. When I pulled the main gear out of my aircraft and removed the cylinder heads the O rings fell in pieces on the hangar floor. They had probably not been changed since the aircraft was built.

[stevef]

It was not the example I had in mind, but does the name Challenger mean anything?
Yes. I was reading an article about the Challenger disaster only a couple of weeks ago. Low temperature sealing problems were a known issue and the Thiokol engineer did raise concerns about it pre-launch but was over-ruled.

[stevef]

The Piper PA-28 series fixed gear aircraft have a cylinder head on the main gear legs. It is sealed by an O ring that can only be changed by removing the landing gear from the wing. There is no scheduled replacement for these O rings. When I pulled the main gear out of my aircraft and removed the cylinder heads the O rings fell in pieces on the hangar floor. They had probably not been changed since the aircraft was built.
Called an 'on-condition' replacement item.
I've removed a couple of those PA28 strut housings in the past due to cracked upper torque link lugs and definitely not my favourite job.

[Video Mixdown]

We are talking generalities, rather than specific components to illustrate principles. No you would not fit a component with a history of random failure (hopefully), but until it fails the first time, you do not know that do you? There is nothing magic about engineering principles in aircraft, no matter how careful you are, **** will happen from time to time, and sometimes you will have no idea why because you do not have the means to find out. See #109.
I think my basic point, with reference to the investigation of aircraft accidents, is that the findings an investigator presents have to be provable and meet the standards of legal evidence. A court case can and often does rely on such evidence in the aftermath of a crash.
Saying things like 'that component might have failed' or 'that might have happened but I don't know why' would be dismissed as speculation. The job is to forensically prove things, not speculate, and they will go to extraordinary lengths and spend a lot of time and money to do so. We are talking about hard facts, not mysterious anomalies. For example, no investigator would put his name to a report on the MH370 loss because nobody has any idea what happened to it.

[BEagle]

Notwithstanding the foregoing posts, it is surely not unreasonable to have expected some update from the BBMF by now, given the intense public interest in this sad event?

[Diff Tail Shim]

I am obviously not an aircraft engineer and never claimed to be. I’m sure you know this stuff inside out because of your training and experience.
I am not pointing fingers at any reason for this particular accident because I know nothing about its circumstances.
It is self-evident that old aircraft were not built to modern standards and don’t improve with age, but our understanding of fatigue damage (for example) and techniques of metallurgical testing and microscopic examination must mean that incipient damage can and should be detected early and faulty parts repaired or replaced.
Your mention of the DH Comet crashes is a good example. Those crashes were inexplicable at first, but scientists and engineers determined to to find the cause and they did, changing aircraft design forever.
I’m quite sure you would not fit a part to one of your aircraft and sign it off as serviceable if you had no idea whether it was suitable and strong enough to do its job.
PS
I have in fact been peripherally involved in a number of aircraft accident investigations, mainly in gathering photographic and video evidence. I know that attention to the smallest detail can reveal a cause that is otherwise obscure.
I thought you might of. Aeroplanes made of alloy suffer fatigue failures. A natural occurance of failure well under yield stresses. Why the BBMF frames are not pushed as they could be on the old days. No doubts the BBMF airframes have strict NDT inspection regimes. Strict lifing policies of components like control cables. But NDT will not pick up sudden failures. Engine failures are not uncommon. The Hurricane crash I saw at Wittering in 1991 was engine failure. The previous OC BBMF Mark Discombe won an AFC for saving an airframe that again suffered engine failure. Until the investigation finds the reason for this crash, I will not speculate on why.

[Video Mixdown]

The Piper PA-28 series fixed gear aircraft have a cylinder head on the main gear legs. It is sealed by an O ring that can only be changed by removing the landing gear from the wing. There is no scheduled replacement for these O rings. When I pulled the main gear out of my aircraft and removed the cylinder heads the O rings fell in pieces on the hangar floor. They had probably not been changed since the aircraft was built.
Is there some system for flagging things like that up and alerting other operators and engineers to the issue?

[Diff Tail Shim]

O rings can fail in general use. See it occasionally on on condition items (that have no life limiting restrictions) like Hydraulic pumps.

[Ninthace]

I think my basic point, with reference to the investigation of aircraft accidents, is that the findings an investigator presents have to be provable and meet the standards of legal evidence. A court case can and often does rely on such evidence in the aftermath of a crash.
Saying things like 'that component might have failed' or 'that might have happened but I don't know why' would be dismissed as speculation. The job is to forensically prove things, not speculate, and they will go to extraordinary lengths and spend a lot of time and money to do so. We are talking about hard facts, not mysterious anomalies. For example, no investigator would put his name to a report on the MH370 loss because nobody has any idea what happened to it.

A bit of a goal post move from where we were before, but it even if the cause is determined, that does not necessarily the cause could have been detected and prevented during the normal course of maintenance and operation. To continue the hypothetical O ring, You may establish the cause was an O ring failure and still not know why.

[EXDAC]

Is there some system for flagging things like that up and alerting other operators and engineers to the issue?

Don't know about UK but in US there is the SDRS.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-109B_FAA.pdf

[Video Mixdown]

A bit of a goal post move from where we were before, but it even if the cause is determined, that does not necessarily the cause could have been detected and prevented during the normal course of maintenance and operation. To continue the hypothetical O ring, You may establish the cause was an O ring failure and still not know why.
Of course, there’s a third option.
The O ring is an inanimate object that obeys physical laws. It cannot decide for itself whether to leak or not. It either does or does not.
Neither is it a Quantum O ring that can leak and not leak at the same time.
Our investigator is faced with an impossible conundrum. He has an O ring in perfect condition that cannot leak, yet he has a leak.
He then observes Cpl Ninthace in his grubby overalls. What if he came in to work with a hangover, clumsily spilt the oil and is now blaming the poor little O ring to avoid getting shouted at by the Chiefy?

[Easy Street]

I think my basic point, with reference to the investigation of aircraft accidents, is that the findings an investigator presents have to be provable and meet the standards of legal evidence. A court case can and often does rely on such evidence in the aftermath of a crash.


Accident investigations *can* be relied upon in court, if the evidence is good enough, but they don't *have* to be written that way. It's not always possible to make findings which would be useful to a court. That's fine, because the sole purpose of an accident investigation is to prevent recurrence. Investigators can make recommendations to mitigate possible causes without being certain of anything. If you could mitigate something which had a 25% probability of causing an accident, and do it at no cost, would you? Of course. The fact that 25% is well below the civil standard of proof would not be a reason to overlook the possible cause.

In criminal courts, there is also the fact that some statements in accident reports will be held unprovable because of inadmissability of the underpinning evidence, for instance where people have self-incriminated while assisting the accident investigation. Such evidence has to be led again from scratch before the court, with due legal protection applied, so the standard to which it is reported in the accident investigation is neither here nor there.

[NutLoose]

I thought you might of. Aeroplanes made of alloy suffer fatigue failures. A natural occurance of failure well under yield stresses. Why the BBMF frames are not pushed as they could be on the old days. No doubts the BBMF airframes have strict NDT inspection regimes. Strict lifing policies of components like control cables. But NDT will not pick up sudden failures. Engine failures are not uncommon. The Hurricane crash I saw at Wittering in 1991 was engine failure. The previous OC BBMF Mark Discombe won an AFC for saving an airframe that again suffered engine failure. Until the investigation finds the reason for this crash, I will not speculate on why.

One thing on the Spitfire was the rivets used in the wings etc, they were originally a magnesium alloy, IIRC and would show up as internal black spots on X-rays, as they would corrode internally, these would be replaced on overhauls with better rivet specs.

As for control cables, the fighter version has double cables for redundancy in case of battle damage, the PR MK 19’s didn’t to save weight.

They do carry out Spectra Oil Analysis on the engine oils to measure metal content to head off any future failure due to increased wear rate etc.

On O rings, yes they do become hardened and brittle, but that does not mean they have lost their sealing capabilities. seals in leg struts also go square resulting in leaks, again in the example of the PA 28 this will simply result in the strut deflating, but before that happens they tend to weep fluid. But you can get that with anything, induction elbow gaskets for example.

Things wear, it is the nature of the beast, a piston engine may go to its full life, others may die at half life, it totally depends on how it is operated, warmed up, treated on descents, makes of oil, frequency of its change etc.. there are no two factors the same across the worlds fleets. Just as happens with cars.

[tucumseh]

It is self-evident that old aircraft were not built to modern standards and don’t improve with age, but our understanding of fatigue damage...


Of interest, perhaps, is this, from the evidence to Lord Philip's Mull of Kintyre Review in 2010...

'SM47 also stated "reliability increases with age", citing this as the reason for not supporting or funding Fault Investigation requests raised by RAF Lyneham on cracked gearboxes (a critical flight safety hazard). That a junior supplier felt empowered to complain to, and about, a senior engineering project manager in such a manner, and make decisions on purely engineering matters affecting flight safety, is indicative of the emerging ethos'.

That decision by AMSO was made in 1991. I see no evidence that progress has been made to reverse this ethos. The list of dead in avoidable accidents, many caused by similar engineering decisions being taken by administrators, is long and tends to support my observation. The evidence to the Nimrod Review called this 'savings at the expense of safety', and Mr Haddon-Cave agreed. The MAA was charged with implementing his recommendations, but that's impossible without top-down support, which we know is almost completely lacking. On this BBMF issue, it's entirely possible someone has pointed this out and placed the matter before the correct person, who has been on rundown since the election was announced!

If you have a system that relies on 'Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons', and you deliberately rid yourself of both them and your natural recruitment grounds, then don't expect...

[Nick H.]

Greg Bagwell, on Twitter, has strongly disagreed with Terry Holloway's opinions as reported by the Telegraph in the article I linked to in post #73 above.
"Disappointingly, especially as a good man lost his life in the process, this article is based on a single, wrong opinion that didn’t have the correct facts. The aircraft were grounded by the RAF risk holder not the MAA - its entirely routine action in such cases. I have been the duty holder for the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (Terry Holloway has never been and indeed left before the MAA was even created). I predict that the BBMF will be back in the air in due course, when all risks have been assessed."
https://twitter.com/gregbagwell/status/1803128100118581648

[tucumseh]

Greg Bagwell, on Twitter, has strongly disagreed with Terry Holloway's opinions as reported by the Telegraph in the article I linked to in post #73 above.
"Disappointingly, especially as a good man lost his life in the process, this article is based on a single, wrong opinion that didn’t have the correct facts. The aircraft were grounded by the RAF risk holder not the MAA - its entirely routine action in such cases. I have been the duty holder for the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (Terry Holloway has never been and indeed left before the MAA was even created). I predict that the BBMF will be back in the air in due course, when all risks have been assessed."
https://twitter.com/gregbagwell/status/1803128100118581648

Perhaps Mr Holloway knew that the 2 Star Duty Holder was required to 'assess' the top 10 risks every month? It would seem that process will now commence, in line with MoD's long-standing policy that it is sufficient to record risks, but wait for something adverse to occur before actually doing anything.

[Nick H.]

We don't know what Holloway said. His words will have been trimmed and sensationalised. Happens every time. The Telegraph wouldn't have run the story without a dramatic angle.

[NutLoose]

It sounds like the standard British press action, shake the magic expert tree, and the proverbial expert will drop out and proceed spout out a load of wisdom, bereft of any solid facts to back them up.

[falcon900]

Perhaps Mr Holloway knew that the 2 Star Duty Holder was required to 'assess' the top 10 risks every month? It would seem that process will now commence, in line with MoD's long-standing policy that it is sufficient to record risks, but wait for something adverse to occur before actually doing anything.

I find myself in the unusual position of suggesting there might be a middle ground twice in one thread!
The normal travelling assumption nowadays for a professional operation such as the RAF should be, in simplistic terms, that there is a risk register incorporating both the risks identified and the mitigations in place which allow those risks to be brought, not to zero, within the organisations risk appetite. We can assume that the loss of a life in peacetime due to an in flight incident does not fall within the risk appetite, so there does need to be a reassessment: is there a risk we hadn’t identified? Did a mitigant of a recognised risk not function? Were the identified mitigants insufficient? And most difficult of all, there needs to be a judgement as to whether the tragic event represented the 1 in XXX million residual risk which the risk register would have recognised.
Until you know what actually transpired, it is extremely difficult to make much headway with such a process, and coupled with the small and concentrated nature of BBMF, a fleet wide pause seems reasonable. The communications blackout does not.

All of that said, I am aware of the valid point Tecumseh makes about the RAF track record in such matters, I suppose I am giving BBMF a bit of slack by presuming them innocent until otherwise established.

[tucumseh]

We can assume that the loss of a life in peacetime due to an in flight incident does not fall within the risk appetite.

I'd like to think this has changed, but the Red Arrows risk register in 2018 showed it was deemed acceptable by all Duty Holders that a passenger be severely injured or killed, so long as the pilot wasn't. This remained the case at the Inquest in 2021.

[SAR Bloke]

We can assume that the loss of a life in peacetime due to an in flight incident does not fall within the risk appetite

Can 'we'?

If an air force requirement was for zero loss of life during peacetime then nobody would ever be allowed to go flying. Any military pilot who says that they can be 100% sure that they will never be killed in a flying accident during their career is deluded; I have lost many friends in peacetime to confirm that simply isn't true. How many civilian pilots of single engine aircraft have a risk level of zero when they go flying? That doesn't mean that the risk should be flippantly accepted, but it will always be there at some statistical level.

As you stated, the idea isn't to get the risk to zero but to get it within an acceptable risk appetite; that risk appetite, for a pilot, in many platforms will not and can not be zero. Despite Video Mixdown's opinion, you will never get the risk of component/system failure to zero, and with military aircraft (including the Spitfire) you would likely have more single points of failure than you would on a commercial aircraft (and even the risk of a commercial aircraft fatality is not zero). For example (without knowing what happened in this tragic accident), the risk of engine failure will never be zero and if it happens at the wrong time on a single engine aircraft then the result can be catastrophic. The only way to make that risk zero is not to fly.

That doesn't mean you don't investigate to find out what went wrong to try to reduce risk for the future. Immediately playing the blame game without knowing what happened is presumptuous to say the least in my opinion.

There are different institutional responses to failures/accidents. One response is to continue as normal until you find out something to cause you to stop, and the other is to stop and try to find out what went wrong to allow you to resume operations in as safe a manner is possible. I have worked both systems and can understand the pros/cons of both, but I know which I prefer as an operator.

[Thud105]

Is anyone else surprised that the cause of this tragic accident has not yet been revealed? I would've thought it would've been discovered in the first week and certainly by now. Just seems a bit odd.

[Asturias56]

It's almost certainly known what the problem was but what caused it to happen when and where it did? There is no pressing need to come out with an answer quickly - its not as if every B.737 is grounded

[BonnieLass]

With all due respect, finding a cause is only a part of finding out why an aircraft went down, especially when it is a fatal accident.

There are many things that need to be done.....from maintenance records to medical records, there are eyewitness accounts and ATC records.

There are so many questions that require answers...paper trails, autopsy, toxicology, wreckage examination - usually microscopic details needed and checked/rechecked and so forth.

Civilian accidents can take years to investigate, military ones are no different.

How long before a cause or causes are confirmed?

How long is a piece of string?

These things are not going to be rushed just cos it is a an aircraft that is in the public eye. No investigation is going to throw out could be or might be, they need to be absolutely 10000% certain and since most accidents tend to be a combination of different things that converge.

BBMF will be back in the air, may or may not be this season. The human element is as important as the mechanical. Nothing will be revealed til they are ready. The human loss will still be very raw, let them grieve and reflect.

We need to be patient.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Is anyone else surprised that the cause of this tragic accident has not yet been revealed? I would've thought it would've been discovered in the first week and certainly by now. Just seems a bit odd.

Have you actually read the thread?

[higthepig]

Thud105 , 20th Jun 2024 15:23Is anyone else surprised that the cause of this tragic accident has not yet been revealed? I would've thought it would've been discovered in the first week and certainly by now. Just seems a bit odd.

​​​​​​​I do not care how long the investigation takes, they owe it to Mark, his family, the Coroner, BBMF etc to ensure that it is afforded the appropriate amount of diligence and scrutiny. Unless you are flying the same mark of Spitfire, why does it seem odd to you (apologies if you are, but I doubt it), I think you are just fishing.............

[Nick H.]

How does the LF Mark IXe behave when the engine cuts out? And what's it like in a stall? Is there an authoritative public source for such things? (I'm not trying to imply a certain sequence of events, I'm just interested in what it was like to fly MK356.)

[DogTailRed2]

https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/448816057_798366265730349_2292640772249399966_n.jpg?_nc_cat= 1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=0hecpo8Z36cQ7kNvgGmX5Hl&_nc_ht=scontent-man2-1.xx&oh=00_AYA69H3TZE06QYzy75H3UAar5pZYZPpCHgfMLn-zcZ1qdQ&oe=667A65D2
Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=798366269063682&set=a.428315619402084)

[treadigraph]

Nick H, not sure what else is out there but the opening chapter in Neil Williams' book "Airborne" might give you an idea of flying a Mk IX. Also this article by him about squeezing one into a small strip (https://www.steemrok.com/nw%20san/znwsanvol2v12.html#swit)... (credit Discorde!)

Also Mark Levy on what happens when a Merlin quits on a Mustang...

Merlin quits on a Mustang.

[DogTailRed2]

Who was the famous Spitfire restorer and pilot that referred to the Spitfire as having a glide similar to a perforated manhole cover?

[megan]

Spitfire as havinga glide similar to a perforated manhole coverPlease don't tell me you were gullible enough to believe the statement.

http://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

[DogTailRed2]

Please don't tell me you were gullible enough to believe the statement.

http://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf
No, but I figured you would be.

[Pezza26]

Before I ask this question, please be assured that I mean no disrespect to the friends and family of Sqn Ldr Long and this question is asked for a genuine event planning reason.

Is it realistic to assume that the BBMF will not be fulfilling their planned flying activities over the forthcoming Armed Forces Day weekend? As mentioned above, and understandably, contacts at BBMF have gone quiet and there has been no confirmation either way. I am trying to advise someone who is involved in organising an AFD event and they need to make sure that they dont publicise something that wont be happening. (although most are understanding and sympathetic, there are always people who arent and will cause hell)

Thanks for any answers that you can provide

[EXDAC]

Please don't tell me you were gullible enough to believe the statement.

http://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

Fascinating paper but I found no mention of engine out glide ratio or best glide speed.

[BonnieLass]

Before I ask this question, please be assured that I mean no disrespect to the friends and family of Sqn Ldr Long and this question is asked for a genuine event planning reason.

Is it realistic to assume that the BBMF will not be fulfilling their planned flying activities over the forthcoming Armed Forces Day weekend? As mentioned above, and understandably, contacts at BBMF have gone quiet and there has been no confirmation either way. I am trying to advise someone who is involved in organising an AFD event and they need to make sure that they dont publicise something that wont be happening. (although most are understanding and sympathetic, there are always people who arent and will cause hell)

Thanks for any answers that you can provide

Speaking personally as an avid watcher/follower of the BBMF over the years, I would doubt that they will be appearing this season seeing as its not too far away date wise.

So I would advise your friend not to expect to see them and if by chance they do fly, then it would be a beautiful sight and sound to behold. I wouldn't be building hopes of seeing them though, probably better to say that it is unlikely to happen thus avoiding disappointment and not building up expectations too much (as building expectations usually results in a minority of angry individuals when the "promised" event doesn't happen).

Tbh I think we will be fortunate if we see them back in the air much before the start of the 2025 season on the basis that as investigations go, its still early days and on a personal level it has hit them all very hard.

JMHO.

[megan]

Fascinating paper but I found no mention of engine out glide ratio or best glide speedSorry about that, old age finger trouble.Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Martlesham Heath
September 1936

Handling trials of the Spitfire K.5054

SUMMARY OF FLYING QUALITIES.
The aeroplane is simple and easy to fly and has no vices. All controls are entirely satisfactory for this type and no modification to them is required, except that the elevator control might be improved by reducing the gear ratio between the control column and elevator. The controls are well harmonised and appear to give an excellent compromise between manoeuvrability and steadiness for shooting. Take-off and landing are straightforward and easy.

The aeroplane has rather a flat glide, even when the undercarriage and flaps are down and has a considerable float if the approach is made a little too fast. This defect could be remedied by fitting higher drag flaps.

In general the handling of this aeroplane is such that it can be flown by the average fully trained service fighter pilot, but there can be no doubt that it would be improved by having flaps giving a higher drag.The T-28B/C has a clean glide ratio of 11.7 by way of comparision of this class of aircraft, with gear and flaps the ratio is reduced to 5.7, opening the canopy will further reduce the ratio to 5.2, if you want to replicate a perforated manhole cover you can then lower the speed brake.

[Dr Jekyll]

Sorry about that, old age finger trouble.The T-28B/C has a clean glide ratio of 11.7 by way of comparision of this class of aircraft, with gear and flaps the ratio is reduced to 5.7, opening the canopy will further reduce the ratio to 5.2, if you want to replicate a perforated manhole cover you can then lower the speed brake.


I tend to get confused about what is meant by 'reduce' as opposed to 'increase' a ratio, but surely 5.7 to 5.2 is an increase? Otherwise 11.7 to 5.7 is.

[megan]

Dr Jekyll, in my neck of the woods its how we speak of glide ratios, taking the 11.7 for example it's 11.7:1, we just drop the :1 portion. That is the aircraft will glide 11.7 feet for each one foot of altitude loss.

[Dr Jekyll]

Dr Jekyll, in my neck of the woods its how we speak of glide ratios, taking the 11.7 for example it's 11.7:1, we just drop the :1 portion. That is the aircraft will glide 11.7 feet for each one foot of altitude loss.
Thanks, that explains it. I was taking 11.7 to be a fairly dramatic 11:7, not 11.7:1.

[Thud105]

"Have you actually read the thread?"

Errrr yes, that's why I asked. Never flown a Spitfire but have a few hours in a P-51, so essentially the same engine. My point is that I struggle to believe they don't know the cause - and that intel should be shared. Sample the fuel, then tear the engine down, you'll soon see what the cause of this tragic accident was. If its likely to happen again, (maybe there's a component in the fuel system that's showing its age, for example - but is rarely checked) then maybe the BBMF might like to share its findings with the wider warbird community? There's a lot of Merlins and Packard Merlins flying these days.

[DuncanDoenitz]

"Have you actually read the thread?"

Errrr yes, that's why I asked.

So you have a few P-51 hours, but are you the owner, operator or Continued Airworthiness Manager of the aircraft, engine or propeller type involved?

If you are, and if the Type Certificate Holder of the equipment believes that there's an airworthiness problem, and they have a means of identifying it, fixing it, mitigating risk or recommending a prohibition of flight, then they or your Regulatory Authority will be in touch via an SB or AD.

This isn't facebook.

[Thud105]

"This isn't facebook." Apologies, I thought it was called 'Professional Pilot's Rumour Network'. My bad.

[Rigga]

WOW! Quite a few suppositions by supposed professionals. BBMF/MOD is perfectly entitled to ground its own fleet for whatever reason they think deserves that action. However, they are just a single operator of a type that is flown worldwide and, until a mandated Airworthiness Directive is issued by a Competent Airworthiness Authority, that ‘company’ decision can remain for as long as they want it. BBMF (Or their 2*) risk assessments are independent and different to other civilian operator’s assessments.
The Competent Authority will not issue a mandate until it has confirmed evidence of the issue and (preferably) a remedy to alleviate the problem. It is not unknown for the authority to issue a grounding pending further evidence and research (e.g. 737 MAX8).
As stated clearly above this isn’t face book or a TV drama (or even the pressurised FAA!) and impatience is an absolute “no-no” for aviation accident investigations.
In the meantime, if you want to fly and you’re not in BBMF, at your own risk, carry on.

[Geriaviator]

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Martlesham Heath
September 1936
Handling trials of the Spitfire K.5054
SUMMARY OF FLYING QUALITIES.

Reading this sad story I recall my dear friend Dennis O'Leary, who as Danny 42C enthralled us in the Brevet thread for many years until his death a few years ago. Dennis/Danny loved the Spitfire but said that the early marks were much nicer to fly. "They were like big Tiger Moths really". I saw a similar remark re the Hurricane, and to sum up the handling of early marks became very different with armament, more powerful engines etc. I think Sqn Ldr Long had much more to cope with than we could imagine.

[DuncanDoenitz]

"This isn't facebook." Apologies, I thought it was called 'Professional Pilot's Rumour Network'. My bad.

No bad, Thud; 100%. Rumour, gossip, speculation and supposition.

If you want Airworthiness, however, and if it affects you, keep checking those Bi-Weeklies.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Reading this sad story I recall my dear friend Dennis O'Leary, who as Danny 42C enthralled us in the Brevet thread for many years until his death a few years ago. Dennis/Danny loved the Spitfire but said that the early marks were much nicer to fly. "They were like big Tiger Moths really". I saw a similar remark re the Hurricane, and to sum up the handling of early marks became very different with armament, more powerful engines etc. I think Sqn Ldr Long had much more to cope with than we could imagine.
We don't know why the accident happened yet. Bar he made emergency call as soon as he was airborne. Nobody knows why his aeroplane left controlled flight. Speculation on because it was a different mark to another airframe means nothing.

[megan]

Nobody knows why his aeroplane left controlled flightWhat evidence is there that the aircraft left controlled flight?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Controlled Flight means that the aircraft is responding to the pilot's demands for acceleration in 3-dimensions and with propulsive/retarding force. The proposition is based upon the pilot being conscious and situationally aware, but If we assume that the pilot's intention was not to invert the aircraft in a field, then it departed from Controlled Flight.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Controlled Flight means that the aircraft is responding to the pilot's demands for acceleration in 3-dimensions and with propulsive/retarding force. The proposition is based upon the pilot being conscious and situationally aware, but If we assume that the pilot's intention was not to invert the aircraft in a field, then it departed from Controlled Flight.
Thank you for clarification to others in explaining my use of the term.

[Easy Street]

I've never heard of a definition of controlled flight that makes reference to propulsive or retarding forces. By that reckoning, a single engined aircraft departs from controlled flight the moment it suffers an engine failure. That's just not the case. I have always understood controlled flight to mean that the aircraft's attitude and *flight* path remain under the pilot's direct control.

The word flight is important. Ending up inverted in a field could happen as a result of digging a wingtip into a soft surface after a perfectly controlled engine-out landing. It doesn't provide any evidence that the aircraft departed from controlled flight before touching down.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I'm open to debate on that ES; I suppose its the degree of control. The aircraft is granted a CofA on the basis of its ability to operate iaw the Flight Manual, which assumes (subject to MEL, if applicable) all fundamental system are operational. Lose an engine (on a single- or multi-) and you are no longer able to operate the aircraft to its FM limits in terms of maximum/minimum speeds and climbing ability. Yes, you retain a degree of control in 3 axes, but vertical/longitudinal acceleration is now outside your full control. Multi engine, and commencing from a good energy state, is one thing. In a single, you're going to choose a field which was not your planned destination.

I'm an engineer, not a pilot; I'd welcome other opinions.

[Hot 'n' High]

I'm open to debate on that ES; I suppose its the degree of control. The aircraft is granted a CofA on the basis of its ability to operate iaw the Flight Manual, which assumes (subject to MEL, if applicable) all fundamental system are operational. Lose an engine (on a single- or multi-) and you are no longer able to operate the aircraft to its FM limits in terms of maximum/minimum speeds and climbing ability. Yes, you retain a degree of control in 3 axes, but vertical/longitudinal acceleration is now outside your full control. Multi engine, and commencing from a good energy state, is one thing. In a single, you're going to choose a field which was not your planned destination.

I'm an engineer, not a pilot; I'd welcome other opinions.

I'd not overthink this too much tbh.

There is a difference between "control" and "performance". Re the C of A, don't forget that the manuals contain checklists for all sorts of failures. Keeping it simple, a Cessna 150 has procedures/checklists/training for likely failures such as Engine Failure. The difference is that the options for the pilot are considerably reduced upon an engine failure - you are now limited to glide range and what is available as a suitable landing area within that new range radius. The FM acknowledges the reduced performance but provides information on how to safely glide to a safe landing - if there is somewhere suitable.

That's why, operating SE, a pilot should always be aware of the possibility of an engine failure so, for example, choose a narrow crossing point over water or avoid overflying large built-up areas. After an engine failure, the aircraft is acknowledged to be range-limited but it is still fundamentally in control as the pilot can still influence the new final, if more constrained, outcome by, for example, choosing the best field possible to land in and then getting the plane safely in there. However, if they have chosen to fly over the sea beyond glide range, they will end up in the water - it's a risk that the pilot took by knowingly (or inadvertently) flying out over water beyond glide range if they were to have an engine failure. But, even then, in following the ditching procedures in the FM/training hopefully they will get out safely. Hit a large wave at the wrong moment in the flare and if control is lost to the sea all bets are off. Even this example was "controlled flight" even if that control was somewhat limited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7tY1tv5yBQ

Anyway, that's my contribution but, like you, open to hear other views.

However, the question for this Thread is what happened to Mark Long to convert a potentially survivable event into the dreadful outcome it turned into? Hopefully the BoI will reveal what happened and thus to feed any lessons learned back into the world of aviation.

[Pezza26]

Speaking personally as an avid watcher/follower of the BBMF over the years, I would doubt that they will be appearing this season seeing as its not too far away date wise.

So I would advise your friend not to expect to see them and if by chance they do fly, then it would be a beautiful sight and sound to behold. I wouldn't be building hopes of seeing them though, probably better to say that it is unlikely to happen thus avoiding disappointment and not building up expectations too much (as building expectations usually results in a minority of angry individuals when the "promised" event doesn't happen).

Tbh I think we will be fortunate if we see them back in the air much before the start of the 2025 season on the basis that as investigations go, its still early days and on a personal level it has hit them all very hard.

JMHO.

Exactly what I had already advised but thank you for confirming my first thoughts.

[megan]

f we assume that the pilot's intention was not to invert the aircraft in a field, then it departed from Controlled FlightThe fact that the aircraft is not upright doesn't mean control was lost necessarily, it may well be the result of impact with ground based objects during a forced landing.

The definition of loss of control,Loss of Control – Inflight (LOC-I) is the most significant cause of fatal accidents in commercial aviation. LOC-I occurs when an aircraft deviates from the intended flight path or an adverse flight condition places an aircraft outside the normal flight envelope, with the pilot unable to maintain control of the aircraft. The definition of LOC-I, as stated in the IATA Safety Report, is loss of aircraft control while in flight.https://www.iata.org/fcontentassets/b6eb2adc248c484192101edd1ed36015/loc-i_2019.pdf

[EXDAC]

Citing a definintion for "Loss of Control in Flight" and saying that it defines loss of control in general does not seem productive. Just as the I of LOC-I refers to "in-flight" there is a term for loss of control on ground. AOPA thinks it is LOC-G.

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/safety-videos/avoiding-loc-g

Edit to add - So does NTSB -

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Documents/datafiles/OccurrenceCategoryDefinitions.pdf

[Easy Street]

The ICAO definitions also include SCF-PP (System Component Failure - Powerplant) as a totally separate top level category of occurrence, which rather underlines my point that SCF-PP and LOC-I are different things.

Putting aside formalities, and noting that the poster who first used the term is an engineer and not a pilot, it should be enough to say that "departure from controlled flight" is very widely understood by pilots to mean "spin", with variations as to degree. In the context of speculation over an engine failure after takeoff, it is a form of words which pilots would interpret as meaning that the aircraft had been stalled and/or spun while manoeuvring to reach an intended forced landing spot. In environment as flat and open as the environs of RAF Coningsby, that would be such an unexpected outcome as to suggest pilot error. So I think it is important not to use that language unless some evidence is available to support it.

Interestingly or not, the latest version of AP3456 to be published online scrupulously avoids using the phrase!

[NutLoose]

I would think the FM would have best glide ratios listed for such an emergency.

As for the Quote from the Prototypes testing posted earlier, a prototype is a totally different beast compared to a militarised aircraft, they inevitably are a lot heavier when all the service kit and modifications are added to turn a basic airframe into a warbird.

[Diff Tail Shim]

The ICAO definitions also include SCF-PP (System Component Failure - Powerplant) as a totally separate top level category of occurrence, which rather underlines my point that SCF-PP and LOC-I are different things.

Putting aside formalities, and noting that the poster who first used the term is an engineer and not a pilot, it should be enough to say that "departure from controlled flight" is very widely understood by pilots to mean "spin", with variations as to degree. In the context of speculation over an engine failure after takeoff, it is a form of words which pilots would interpret as meaning that the aircraft had been stalled and/or spun while manoeuvring to reach an intended forced landing spot. In environment as flat and open as the environs of RAF Coningsby, that would be such an unexpected outcome as to suggest pilot error. So I think it is important not to use that language unless some evidence is available to support it.

Interestingly or not, the latest version of AP3456 to be published online scrupulously avoids using the phrase!
I am an engineer also and not a pilot. Departure from controlled flight could be due to a techinical control system failure, maintenance action not correctly carried out or control restriction on top of reaction to another problem. I have seen a BBMF aircraft crash due to departure from controlled flight as I saw LF363 stall and depart right wing down the pilot was trying to line up with the runway and was caught out by a crosswind gust that hit us standing by 1 Sqns waterfront a few seconds before. He had limped into Wittering with an engine malfunction (it sounded horrible and was producing no torque whatsoever). He was so lucky to survive the cartwheel impact and get out before the airframe was well ablaze (10 seconds after impact if memory is correct). Perhaps I used the wrong term in my original comment. Until the service inquiry comes out with an interim report, everything is speculation including anything I type.

[BonnieLass]

This confirms what most of us were thinking. No BBMF will fly at any of the Armed Forces Day events this year.

https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/24408629.battle-britain-flypast-cancelled-isle-wight-armed-forces-day/

Ian Dore, IW Forces Day organiser, said: "This announcement will obviously resonate disappointment, but safety remains the number one priority.

"I would personally like to thank the teams at BBMF and the RAF for showing incredible resilience at what is still a very difficult time for all concerned.

"Our thoughts remain with the Squadron Leader Mark Long and his family.

[SLXOwft]

Speaking from a position of ignorance, I would expect if there is a suspected airworthiness which could affect the type or engine it would have been communicated by now. There were at least three Spifires operating out of Goodwood on Sunday, two Merlin engined and one Griffon engined. While watching dinghy racing at Bosham, I could see one of the Mk IXs doing aerobatics over the sea, the other appears to have been doing the same of Bognor later. So it would seem the owners/operators/pilots have confidence in the airworthiness of their aircraft.

[NutLoose]

Three!, there were NINE at Sywell airshow over the weekend ;)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53810636766_9eba78e3b5_b.jpg

[BonnieLass]

Three!, there were NINE at Sywell airshow over the weekend ;)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53810636766_9eba78e3b5_b.jpg

What a wonderful sound that must have been.....beautiful birds

[megan]

I would think the FM would have best glide ratios listed for such an emergencyThe manual for the particular mark (IX) doesn't include the glide ratio but instructs 130 kts IAS. should be maintained while manoeuvring with the undercarriage and flaps retracted for an engine failure.

Final glide approach (crossing airfield boundary) 90 flaps up 85 kts flaps down. Initial approach increase previous speeds by 17 to 21 kts.As for the Quote from the Prototypes testing posted earlier, a prototype is a totally different beast compared to a militarised aircraft, they inevitably are a lot heavier when all the service kit and modifications are added to turn a basic airframe into a warbirdAll up weight of a particular aircraft has no effect on the glide ratio of an aircraft, however the speed to attain that glide ratio increases with increased weight.

For example a Cessna 207 will glide 16.5 nautical miles from 12,000 feet, to do so at a gross weight of 3,800 lbs speed is 80 kts IAS, 3,400 lb 75 kts, 3,000 lb 70 kts. Glide ratio is thus 8.36:1

[David Thompson]

The BBMF Hangar is open again for tours as from today , Wednesday 26 June , details here ;

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/history-heritage/battle-britain-memorial-flight-visitor-centre/3

[NutLoose]

The manual for the particular mark (IX) doesn't include the glide ratio but instructs 130 kts IAS. should be maintained while manoeuvring with the undercarriage and flaps retracted for an engine failure.

Final glide approach (crossing airfield boundary) 90 flaps up 85 kts flaps down. Initial approach increase previous speeds by 17 to 21 kts.All up weight of a particular aircraft has no effect on the glide ratio of an aircraft, however the speed to attain that glide ratio increases with increased weight.

For example a Cessna 207 will glide 16.5 nautical miles from 12,000 feet, to do so at a gross weight of 3,800 lbs speed is 80 kts IAS, 3,400 lb 75 kts, 3,000 lb 70 kts. Glide ratio is thus 8.36:1

Yes, but the exhaust stubs, guns, aerials, bubble canopy, three bladed prop, bigger radiators and a tail wheel, plus the removal of the wheel doors all add to the drag, items added to bring it into service, hence I simplified it as added weight.