BBMF still grounded?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
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……
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……
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.
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……
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……
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.
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.
The following 8 users liked this post by BonnieLass:
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.
…
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.
…
"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.
Last edited by Jobza Guddun; 15th Jun 2024 at 13:58. Reason: Restraint
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
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.
The following users liked this post:
Fair enough Nutty, no hard feelings.
ATB
ATB
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
I admire your confidence in the media, and as I said in my previous post, time will tell.
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 admire your confidence in the media, and as I said in my previous post, time will tell.
The following users liked this post:
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?
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?
Terry Holloway is quoted at length in yesterday's Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-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?’”
'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?’”
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.
Don't a lot of warbird operators use aftermarket parts? I thought BBMF used original Merlin parts only but may be completely wrong.
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).
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).
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).
The following users liked this post:
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.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,897
Received 480 Likes
on
271 Posts
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.
Last edited by Easy Street; 16th Jun 2024 at 22:16.