BBMF still grounded?

[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]

Originally Posted by Thud105

"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]

Originally Posted by Geriaviator

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 flight

What 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

You Tube

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]

Originally Posted by BonnieLass

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 Flight

The 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/...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-sa...avoiding-loc-g

Edit to add - So does NTSB -

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Doc...efinitions.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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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/2...ed-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