JohnH wrote:
hbtcoveralls wrote:
Maintaining these aircraft in airworthy condition takes skilled mechanics, lots of parts and a huge amount of paperwork to prove the work has been done correctly.
That's so true and reading this accident report is really an eye opening view into what is required. In many instances the A/C was imperfect when it was made, but stringent RAF maintenance kept them serviceable. I would even go as far to say that the A/C was never really all that safe in the RAF, but the amount of work required to mitigate the dangers inherent to the A/C is the kind of thing only a governmental agency can hope to afford. In the report, it estimates that the IRAN procedure for the Egress system is about a 40 hour (5 man day) procedure. Add to that the cost of the replacement pieces and you quickly realize why the work kept being put off. Jeez, even the parachutes hadn't been inspected and repacked in like 8 years. The shop doing the work (the owners) was making their own service intervals and whenever manufacturers recommended service intervals came up, the shop would just extend the deadline without explanation. Just a senseless accident the first off, didn't need to happen, and the death of a good man due to negligence on the part of the maintainers. I can't imagine that this is the kind of thing that goes on in the US.
Tom Bowers
Thanks Fouga for posting and thanks Tom for this info. I now know why the UK would not allow civilians to operate the Lightning.
A small point of correction/clarification on that point, if I may.
Civilians have operated Lightnings in the UK, but under designated military contracts, and the CAA has never said no ‘under any circumstances’ to the operation of a Lightning by a ‘civilian’ group.
But, under the ‘complex’ category in the UK, the CAA requires manufacturer support or support from a manufacturer approved organisation. In the case of the attempts to fly the Lightning in the UK by two separate organisations, in a ten year period from the types retirement in 1988, it was BAe that vetoed the two ‘operating companies’ in question (even though that one of them was employing very experienced ex-BAe/RAF Lightning techs)
So, it’s really a question of money, as it’s simply not economically viable to fly one of these if you have to pay for the support of BAe or a BAe approved organisation, as has been shown by this report.
Clearly TC simply couldn’t afford (or chose not to) maintain these a/c correctly, with the inevitable consequences.