Red Arrow Hawk XX204 Service Inquiry

[Reptile 1]

Released today

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -Final.pdf

[AyrForce1]

Thanks for posting.

[MRTT]

Pretty damning quote from the BBC article:

It added the pressures felt by Red Arrows pilots were "exacerbated by resource constraints" and the "shortfall" in engineering and air safety personnel could lead to a future incident.

[Blackcatlad]

Poor airmanship, plain and simple.

[Fibrous Freddie]

Having fully read the report.... most definitely not 'plain and simple'....
Reading the report generates an awareness of factors affecting quality of displayed airmanship, and the gaining of/retention of/recording of skills/procedures.
As with many 'accidents', the result of complex, interwoven factors including finance, manpower, human factors, risk assessment,and planning.

[Agent K]

Poor airmanship, plain and simple.

Definitely not just "poor airmanship" and not "plain and simple", read the report and recommendation!

[Blackcatlad]

Read the report. Don't buy it but seems the modern way to blame somebody/something else. The Mess Steward burnt my toast, the nasty air traffickers asked me if my gear was down at a crucial point... Lord Flasheart thought he was better than he was and an innocent payed the highest price. How many more of these incidents do the Red Arrows need to have before they're finally regulated properly. For example, c/o the same amount of CT and PEFATO drills as required by other (mere-mortal) Hawk operators!

[Agent K]

Read the report. Don't buy it but seems the modern way to blame somebody/something else. The Mess Steward burnt my toast, the nasty air traffickers asked me if my gear was down at a crucial point... Lord Flasheart thought he was better than he was and an innocent payed the highest price. How many more of these incidents do the Red Arrows need to have before they're finally regulated properly. For example, c/o the same amount of CT and PEFATO drills as required by other (mere-mortal) Hawk operators!

So you accept that the standards and requirements are inconsistent amongst the Hawk operators, as stated, which I absolutely agree clearly is wrong, so, by your own words, you do at least admit that it's not plain and simple nor simply poor airmanship.

[Fibrous Freddie]

Blackcatlad.... Your posts seem contradictory.
To me this seems 'plain and simple '; but I'll let it rest.
The incident itself is the tragic conclusion when all the holes in the cheese line up.

[Blackcatlad]

I used CT and EFATO as examples of a failure to properly regulate RAFAT. This accident could have been avoided at any stage if R3 had recognised that he did not meet the required parameters ('the contract'). Hence my assertion that it was 'poor airmanship, plain and simple'. I recognise that others may have a differing view or interpretation but I would never question you on that view. That's your prerogative.

[Vulcan74]

Maybe they should bring in a couple of spare bods who are awaiting to go on courses etc, who could be brought in to do the secondary duties on a rotation basis I'm sure there is plenty in the air force. Then let the Red Arrows team to get on with their training & not get bogged down with other duties!!

[Doughnut]

Sensible idea. The problem would be having additional personal on the squadron payroll to deal with "briefing room IT issues" and "catering provision" Even if the extra staff existed within the over stretched RAF who would pay ? Think the days of "spare bods" sitting around are long gone.
Surprised to hear the Hawk T1 has never had a front seat command eject system. Tragic consequences.

[C24]

There are two references in the report to an extension of 11 years for the Hawk Mk1. That is good news.

It also highlights an overload of work imposed by the UK Marketing Dept. The RAFAT business plan needs updating from the old setup of airshows during the European show season to incorporate World performances. Too few resources to accomplish the goals set.

Everyone involved in the Team seem to achieve excellent results despite the environment in which they work.
This sad accident and the recommendation if implemented should result in a better world for the RAF in general.

[Vulcan74]

Seems to be the norm these days in any working environment, overstretched staff & long hours & short on resources. But in aviation you cannot take risks and there needs to be a policy of not overstretching the personnel.

[wezgulf3]

would it be to difficult to have a civilian volunteer system in place for RAFAT to carry out the less important jobs? I’m certain those jobs could be filled ten fold if such a system was introduced.

Wes...

[Bluerigger1]

XX204 crashed as a result of Red 3 failing to recognise that the maneuver that he was attempting to complete was going to be unsuccessful. The reasons why an experienced pilot lost control of his serviceable aircraft have been discussed in the accident enquiry, whether members of this website agree or otherwise is up to them, it's a free country.
The possibility of the officer's secondary duties playing a part in his apparent fatigue are open to personal interpretation. These additional jobs will be explained away in terms of the individual's"personal development". However during my RAF career I always believed that Aircrew should fly the aircraft and engineers should maintain them, not run the tea bar or guard the gate.
The Hawk T.1 was designed as a trainer with the instructor in the rear seat. As the Reds are primarily flown from the front cockpit the possibility of redesigning the command eject system for the last 10 or so years service is down to the bean counters.

[Agent K]

would it be to difficult to have a civilian volunteer system in place for RAFAT to carry out the less important jobs? I’m certain those jobs could be filled ten fold if such a system was introduced.

Wes...

That would, I fear, open up another can of worms and cost...….

And you wouldn't have volunteers anywhere near the operation, which is where the issue is/was, and I'm not sure what other roles a volunteer could perform? bar airshow stands...……..

[NeilD]

.....
The possibility of the officer's secondary duties playing a part in his apparent fatigue are open to personal interpretation. These additional jobs will be explained away in terms of the individual's"personal development". However during my RAF career I always believed that Aircrew should fly the aircraft and engineers should maintain them, not run the tea bar or guard the gate......

spot on with your post Bluerigger1 especially the bit ive quoted... normally secondary duties are things like OIC football, or doing charity stuff, things that can enhance a CV rather than tasks that were vital to the operation, but not in this case it seems.. I spent a long part of my life working in 'ops' and always tried to impress on my colleagues that whatever we thought of what seemed trivial requests from aircrew, it was our job to take care of the niff-naff and trivia so that they didnt have to, and could concentrate on flying the aeroplanes..

[Doughnut]

The loss of a serviceable aircraft is one thing. The death of the passenger is a whole another story.
The technical side of the incident has been well reasoned and published. I would hope there is another enquiry into the the sad circumstance leading up to the ground crew's sad loss.
Condolences to all involved with the incidence.

[Bluerigger1]

The inquest into th death of Cpl Bayliss was opened in Caernarfon, Gwynedd following the accident but adjourned due to "security reasons", it can resume now the inquiry report has been published.
It appears that this was only the second time that Jonathan had flown in a Hawk ( the first occasion was the flight to Valley).The question must be asked as to the appropriateness of carrying out a practice emergency with such an inexperienced supernumary crew member on board.
One for the coroner to address