Future Of Ejection Seat Equipped Ex Military Aircraft At Uk Air Shows

[stona]

I've just been perusing the latest bulletin from the AAIB regarding the awful events involving a Hawker Hunter at Shoreham some months ago.


It seems that there are concerns about time expired propellant cratridges in the aircraft's ejection seat system.


More worryingly the report states:


"In February 2015 the ejection seat manufacturer ceased to provide technical support


or replacement parts for ejection seats fitted to aircraft which no longer operate in their


original military role. Ejection seats installed in civil-operated ex-military aircraft fall into


this category and replacement cartridges manufactured by the original manufacturer are no


longer available. As a result, the ejection seat manufacturer considers that such ejection


seats should be deactivated to prevent the risk of inadvertent operation. This is contrary to


the current CAP 632 requirement for ejection seats in swept-wing aircraft to be operated in


a fully operational and armed condition."


CAP 632 is Civil Aviation Publication 632 which covers 'Operation of Permit-to-Fly ex-military aircraft on the UK register.' This document requires that all swept-wing ex-military aircraft equipped with ejection seats are operated with ‘live’ ejection seats.


This is the relevant paragraph:


"5.8 Where ejection seats are an integral part of the aircrew escape system,


as specified in the relevant Pilots Notes, Flight or Aircrew Manuals, it


is recommended that they be fully serviceable for all flights. Approval


should be sought from the CAA (Application and Approvals) at the


earliest opportunity if it is intended to operate with inert ejection seats (or


other escape systems). It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing


aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully


operational."


I fear we may be seeing fewer of these aircraft flying at UK air shows in the future. I'm not sure we'll ever see another Hunter fly.


Anyone interested in reading the entire bulletin can find it here. It also raises concerns about the training of those maintaining ex-military aircraft which were intended for operation and maintenance by highly trained military personnel.


https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports


Top of the list - special bulletin S4/2015


Cheers


Steve

[Robert1968]

It seems a shame that these old warbirds are getting fewer and fewer in numbers. The safety issues that are mandertory are making it harder for such greats like the Vulcan and the Hunter to appear at flight shows. We all know the loss of the ageing Vulcan/ finance and engineering difficulties, and now it seems that all early swept wings are going to suffer the same fate.


It is sad


Robert

[Guest]

I thought in UK aircraft had the seats deactivated if not flown by military personel as in the case of the hunter the seat was not useable might have had the cartridges still fitted but the seat was inoperable

[stona]

I thought in UK aircraft had the seats deactivated if not flown by military personnel as in the case of the hunter the seat was not useable might have had the cartridges still fitted but the seat was inoperable

No it wasn't. It had to be active for the aircraft to be allowed to fly. It was supposed to be operable and the presence of the explosive devices at the crash site, and the inability of the air show organiser or the aircraft's operator to provide relevant data to make them safe is another issue raised by the AAIB.


Because the manufacturer of the old seats now no longer supports them aircraft equipped with these seats will eventually be unable to meet the CAA requirement (for a 'fully serviceable' ejection seat) which I posted in the original post. The manufacturer recommends deactivating the seats, which would certainly involve removing the explosive cartridges. Either the CAA will have to change the requirement for a working ejection system for a permit to fly ex-military aircraft on the civilian register or the aircraft will effectively be grounded. The regulation does allow the possibility of exception, but the wording 'It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational' does not inspire one with confidence.


There was a fatal accident in South Africa in 2009 involving an ex RAF EE Lightning. The CAA here had refused to allow it to fly on the civilian register but couldn't prevent it being shipped to South Africa where it was certified to fly. The crash was due to an in flight fire causing a double hydraulic failure but the pilot did attempt an ejection which was unsuccessful. His last words were 'ejection seat failure-ejection seat failure'. In this case the cartridges failed to fire, were recovered and found to be 8-10 years old. The manufacturer gave an install life of 2 years and total life (for uninstalled cartridges) of 5 years. The South African CAA report into this accident is scathingly critical of the maintenance carried out on such a complicated aircraft by its civilian operators.


The Shoreham Hunter's cartridges were also out of date, but how relevant that is to the accident I know not, nor will I conjecture.


Cheers


Steve

[Guest]

Interesting stuff


So a dragonfly will be ok as it's not swept wing ?

[stona]

Interesting stuff
So a dragonfly will be ok as it's not swept wing ?

The A-37? It would be for the CAA to decide as that body issues the permits. It doesn't have a swept wing so.....?


Cheers


Steve