S. African Lightning crash Update Aug '12

[Saracenman]

i think it's inevitable that there will be lots of unknowns, and even some "what ifs", in the final report

that email from Roly Elliot is interesting though 320 - i agree, the bang seat 'failure' is the main concern i feel - after all that's what it's there for, if all other systems fail.

you pointing out about the report referring to a fire in the JP area, rather than the engine bays themselves - would it be that the SACAA are using a 'generic' term, and classing the JPs as part of the engines, i.e. the overall 'propulsion system'?

incidentally, why were no extinguishing systems ever fitted in the JP area? physically impossible, or not ever considered necessary?

sm

[Xplumberlives]

I don't think the Ejection Seat (BANG SEAT) is in question. Really it is the fact that a lone pilot is unable to force open the failed canopy on a two seater. Had the canopy jettisoned as it should have, I beleive the pilot may well have ejected safely and been alive today.

[320psi]

i think it's inevitable that there will be lots of unknowns, and even some "what ifs", in the final report

that email from Roly Elliot is interesting though 320 - i agree, the bang seat 'failure' is the main concern i feel - after all that's what it's there for, if all other systems fail.

you pointing out about the report referring to a fire in the JP area, rather than the engine bays themselves - would it be that the SACAA are using a 'generic' term, and classing the JPs as part of the engines, i.e. the overall 'propulsion system'?

incidentally, why were no extinguishing systems ever fitted in the JP area? physically impossible, or not ever considered necessary?

sm

Sm, yeh I know what you mean, maybe its a generalisation, it all feels wrong to discuss it but I was drawn to say something having read it a few times

There was never any fire extinguishing systems in the JP areas, simple, theres no room round there, not an inch of spare space.
Fighting HP fuel fed fires in areas where the internal fuse temps are very high is nigh on impossible

The RAF adopted the systempost 1970 of check, check and double check everything, to counter the risk of fires, the loss rate went down dramaticlly afterwards, but the Lightning fleet was never free from losses due to fuel/hyd fires

Xplumberlives, yeh, if the jack head release mech is working properly, its dead simple but prone to seizure, then one guy should be able to lift the canopy enough to allow the slip stream to rip it off, but...........................

[Xplumberlives]

Indeed!

[Air]

That makes very sad reading, not unexpected though, but its asks more questions than it answers for me

Its not quite right however,

quote

'From Photographs taken at the airshow of the aircraft, it appears that there was an inflight fire located in the engines. It is possible that this caused the Hydraulic failure'.

This is not what any of the shots Ive seen shows, the fire can be seen coming from the bottom of the No1 jet pipe,nowhere near either engine, a fire in the lower jet pipe bay would burn though all the hyd/fuel lines, control rods and elevator PFCU very quickly (the rods were all changed on the Lightning fleet in the 70's from alloy to stainless, to help prolong their life in the event of fire, which they were plauged with untill the end in 88)

To be fair, it doesn't actually say that in the report. (At least not as far as I can see)

The report says in section 4.0
There were lots of spectators at the airshow who witnessed and took photographs of the aerobatic display of the aircraft. Photos taken indicated that the aircraft had an in flight fire. It is possible that this fire resulted in the final failure of the hydraulic system.

That's taken from the interim report that I linked to a page or so back. Apologies if I'm wrong though.

You know your Lightnings though, so you're views are appreciated and can help fill the gaps to plebs like me.

I don't think the Ejection Seat (BANG SEAT) is in question. Really it is the fact that a lone pilot is unable to force open the failed canopy on a two seater. Had the canopy jettisoned as it should have, I beleive the pilot may well have ejected safely and been alive today.

Thing is, reading that the ejection seat and canopy servicing was due in September 09 and was delayed for 30 days, then had another 45 day extension on top of that doesn't make good reading.
Who knows if the seat/canopy servicing had been done when it was due, would the ejection sequence have worked?
It's a question that will never be answered sadly.

[320psi]

That makes very sad reading, not unexpected though, but its asks more questions than it answers for me

Its not quite right however,

quote

'From Photographs taken at the airshow of the aircraft, it appears that there was an inflight fire located in the engines. It is possible that this caused the Hydraulic failure'.

This is not what any of the shots Ive seen shows, the fire can be seen coming from the bottom of the No1 jet pipe,nowhere near either engine, a fire in the lower jet pipe bay would burn though all the hyd/fuel lines, control rods and elevator PFCU very quickly (the rods were all changed on the Lightning fleet in the 70's from alloy to stainless, to help prolong their life in the event of fire, which they were plauged with untill the end in 88)

To be fair, it doesn't actually say that in the report. (At least not as far as I can see)

The report says in section 4.0
There were lots of spectators at the airshow who witnessed and took photographs of the aerobatic display of the aircraft. Photos taken indicated that the aircraft had an in flight fire. It is possible that this fire resulted in the final failure of the hydraulic system.

That's taken from the interim report that I linked to a page or so back. Apologies if I'm wrong though.

You know your Lightnings though, so you're views are appreciated and can help fill the gaps to plebs like me.

I don't think the Ejection Seat (BANG SEAT) is in question. Really it is the fact that a lone pilot is unable to force open the failed canopy on a two seater. Had the canopy jettisoned as it should have, I beleive the pilot may well have ejected safely and been alive today.

Thing is, reading that the ejection seat and canopy servicing was due in September 09 and was delayed for 30 days, then had another 45 day extension on top of that doesn't make good reading.
Who knows if the seat/canopy servicing had been done when it was due, would the ejection sequence have worked?
It's a question that will never be answered sadly.

It does say that in the full PDF report, yes I do know Lightnings and I know just how touchy they can be, fuel and hyds lines at 1500 -3000psi wrapped around jet pipes sat at 600- 800 degrees C

Its the seat failure and loss of life that is the awfull thing here, the loss of the aircraft is not important.

Im sure the investigators will find the reason

[Checkflaps]

Makes for 'interesting' reading. My mind is still stuck on the landing 'incident' the day before and the apparent lack of a thorough investigation. The extensions to the ejection seat teseting may well haunt them in the future as well. FIngers crossed this is not the end of lightning ops in SA, but it wouldn't surprise me if it all came to a sudden halt now. Shame.

Garry

[Xplumberlives]

From memory, I seem to recall that a 10% extension could be justified in service life.

So how these were allowed to happen is going to be interesting to see in the next round of enquiries!

I suspect we may see a tightening up of the operation of classic jets in South Africa and possibly in other areas too.

[Flipflopman]

In fairness, as much as I totally agree that the over-riding concern here is one of the ejection failure, as an engine man, I'm massively concerned by the events of the day before.

I'll not profess to be a Lightning expert, however, I do know Avons, and I do know Gas Turbines. The fact that BOTH of the engines flamed out after a reheat selection is one of immediate concern, and then there is the scary and somewhat obvious indicator of major failure that was the large fuel leak. Gas Turbines, by their very nature, are self perpetuating, and once that fire in the combustion chamber is lit, it stays lit until either the fuel flow is stopped, or the airflow is stopped either by choking the compressor or by a mechanical failure. Given that there was no disruption to the airflow, or as we now know, any mechanical failure, the fuel flow was obviously somehow interrupted to those engines. Once the engines had flamed out, there would have been no fuel being delivered to the engines, otherwise, they would have attempted to re-start or enter a sub-idle condition. Therefore the fuel leaking post shut down, almost certainly wasn't due to unburned fuel collecting in the jetpipe and leaking through, and that the fuel must have been from a breach in the fuel system at some point in the engine bay, meaning also that the fuel feed pressures to the Fuel Control Units were not high enough to overcome the burner check valves and thus flow to the burners and maintain combustion. This however, is where I reach a bit of a brick wall. I don't know enough about the Lightning's fuel system to know what could cause a failure of BOTH engines simulteneously.

That though, in itself is what bothers me. I can't see how such a major issue as a double engine flame out, and major fuel leak, could be conclusively investigated and rectified within the timescale it supposedly was, especially away from the main operating base, given that the initial failure occured after the evening display and the fatal flight was a midday display the following day. Something doesn't sit right with all of this, personally, I get the impression that liberties have been taken with aircraft safety, and that an elderly and not particularly reliable aircraft has been taken for granted, and that is quite concerning.


Flipflopman

[Xplumberlives]

Thanks Ron, it would appear that some good practices were not complied with.

[320psi]

In fairness, as much as I totally agree that the over-riding concern here is one of the ejection failure, as an engine man, I'm massively concerned by the events of the day before.

I'll not profess to be a Lightning expert, however, I do know Avons, and I do know Gas Turbines. The fact that BOTH of the engines flamed out after a reheat selection is one of immediate concern, and then there is the scary and somewhat obvious indicator of major failure that was the large fuel leak. Gas Turbines, by their very nature, are self perpetuating, and once that fire in the combustion chamber is lit, it stays lit until either the fuel flow is stopped, or the airflow is stopped either by choking the compressor or by a mechanical failure. Given that there was no disruption to the airflow, or as we now know, any mechanical failure, the fuel flow was obviously somehow interrupted to those engines. Once the engines had flamed out, there would have been no fuel being delivered to the engines, otherwise, they would have attempted to re-start or enter a sub-idle condition. Therefore the fuel leaking post shut down, almost certainly wasn't due to unburned fuel collecting in the jetpipe and leaking through, and that the fuel must have been from a breach in the fuel system at some point in the engine bay, meaning also that the fuel feed pressures to the Fuel Control Units were not high enough to overcome the burner check valves and thus flow to the burners and maintain combustion. This however, is where I reach a bit of a brick wall. I don't know enough about the Lightning's fuel system to know what could cause a failure of BOTH engines simulteneously.

That though, in itself is what bothers me. I can't see how such a major issue as a double engine flame out, and major fuel leak, could be conclusively investigated and rectified within the timescale it supposedly was, especially away from the main operating base, given that the initial failure occured after the evening display and the fatal flight was a midday display the following day. Something doesn't sit right with all of this, personally, I get the impression that liberties have been taken with aircraft safety, and that an elderly and not particularly reliable aircraft has been taken for granted, and that is quite concerning.


Flipflopman

Spot on Ron, spot on

Lots of 'operational' questions to be asked I think

It all depends on how the engines (both flaming out is very rare) flamed out, the pumps are in either wing, theres two per wing and pumps in the ventral, this feeds first, then the flaps then the wings, now there is a very rare condition of the fuel heat exchange filters becoming blocked (one per engine), which happens when they arent kept an eye on,(engine out to do this), these do clog up, and would strave the engine/engines of fuel.
Ive seen this before but not on both engines together, and for all pumps to fail is well nigh on impossible, and even if all pumps failed the engines will 'pull'/suck' enough to keep them at 87%/89% power.

One thing that should be done, when fuel is seen coming out in more than 'usual' amounts is do a full bay check, which means pipes out, someone made the 'call' not to, Im sure

[Saracenman]

fascinating - and from two people who KNOW what they're on about too

walk/run scenario 320 i know BUT - what d'you think the outcome will be, with respect to whether Thunder City will continue/be allowed to continue flying pax?

sm

[Thumper]

I know nothing about all this but I reckon Thunder City will continue to operate, however I am sure this will have a huge impact on them. Rules out in SA are obviously "softer" than the UK, I mean a civilian can fly a Supersonic Jet Fighter out there! Not only can that happen, they can also take Joe Bloggs for a joyride! Considering that already happens out there I don't think they will be asked to stop. If they are then they can just move to Russia and team up with MIG Sokol.

[Air]

Perhaps they should tighten the rules regarding the ejection systems servicing in old warbirds, and ban being able to have multiple extensions to such a critical piece of safety equipment. That's just my own personal opinion though.

I'm also curious to know what sort of ground crew TC take to an airshow. Do they have a dedicated team that follows the aircraft to shows such as we have with the Vulcan? As 320 points out, someone had to make the call that the aircraft was serviceable and ready to fly.

I hope that it doesn't turn out after 10 years of safely flying Lightnings, that complacency is responsible for this tragedy.

[320psi]

fascinating - and from two people who KNOW what they're on about too

walk/run scenario 320 i know BUT - what d'you think the outcome will be, with respect to whether Thunder City will continue/be allowed to continue flying pax?

sm

Thanks sm

Ummmm, cant say, really cant, just dont know, I was suprised in the first place that Lightnings were allowed on the civil reg anywhere in the world, different rules apply though, Mike Beachyhead will be very busy at the mo im sure.

As for how it might effect other 'lightning' operators such as the AALO out in the states, well thats another story, lets leave that one

The biggest thing will be letting them carry on operations out there let alone passenger carying flights.

For my money, things went wrong, things werent checked and double checked (remember its Lightning) and 10 years of 'safe' flying have caught up with them. The RAF never had 10 years without serious accidents happening.
Alot more flying time in those days though

In the event of what they encountered the day before the aircraft should have been pulled from flight, flame outs on both engines is very odd, I really cant say what I think it could have been, apart from they had a massive fuel leak prior to take off, no one was there as a 'see off man' to see the fuel pouring out the back end and the scrub the launch.

My guess is they had fuel in the bays from the day before, which can happen, there is drip trays and 'fuel leak over board dump off' pipes around the aircraft, but they dont get it all, you have to know where to look for leaks, some places there is an acceptable amount of leakage, but from other places its 'no go'

For my money as the engines came up to full power all this fuel that was lying in the bays was being blown out the back end under the No1 nozzle, and eventually it went up in flames, burning though the elevator cross drive rod and PFCU, which is why he called hyd failure, his controls were stiffning up, and all the fuel/hyd lines, giving more fuel to the fire.
He also reported that the gear would not come down, this would also come from the services hyd system lines being burnt though.

Why he didnt get a fire warning from any 1 of the four fire warning captions in the cockpit I really dont know, if he had he would have not tried to recover it at all, but of course the escape system wasnt working as it should, this is the biggy for me.

I await the offical report

[Amanda_h]

Hi,

Having read all of the posts in this thread, it does seem like negligence
and lack of checks.

It's a sad loss of a pilot.

One general question about lightnings, a friend of mine flew lightnings in the
RAF until he had to eject from one, apparently as he ejected he damaged either
one or both knee caps, was leg damage a real problem with these aircraft?

After he was fit to fly again, he went on to fly Vulcans!

[Xplumberlives]

Many early jets had very cramped cockpits and sadly could see knees damaged upon ejection if the pilot was not in exactly the right position!

[320psi]

Hi,

Having read all of the posts in this thread, it does seem like negligence
and lack of checks.

It's a sad loss of a pilot.

One general question about lightnings, a friend of mine flew lightnings in the
RAF until he had to eject from one, apparently as he ejected he damaged either
one or both knee caps, was leg damage a real problem with these aircraft?

After he was fit to fly again, he went on to fly Vulcans!

Hi, yes, theres many questions to be asked and answered of thunder citys operating procedures.

Re lower leg, knee cap damage, yes it happened semi regually, the upper leg length (from hip to knee) was an important factor in the medical checks of conversion course pilots.

Reason, part of the ejection sequence (I wont go into any more detail) is for the lower leg lines (attched to the bottom of flight gear) to be pulled back, which rips your legs off the rudder pedals (if their not already off them) and jams the backs of your heels to the base of the seat, this ensures that your legs are fully back, but of course the knee caps are still the furthest part of the occupant 'sticking out'.
The seat goes up a 25/30ft telescopic pole on a two 'cart' 'bang bang' seat, (not rockets like modern seats) the seat travels up at about 25% at about 400ft per second,and if your knee caps or feet are in the way and they will strike the rear edge of the front cockpit frame work, not nice at all.

So yes, both leg and spine damage was common

[Air]

I've sat in the cockpit of a Lightning (well it was a nose section) and it seemed fairly large to me, especially compared to the Hunter which was tiny.

Still as has been said, if you're not 'in the right position' then.......ouch.

[320psi]

I've sat in the cockpit of a Lightning (well it was a nose section) and it seemed fairly large to me, especially compared to the Hunter which was tiny.

Still as has been said, if you're not 'in the right position' then.......ouch.

Im not big, but I know both our ours well and I know for a fact, there aint no room in there for owt,just the pilot, Ive also had alot of Hunter time in the swiss one at Brunty, and I know the Hunter is bigger inside, only slghtly though

[Air]

I'll have to pop down to our local museum for a refit.

I'm sure the Lightning office was wider though, if only filled with more switches and stuff down either side.

[Xplumberlives]

I'll have to pop down to our local museum for a refit.

I'm sure the Lightning office was wider though, if only filled with more switches and stuff down either side.

Are you sure it wasn't a TWO seater?

[Air]

I'll have to pop down to our local museum for a refit.

I'm sure the Lightning office was wider though, if only filled with more switches and stuff down either side.

Are you sure it wasn't a TWO seater?

Deffo a single seater. Ex Saudi if I recall correctly.

[Xplumberlives]

I'll have to pop down to our local museum for a refit.

I'm sure the Lightning office was wider though, if only filled with more switches and stuff down either side.

Are you sure it wasn't a TWO seater?

Deffo a single seater. Ex Saudi if I recall correctly.

That would have been one of those that my Uncle was responsible for!

[Thumper]

I've sat in the single seat Lightning at Tangmere. I am 5ft 8" and was very cramped inside especially on the right hand side. I can easily see how pilots could smash their knees if they had to do a fast eject.