Question

[alwayslookingup]

Bit of a daft laddie question here (possibly).

For those types that were meant to be flown with two crew (eg Tornado; Phantom; Buccaneer), would there ever have been a time when only a pilot flew?

If so, what circumstances?

Other than possibly testing/maintenance flights I can't think of any circumstances where they would have been only one on board. I'm hoping, however, that one of you august pruners will be able to help.

Thanks in anticipation.

[Ali Barber]

The Tornado was deliberately flown solo for the test flight with no canopy, and I believe it was also flown solo on the spinning trials, but can't confirm that. I know of at least one Buccaneer sortie where the navigator had ejected and the pilot stayed behind and subsequently recovered the aircraft; I suppose he logged half the sortie as solo!

[alwayslookingup]

Thanks Ali.

I excluded the few occasions where the navigator had decided to depart before landing as I'm mostly interested in any routine flights that were / are solo in a two seater.

Rgds to one and all.

ALU.

[larssnowpharter]

Going back in time - Malaya 50s - Brigands were regularly flown one up on ops. Normal crew of 3.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think it was a 'union' thing. Directional consultants didn't like the idea of pilots thinking they could manage on their own.

[foldingwings]

Nothing to do with 'union'. It was a dependancy thing! One couldn't fly without the other on a purposeful sortie and, in the Bucc on finals, the nav was necessary to monitor tail plane 'cheeses' and blow guages over the pilots rt shoulder whilst he was concentrating on struggling with the beast in the circuit where it was at the poorer end of its flight envelope! So operational sortie or circuit bashing, the nav was always there in the Bucc!

Unlike the Tornado and F-4, where 2 pilots would often get together, the Bucc had no 2-sticker for 2 pilots to get into it, although the OCU QFIs flew a student Fam 1 in the back seat (no controls) before handing the newbie over to the Staff Navs for Fam 2 and beyond!

Foldie

[BEagle]

Ah yes, the old "15-10-10, moving together, stop together" chant - and if you didn't say that there'd be a call of "Check cheeses!" from the back.

During a sim trip my fellow student was so insistent on watching the cheeses that, he didn't remember to unstore the GPI..... Bit of a bugger that.

I guess you could see the mainplane blow gauges from the back, but surely you couldn't see the tailplane flap blow gauge? It was hard enough to see from the front seat stuck down near the brake pressure gauge as it was.

Especially at night! An abysmal cockpit layout, switches from Victorian signal boxes and gauges nailed in where they stuck after the designers threw them in to the prototype cockpit from a bucket after spraying the interior with glue. And the idea of having to let go of the throttles and swap hands at 300 KIAS on the break to pull the aileron gearchange (I kid you not) into low-speed, knock the 3 autostabs into low speed and swap hands back again....:eek:

But at anything above 300KIAS belting along at low level, there was nothing to touch it!

[Top Bunk Tester]

Possibly an apocryphal story, but I once heard the following......

Tornado (Unsure whether pointy or mud mover) lost an engine during Flag and diverted to nearest suitable field, nearest field happened to be at the center of "The Box". Landed safely. Crew were then bagged and tagged and next saw daylight back in the city. An American pilot from the base that they diverted to then flew the Tornado out solo, never having seen a Tornado before, on one engine back to Nellis, as they wouldn't allow an engine change crew in.

Sounds like a tall tail to me but have heard it a couple of times, can anybody confirm?

[BEagle]

I heard that it was a F4 which landed at Tonopah Test when the F-117 was still very sneaky-beaky.......

Some possibility that there might have been some Telford film which the Spams didn't know about?

[Double Zero]

Ali Barber,

" The Tornado was flown deliberately solo without a canopy for THE test flight " - are you sure, and what was the point ?- sounds dodgily draughty to me !

As far as the F117 story goes, well I do know a British test team
at a U.S. base a while ago were ordered at gunpoint to turn their backs as 'something' landed.

Hard to imagine the guards would have actually fired, though I suppose something unpleasant could be thought up for anyone looking.

Beagle, you're quite right about Telford films etc; I was once frisked for cameras at a R.A.F. base where something secret at the time was out in the open; then left free to run 16 aircraft mounted high speed cine cameras over exactly that spot !

Fortunately all who saw the films were security cleared and decent people, though we couldn't help grinning.

DZ

[foldingwings]

I guess you could see the mainplane blow gauges from the back, but surely you couldn't see the tailplane flap blow gauge?

That's affirmative, the mainplane blow guages were the navs responsibility as were the cheeses which you monitored in the event of a tailplane runaway - the remedy for one of those was a piece of string attached to the relevant fuse which the pilot pulled should you suffer that misfortune on finals!

During a sim trip my fellow student was so insistent on watching the cheeses that, he didn't remember to unstore the GPI..... Bit of a bugger that.

Not really that much of a bugger, BEagle - first fix would get you back on a reset and the counters always jumped 1nm in an unpredictable direction anyway when you turned them on during the take-off run. I'd rather be happy that the aircraft left the runway in a flyable state rather than temporarily being unsure of my position.

Foldie

[jindabyne]

DZ

On 27 Sep 83, the RAF lost its first Tornado. ZA 586 from IX Sqn crashed at night, some 5nm N of Kings Lynn. Memory slightly faded, but I think the aircraft went out of control following an unexplained total electrics failure. The nav ejected, but the pilot (Sqn Ldr Mike Stevens) went in with the aircraft; at the time, there was concern that he may have been unable to eject due to the airflow pinning his arms outside the cockpit (the canopy having been blown off as the nav ejected). It was decided that the only way to alleviate pilots' understandable fears over this issue was for BAe to remove the canopy from one of its aircraft and fly it minus navigator (for safety reasons), with the pilot stretching his arms into the airflow at slowly increasing airspeeds. This was done successfully, disproving the possibility that, with the loss of the canopy, the pilot would be unable to reach the ejection handle.

Keith Hartley was the pilot, and received an AFC for his efforts. Somewhere, there exists a published photo of the event.

[Double Zero]

Jindabyne,

Thanks. That explains a lot, it didn't seem likely the first test flights were conducted in such a condition - belatedly sorry to hear about the first pilot though.

If there were twin-stick models around ( I suppose not ) wouldn't it have been a lot safer to have another pilot in the back while the arm-waving was tried ? Sounds very brave.

I imagine in the accident command ejection was either not fitted or turned off; then again we know of cases when it had the reverse effect, chucking out the pilot when he didn't really wish or expect to leave, as the back-seater had become a bit worried; when I flew as photographer in a Hawk, the Test Pilot made sure command was off, as quite rightly he'd decide when he wanted to go !

That reminds me of a display Hawk, with groundcrew in the back along for a ride.

The pilot had a bit of a penchant for very low flying, and had some explaining to do when he came back without the rear-seater, who'd ejected seeing they were going under power cables...

As far as I know no-one was hurt, though the chap who banged out can't have had a very good day.

[alwayslookingup]

Folks,

thanks to all who've taken the trouble to post. As always, Pprune comes good. I'm especially grateful to Jindabyne for the post on the Tornado incident. Tragic though the circumstances were, J's post is a fascinating piece of background information.

I was also fascinated to hear first hand the info on the Buccaneer. A long time ago I heard the cockpits were actually offset by a few inches specifically so that the navigator could monitor some of the front cockpit gauges. Is it true that the cockpits were offset, or did the nav just have to strain their neck to see as much as they could?

To return to the initial question, though, I guess the answer, based on the information in the posts, is "No", 2 seaters are almost never flown solo.

Thanks again and regards to one and all.

ALU.

[NutherA2]

ALU

IIRC during about 800 hours on the Javelin FAW9 and 1000 on the Phantom FG1, I flew each solo twice on transit/delivery flights. There was no way either aircraft could have carried out its operational task without the GIB

[foldingwings]

ALU

Yes

Pilot offset left; Nav offset right, which was rather an advantage at low level navigation too!

Foldie

[4Greens]

Many moons ago....regularly flew the Venom solo on post maintenance test flights. First flights and training were regularly done solo.

[top_cover]

Bit of thread creep, but i know of a herc that landed with only 50% of its crew,

[alwayslookingup]

Once again thanks for the replies.

Top Cover, is this one of these instances where "if you need to ask you don't need to know", or do you care to elaborate?

[insty66]

Didn't that make the newspapers?

[Rigger1]

I had a jolly in the back of an F3 and didn't have a clue what kit i was supposed to be using - having been briefed to keep this screen in this mode and that in that etc. So you could argue that crew wise the pilot was solo, I just sat back and enjoyed the trip.

[Chris Kebab]

To add to Nuther's post in the (very) early days of the UK F-4 it was regularly flown on non-op, normally transit, sorties with purely a pilot with the back seat straps suitably tied down. There was an incident however (that is lost with time) after which it was decreed that the back seat must always be occupied and since then I can't recall any in-service RAF two-crew fast jet being flown intentionally single seat or seeing an MAR/RTS that permitted it.

[BEagle]

Back in the days when the UK could afford proper aircraft carriers, the Fleet Air Arm used to 'invite' whichever Engineering Officer had signed off an engine change at sea to occupy the observer's seat for the air test....

A splendid idea!

An 892 Sqn Sea Vixen also flew with a 15 year old schoolboy in the observer's seat.......



Me. To the Farnborough Air Show for an airfield attack. With the predictable result....:yuk:, I did at least manage to get it in the bag though. But it was a great flight!!

[top_cover]

'is this one of these instances where "if you need to ask you don't need to know", or do you care to elaborate'


Insty66 was indeed correct, the Daily Mail did quite a large spread on the very subject, so no real secret

[Vasco Sodcat]

...how did the Herc land with 50% of it's 5-man crew?! Which poor unfortunate was the 1/2?! :}

(TFIC!) :ok:

[MadsDad]

I can't recall any in-service RAF two-crew fast jet being flown intentionally single seat

What about the Hawk? I believe they are regularly flown single-seat on training missions (since they are at least transonic I suppose they qualify as fast).

Also display aircraft? The Red Arrows are normally solo and I was told that display aircraft couldn't carry a back-seater, although I'm not sure if the display GR4/F3 aircraft fly without a back-seater.

[glad rag]

Intersting, BS ref the first RAF GR1 loss.
Does the poster have PROOF of what he says? As those of us on the "force" have a slightly out of kinter perspective!! and that's those on the ground re-working the aircraft in theater prior to their certification.!!

Interesting was told it was sadly a "doubler" -re confirmed by being on the crew that went to secure a wreck up northen germany where they had both got out for the first time.....:cool:

[Ali Barber]

For the Tornado F3 solo, I understood that the aircraft was taken to supersonic or near supersonic to see the effect of the blast if the canopy came off, hence no nav wanted to be in the back seat. The pilot was wearing an immersion suit and immersion gloves, but got friction burns on his wrists as the seals did not meet - so I'm told.

Also understood the GR spinning trial was done without a nav as the simulation predicted it was unlikely to recover. I believe the aircraft was fitted with a chute gantry to get out of the spin, but don't know if it was used.

Not quite solo, but the Tornado F3 OCU used to put the navigator instructors in the front seat of a 2-sticker as part of their staff work-up so that they would be able to tell the stude pilot where to find switches with a better understanding than just reading the FRCs.

[mtoroshanga]

Contradict me if I am wrong but surely the Venom flew single crew at all times?

[Pontius Navigator]

Contradict me if I am wrong but surely the Venom flew single crew at all times?

Yup, you are wrong as Google will prove.

Anyway, read the OP, we are talking of 2-seat aircraft and not 2-seat trainers such as Hunter and Lightning.

[mtoroshanga]

Thanks Nav, one learns something new every day. I have only ever seen the single seat version having been in a colonial air force. They must have selected pygmies for navs as a venom always looked like a vampire on steroids to me.

[jindabyne]

glad rag

It's a little difficult to interpret your post, but I think that you imply that I am talking b*****it, and require proof of what I had intended to be a useful contribution to the debate.

At the time of the accident, I was Wg Cdr Tornado at HQ 1 Gp. As such, I was resonsible to the AOC for analysing the Board's findings over the ZA586 accident, drafting his comments, and contributing to the follow-up action which took place. With respect to the latter, as I said, my memory is a little hazy over the precise details of the electrical failure.

I am also a close friend of Keith Hartley.

Anything else that I can help you with?

[henry crun]

mtoroshanga: here is one Mk. of two seat Venom, there was a surprising amount of room in the right hand seat.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/crun9/Venom22.jpg

[27mm]

IIRC, the Blue Angels, when they operated F4s, flew them solo; if anyone out there has access to the video of their F4 display, would love to see it again, especially the shot from the cockpit of the box-man - 2 pink burners framed in the windshield!

[mike rondot]

Following a fatal PR9 crash at Wyton in 1978(?) during a simulated single-engine approach it was found that there were no records of any critical speed trials having been done, or recorded, prior to the aircraft being released for service. (Crit speed is all about fin stall and rudder effectiveness).

XH176 was duly taken away from 39 Sqn to Boscombe so that a TP could tell us what the handling characteristics were at low speed and high power settings on one engine. The trial was flown solo and above 10 000 feet in case the aircraft flicked into a spiral descent at or below crtical speed. It did, and having briefed himself to eject if the aircraft was out of control below 10 000 feet, the test pilot ejected, thus becoming the only survivor of an ejection from a PR9. The aircraft recovered itself but was unable to land itself, shame.

We lost a valuable and irreplaceable aircraft but we discovered that the PR9 was an overpowered, under-ruddered aircraft with a small fin that required careful handling at high asymmetric power settings.

Some years later a Chilean navigator found himself solo in a PR9 after the pilot ejected at high level with the autopilot engaged.

These are the two incidents of solo PR9 ops I know about but there could be many more out there.

[Chris Kebab]

MadsDad - Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't really count the Hawk as a "two-crew" aircraft. It's a dual seat aircraft (like the Harrier T10 and Typhoon T1A) for training purposes but not for operational aircraft crew needs.

Display Tornado ac (all types) have never flown any displays with an empty rear seat. Single seat operation of Tornado is not permitted by any RTS.

[Sideshow Bob]

Glad Rag, How's it feel to be a Tw@t lol :ok:
By the way, if you're on the "Force" how come your profile says Airline Production?

[A2QFI]

In general the F4 was not flown solo as there were literally scores of circuit breakers in the rear cockpit. A few of these were vital to safety of operations and obviously not accessible from the front. One that springs to mind is one that controlled/cut out an overspeeding a/c blower, the disintegration of which could injure the pilot's legs, a lot!

There was another sort of 'ejection' from a PR9 at Akrotiri in 1962 (ish). An armourer was standing on the nav's seat with the frangible hatch removed and pulling on the lower handle with a spring balance to measure the pull force for its operation. It was about 90lbs (say) and then the seat fired! The unfortunate carried out some spectacular manoeuvres and landed in some bushes in the bundu, shocked but uninjured.

[moggiee]

An F4 mate of mine had his navigator eject during take-off after an air show weekend (Bournemouth?) whilst D*** stayed with the aeroplane. He flew it to Lyneham with the rear canopy missing and the big pole sticking out of the top whilst the nav was taken to hospital with a broken back.

If memory serves correctly, the nosewheel steering packed up and the aeroplane made for the grass at high speed. Just as D*** got it under control, the nav decided "sod this" and pulled his handle.

Madsdad - when I was at Leeming, the display F3 was flown by a full crew (i.e. P&N).

[Schiller]

The Bucc was, on a very few occasions, flown solo; for example, a test pilot flew one solo aboard either Vic or Ark (I forget which) to demonstrate to the peasantry that the new S2 could be launched at extreme C of G's without pitching up off the cat. The only modification required for flying solo, apart from tying down everything in the rear seat, was to fit a longer piece of string to the trim c/b so that the pilot could pull it in the event of a runaway.

The following demonstration, however, was not an overwhelming success. A reluctant Observer (Crab, I seem to remember) was borrowed for the launch, which was to be the first of a series. The aircraft pitched up, both crew ejected successfully, and a wetter, sadder but wiser TP found an alternative way home to have another look at his figures.

[Bing]

Schiller, believe it was the Vic as my old man once mentioned they'd had to ply the exchange observer with many beers the night before to convince him to get in the thing as they all knew what was going to happen.

[mtoroshanga]

Henry
Thanks for picture of Venom, it looks like a Vampire T11.
Have only ever seen single seat version.

[mike rondot]

I guessed that I would be corrected about no-one surviving an ejection from a PR9 but did not expect it to be that bizarre...

Ah, the days before compensation culture took over. One wonders if the unfortunate ejectee was given a tie and brooch from Martin Baker or a bollocking for flying without authorisation.

[glad rag]

Glad Rag, How's it feel to be a Tw@t lol http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
By the way, if you're on the "Force" how come your profile says Airline Production?

Cheers Easy:}

That be a disbanded "force" then:ooh::ooh: