PDA

View Full Version : Hero pilot 'back-flipped' his fighter jet at 250ft to avoid a crash!


Blue Bottle
26th Jul 2013, 10:32
RAF Tornado misses glider by a 'quarter of a second' thanks to lightning reflexes of fighter pilot | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2378728/RAF-Tornado-misses-glider-quarter-second-thanks-lightning-reflexes-fighter-pilot.html)

Arm out the window
26th Jul 2013, 10:37
Bunt into an outside half loop at 250 ft ... he must have not only been a hero but someone who could ignore the laws of physics! Well done that man.

Wg Cdr Spry
26th Jul 2013, 10:42
For the accurate details of this incident, please have a read of the UKAB findings found at http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/20130619-2013.06Reports.pdf on page 72 of the document. I will let you make your own minds up about what transpired.

Yours aye

Spry

Torque Tonight
26th Jul 2013, 11:40
The Mail has really excelled itself on this one. One becomes accustomed to sensationalist drivel deviod of fact, but this article really takes it up a level. Special mention for the creator of the Mail Graphic which helpfully explains the event.

You get better journalism in Viz magazine.

Ka6crpe
26th Jul 2013, 11:57
-28G? Well not quite ignoring the laws of physics, but how did the jet pilot remain concious, and how come the aircraft didn't break up?

i would also be wondering what a glider would be doing at such a low altitude unless he was on finals to land.

Stuff
26th Jul 2013, 12:57
I particularly like the bit where it's the updraught from the outside loop that catapults the glider up 50ft.

just another jocky
26th Jul 2013, 13:06
i would also be wondering what a glider would be doing at such a low altitude unless he was on finals to land.

Ridgesoaring?

Listed as a possible explanation in the UKAB summary linked to by Wg Cdr Spry above.

Two's in
26th Jul 2013, 15:42
You get better journalism in Viz magazine.

That's a very harsh comparison TT; after all, one is a puerile rag aimed a titillating the basest of instincts in morons with room temperature IQ's, and the other one is Viz magazine.

AR1
26th Jul 2013, 15:46
I've just waded through the comments in disbelief. I thought I was thick.

dervish
26th Jul 2013, 17:32
The Mail article is dross, but no worse than MoD's assertions that the Chinook can "glide" safely to earth in the event of a double engine failure. :ugh:

Agaricus bisporus
26th Jul 2013, 17:38
but no worse than MoD's assertions that the Chinook can "glide" safely to earth

Er - I'm not getting this. Is there something wrong with that completely accurate statement? What a ludicrous post!

Courtney Mil
26th Jul 2013, 17:49
I thought I was thick.

Never say that onPPRuNe, mate. You're clearly not, but if you offer it up for comment the kind folk here won't disagree with you. :ok:

Anyway, I have only three points. First, ALL hero fighter pilots have done exactly that numerous time without making any fuss about it. It's just part of the job. Civvi pilots just float around, completely unaware of their surroundings so it's up to the magnificently skilled, self-sacrificing mil pilots to be heroes in order to save them from themselves. This is a mil aircrew forum!

Second, it must have been a GR crew, therefore not a fighter pilot (Tornado F3 fighter - oh yeah, but the principle stands).

Finally, if he did indeed push through an inverted half loop (even from 250 feet agl), it's not a "back flip".

Other than that, brilliant reporting.

Hope this helps. :cool:

smujsmith
26th Jul 2013, 19:21
The reporting originally stated that the "heroic" pilot had spotted the glider with very little warning (suggesting the glider was hidden by the canopy arch). They originally reported that the pilot performed a bunt manoeuvre, which, it said, was a violent turn to avoid the glider. I did point out to them that a bunt was not a turn, but a push forward of the stick, possibly to avoid the glider by flying below it. They then completely changed the report, complete with graphic to show a half outside loop. Exactly as a bunt is described in several on line references. Like the rest of you, I'm trying to work out how our "hero" manages to carry out an inverted loop at the altitudes suggested. Love to see it incorporated into next years solo Tornado display. :hmm:


I must stop reading comic rags. Anyone explain what a class B risk is ?

Smudge

Rosevidney1
26th Jul 2013, 19:43
Dervish is right. I remember in the late 1970 our tame US exchange officer saying in answer to the question "What is the Chinook like in autorotation?" "Real stable, man, all the way down to the crash site!"

SomeGuyOnTheDeck
26th Jul 2013, 19:45
An inverted half-loop at 250 ft and 500 mph? Is being a moron a prior requirement for becoming a Daily Mail reporter, or do they teach it on the job? :ugh:

racedo
26th Jul 2013, 19:48
Pilot missed the school kids, orphange kids and hospital kids that were all in the Glider, :rolleyes: Daily Mail had failed to mention them :(.

Has DM no shame :ugh:

dallas
26th Jul 2013, 20:14
The daredevil's lightning reflexes...Was it Evel Knieval crewing this one? :D

Agaricus bisporus
26th Jul 2013, 21:39
Rose, the Chinook actually floats like a butterfly in autorotation...OK, you need to run it on and it takes some space, but it autorotates beautifully, hence the surprise at the inaccurate and misleading statement.

Tankertrashnav
26th Jul 2013, 22:26
Pilot missed the school kids, orphange kids and hospital kids that were all in the Glider, :rolleyes: Daily Mail had failed to mention them http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif.



Yes and what about the witness on the ground who saw the pilot "grappling with the controls"? Those controls must have been well and truly grappled for the aircraft to have performed that manoeuvre!

TomJoad
26th Jul 2013, 22:50
You are all missing the point. Did the RAF come out well over this - it was an absolutely brilliant piece of reporting.:ugh:

If you anorak pedants want the authoritative tale then read the article linked by Spry that is what it is there for. It is of course of no interest to the general public - they want to hear about hero pilots and rest safe in the knowledge that the RAF is an outstanding organisation. In that respect it is a freaking brilliant article. :p

smujsmith
26th Jul 2013, 23:18
TJ,

No arguments there old boy, but, you assume that mere civilian readers of this report will accept the "reported facts" and not question the physical improbability accredited to the Tornado crew. I, probably like you, know that this was a lot less dramatic than reported. And that's the point, not what anyone did, the point of the argument is how it was reported. I ask you a simple question, what happens when a civilian C172 pilot questions how the laws of physics can be overcome by military pilots at 500knots, where they can not perform such feats ? The crew in this incident did a good job and avoided a collision, they were, and should have been "switched on" . Thank goodness for their training and skill, but please, don't give them capabilities they do not possess.

Smudge

TomJoad
27th Jul 2013, 00:18
Smudge,

Come on most folk I know do not turn to newspapers for accurate reporting of air incidents - they want the broad strokes, nothing more nothing less. As for questioning the flight dynamics - really! That story would have been scan read in no more than 2 minutes then forgotten by the time the page was turned or at best the toast was buttered. I doubt anyone would be using it for the basis of a PhD. Or maybe not, perhaps we could disband the whole Air Accident Investigation community and just go with newspaper reports - then again best not! As for anyone in the business accrediting the story with any authority really.:ugh: The story was appropriate for the medium and audience to which it was targeted; broad strokes nothing more nothing less. That the RAF received some positive PR - job a good un:ok:

TomJoad

Arm out the window
27th Jul 2013, 00:52
Rubbish!

PR spin is fine, but they need to tell something at least resembling the truth, surely? Blind Freddie could see the description is crap, which would hardly do the publication any favours in the already shaky credibility stakes.

gr4techie
27th Jul 2013, 02:29
Who needs a 5th generation fighter with it fancy vectored thrust and cannard malarkey, when you have a Tonka bomb truck that can do a -15000g turn on the spot?

AR1
27th Jul 2013, 07:45
Or look at it another way. One article of complete fantasy makes the paper. What confidence can you have in any other article it prints?

vascodegama
27th Jul 2013, 09:05
I see that the Times made exactly the same ill-informed mistakes today. I have long thought that they are all the same regardless of whether the paper is so-called quality or otherwise.

TomJoad
27th Jul 2013, 09:09
Ok gentlemen, keep turning to the Daily Mail or any another newspaper for that matter for authoritative reporting of air incidents etc and you are setting yourself up for continued disappointment. You can then vent your self righteous indignation on PPrune as to how the silly reporter misquoted the dry thrust of the GR4 as 9850 lbf where clearly the aircraft has two engines and is painted grey. You make spotters sound interesting:}

cockney steve
27th Jul 2013, 10:40
To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch... "The Fail are just a load of stupid bunts"

[QUOTE][what happens when a civilian C172 pilot questions how the laws of physics can be overcome by military pilots at 500knots, where they can not perform such feats ? /QUOTE]

Now, as a mere member of the public, I can see why we have to spend all this tax-money on Military aircraft....It's to pay for exemption from the laws of physics, innit? Peter Pilot will understand that as well....or maybe not. :}

airborne_artist
27th Jul 2013, 11:59
AR1 Or look at it another way. One article of complete fantasy makes the paper. What confidence can you have in any other article it prints?

I stopped believing the press and the Grauniad in particular when it published an article stating that some TA units were going to the US to train with the National Guard in order to be able to support the civil powers on the UK mainland during times of riot.

I'd been to Florida that year with the Artists' Rifles. No mention was ever made of such a role. We did learn a bit about LRRP in 40C heat though ;)

GWAU
27th Jul 2013, 12:41
Aeroplane Doesn’t Crash Into Glider

Today an aeroplane didn’t crash into a glider. While on a routine training mission the pilot of an aeroplane saw a glider and altered his flight path slightly to avoid it.

Flt Lt Richard Dastardly said ‘When I saw the glider in relatively close proximity I did consider smashing into the glider and killing all concerned, particularly as it would save me a lot of paperwork. However, I remembered it was the final of The Apprentice and I wanted to see if the baker girl was going to win so I pushed forward on the stick a little bit and didn’t smash into the glider’

Flt Lt Dastardly’s navigator Flt Lt Dave Muttley was heard to chuckle and whisper something about a medal.

The baker girl didn't win.

:)

Keef
27th Jul 2013, 14:33
I read the article on the DM website and thought "someone didn't know what the word bunt in the AAIB article means, so he looked it up on Wikimisledia and used that definition."

I was going to post something, but then I read the other comments by readers. Oh dear!

whowhenwhy
27th Jul 2013, 15:31
Reading the Mail's article I was somewhat confused as to which UKAB meeting they could have been referring to, given that I go to all of them. Somewhat surprised to see that it was only last month.

Smuj, to answer your question properly, a Class B risk is described more fully on the UKAB website here

Causal Factors & Risk Ratings | UK Airprox Board (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=90&pageid=5637)

The more easily understood version is that one or both pilots just had enough time to do something about the conflict but it was still bl00dy close. Risk A means that they saw each other as they went past and it was the hand of Allah separating them. Risk C means that one or both pilots had spotted the other and had a reasonable time to avoid, although it was still closer than ideal. Risk E means thanks for reporting but this is standard Class G business.

Justanopinion
27th Jul 2013, 17:32
Surely the biggest story here is that a Tornado pilot was able to both fly at low level and look out of the window at the same time....Maybe his navigator, sorry Weapons Systems Officer, saw it and told him what to do.

smujsmith
27th Jul 2013, 19:04
whowhenwhy,

Thanks for the clarification on risk codes. I would not wish to denigrate in any way the abilities and professionalism shown by this crew in avoiding a real tragedy. My real beef here is the bull**** reported in the press, which assumes that everyone who reads the article will automatically assume that whatever rubbish their junior reporter pushes out, will be accepted as gospel. I doubt that the MOD/RAF would deny a serious request for info on this, and suspect that the DM didn't even bother, maybe reality would kill the column inches. I just wish that any news media, wishing to report anything, would at least try to get a semblance of truth in their report. Like most I suspect I live in a dreamworld.

Smudge

JSFfan
27th Jul 2013, 19:20
It's going to be a bit dull with EO-DAS
1:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY&feature=player_detailpage&t=110

Danny42C
27th Jul 2013, 20:30
Memory fades, but once upon a time, wasn't there a Rule of the Air that when two aircraft are approaching head - on, each should alter Course to the Right ? (or is it just me ?)

D.

Surrey Towers
27th Jul 2013, 22:00
There certainly was and to my knowledge I believe there still is.

AAMofF I am having a little problem with this. I pride myself as having had excellent aerobatic training - and over 10 years of display flying. Not in jets but some decent aeroplanes and WW1 replicas.

So, this is where I cannot get my mind round this almost absurd incident.

To seperate to two situations here we have a glider and a Tornado and they close at a an alarming rate when the GR decides to bunt at 250' - in other words to invert his aircraft and pull through to straight and level - but at what height????. The glider pilot on the other hand decided to pull up and in doing so made 50'. By this time that would have made NO difference to what the GR was doing.

We have to assume the board's findings are agreed but if I were on the board I could not and would not agree. Neil Williams once said that the most useless piece of sky is that above you. I don't recall him ever making comment about the amount of air below you if you half roll at 250' and high speed and g - and pulling. My conclusion is that there is reckless belief in this incident.

I await Wing Comdr Spry's further comment on this.

Arm out the window
27th Jul 2013, 23:53
That's not the meaning of 'bunt' in this case - I'm sure it's referring to a a simple push on the stick to alter the flight path downwards.

Maybe it's a military v civil training thing, but what you describe is what I've always known as a half roll and pull through. I think the yanks might say a split S? Dunno, but a bunt is just a straightforward push in this context.

Gerontocrat
28th Jul 2013, 07:27
Arm out the Window, therein, I suspect, lies the answer to what was printed in the Mail.
1) Article written based on the UKAB report - that is pretty clear. A sub-editor or copy taster on the news desk changed "converging" to "approaching each other" so that those unfamiliar with 'technical' terms could understand more readily;
2) The graphics desk read the text, assumed "approaching each other" meant 'head-on' and, crucially, did not ask the question - they went with the assumption.
3) Somebody on the graphics side said "WTF is a bunt? - Bloody services' jargon. Why the hell can't they use normal English like everyone else. By the way, anybody decided on the splash for tonight, and what time are we off-stonë?"
4) Somebody goes to Wiki for definition of a 'bunt', reads and incorporates in graphic. When all said and done, the UKAB report does say the Tornado pilot 'bunted'. So, once again - and to be honest, the graphics people had no reason to believe otherwise (the chances are very, very high that their number does not include a pilot) - they went with an assumption that the 'bunt ' referred to was as per Wiki.

ORAC
28th Jul 2013, 07:58
Memory fades, but once upon a time, wasn't there a Rule of the Air that when two aircraft are approaching head - on, each should alter Course to the Right ? (or is it just me ?) Power gives way to sail......

212man
28th Jul 2013, 08:17
Geront makes a sensible point. We all know what is meant by a 'bunting manouevre' but the term is also used for a specific aerobatic figure - see here for definition of an 'English bunt' https://www.iac.org/legacy/aerobatic-figures

TorqueOfTheDevil
29th Jul 2013, 12:45
the Chinook can "glide" safely to earth in the event of a double engine failure


Didn't a couple of rather senior officers prove this in Iraq a few years back?:oh:

PPRuNe Pop
29th Jul 2013, 20:38
Well, dear ORAC ain't that a fact.......so a push, as opposed to a push under (bunt) did the trick.

RatherBeFlying
30th Jul 2013, 02:27
Yep, my transponder eats my battery, so I can't have it on all the time in my glider. When the battery voltage goes down; so does the transponder.

PowerFlarm warns of transponder targets. You would see a shrinking circle about your position. I've seen errors of +- 200' in transponder returns so without visual acquisition, you can't tell whether to push or pull.

When time allows, glider pilots may do a shallow S-turn to make themselves apparent to oncoming traffic, maybe steeper to pick up a non-directional alert.

Beancountercymru
31st Jul 2013, 21:30
Today's Times has a correction "Our graphic and description of an RAF Tornado GR4 avoiding collision with a glider were incorrect....The pilot did not complete a full loop:he manoeuvred at a very high speed under the glider, and then corrected his flight path"

gr4techie
31st Jul 2013, 23:14
Yep, my transponder eats my battery, so I can't have it on all the time in my glider.

Solar panel? They should be coming down in price all the time. I can't see a glider drawing much current, so don't need a big (and therefore expensive) surface area of pv solar panel.

AR1
1st Aug 2013, 05:35
Well done Times!

probes
1st Aug 2013, 09:15
you assume that mere civilian readers of this report will accept the "reported facts" and not question the physical improbability accredited to the Tornado crew
ok, guys, now you've ruined such a good story for a mere civilian! :{ - although some are suspecting enough to take another look somewhere else :E.

Bogey71
4th Aug 2013, 19:16
as far as I know, such a maneuver can only be flown by a Tie-fighter or Millenium Falcon...

Courtney Mil
4th Aug 2013, 20:50
Bogey,

Sorry Mate, but even you should know that the Millennium Falcon is only stressed to -3g. And that's only obtainable "ex-atmospheric." Please check fact before posting.

smujsmith
4th Aug 2013, 21:31
I believe that I saw Captain Dart, Slim and Husky perform this exact manouevre in their Galasphere 347 as part of the peace-keeping force, the United Galactic Organization around 1963. I must admit its taken me until reading this thread to doubt the credibility of Space Patrol.

Smudge :{

Noah Zark.
5th Aug 2013, 23:55
The Mekon could also do it on his little flying half-an-egg thingy when Dan Dare was chasing him!

BEagle
6th Aug 2013, 06:48
Memory fades, but once upon a time, wasn't there a Rule of the Air that when two aircraft are approaching head - on, each should alter course to the right?

Yes - if they see each other in sufficient time for an 'alteration of course' alone to effect safe separation. Otherwise a more dynamic manoeuvre may well be required! Some total idiot refused to teach 'emrgency breaks' to the left at a UAS as he was obsessed with this 'alter course to the right' Rule.....:rolleyes:

Al R
6th Aug 2013, 06:53
I watched Denzel doing a 'back flip' in Flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_(2012_film)) the other day.. in a passenger jet too. Wassaalafuss?

Good film.

fenland787
6th Aug 2013, 14:08
-28G? Well not quite ignoring the laws of physics, but how did the jet pilot remain concious, and how come the aircraft didn't break up?-28G? break-up? Pah - check with the DM they're the real experts - but this is the RAF remember...smoke me a kipper....

smujsmith
6th Aug 2013, 21:10
Fenland, do you have any of whatever you're smoking available ? (it can't be kippers)

Smudge :ok: