Originally Posted by
Dominator2
A very long and detailed report, however, no mention that had the Hawk been retro fitted with an AoA system there would not need to be discussion about IAS, g, weight and configuration. Would be far safer and more relevant to the aircraft of today. I do accept that it would give the QFIs far less to talk about
I totally agree with the findings concerning the Command Eject system. Fundamentally flawed to cater for all different front/rear seat combinations. BAEs was naive to say the least and should have learnt from other 2 seat fast jets.
D2, I am afraid that I have to disagree with your first point. Whilst AOA indications could/should have given cues to avoid stalling, the height loss during the go-around is strongly a function of IAS, bank angle, weight and configuration (ie. rate of descent, angle to roll through and pitch attitude change). Therefore, they are all very relevant.
On your second point regarding command ejection systems, when the Hawk T1 entered service (1977), none of the other RAF/RN ejection seat equipped two-seat aircraft had a command ejection system (Phantom, Buccaneer, Jaguar T2, Harrier T4, Lightning, Hunter, Jet Provost). Therefore, British Aerospace (as it was then) were not naïve but were taking a positive step forwards with what they installed, and it was to satisfy the required mission of the aircraft. The fact that better systems now exist and the Hawk T1 has not been modified is not down to the OEM per se but to customers not requesting a modification.
There are two items that were not discussed in the report that I felt should have been. First, the 150 KIAS minimum speed during PFLs. I consider this to be only applicable once you are wings level on the runway centreline and is dictated by the minimum speed at which you can commence the first stage flare without the risk of stalling. I have always practiced and taught that the gear down glide speed of 170/165 KIAS was a minimum as well as a target until rolled out wings level. The Aircrew Manual is not clear on this point and I believe clarification is needed on this. I cannot recall whether this was taught to me formally when I started flying the Hawk in 1978, whether it was just 'sage advice' or whether I worked it out for myself but I do apply this rigidly. Secondly, one aspect that was not considered when analysing what R3 did with the stick during the finals turn is the strong nose up trim change that occurs when the flaps are lowered. This would have occurred at a high bank angle when a significant aft stick force would be required prior to flap selection. When the flaps were lowered a push force would then have been required to maintain the g/turn rate, and applying nose down trim*would have been the normal response when flaps are lowered wings level but would probably have seemed counter-intuitive when turning. This would have resulted in further workload and distraction and a degradation in flight path control. This may not have been a significant contributory factor but I would have expected it to be discussed.