US testing the concept of single pilot C130 and KC46 assisted by a lone loady

[NutLoose]

They are doing trials in the sims to see if feasibly if ever needed

The U.S. Air Mobility Command is expanding the limited-aircrew employment concepts it has been exploring with aircraft like the KC-46 Pegasus (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/kc-46-pegasus-tanker-flies-with-a-single-pilot-at-the-controls) to include the C-130J Super Hercules (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34507/here-is-our-first-look-at-the-blue-angels-new-fat-albert-c-130j-in-all-its-glory). The initial plan is to get select C-130J pilots and loadmasters trained on exactly how a flight utilizing only one of each would be executed, which will include the loadmaster helping the pilot fly the aircraft. All of this is part of an effort to prepare Mobility Air Forces (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-mobility-commands-fleet-of-tankers-cargo-planes-go-incognito) for emergency scenarios where a threat or series of factors would require reduced crew operations.

Undergoing training on what has been dubbed the ‘one pilot-one loadmaster’ concept for C-130Js has been aircrew from the 19th Airlift Wing’s 61st and 41st Airlift Squadrons based out of Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas. These exercises will be held on the ground in a flight simulator (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-fascinating-b-52-flight-simulator-trains-of-the-cold-war) at first, with the goal of eventually getting all pilots and loadmasters within the units trained on the concept in this environment.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/single-pilot-c-130j-operations-being-explored-by-air-force

[Ken Scott]

As a QFI on the C130J I would frequently fly the sim by myself when preparing scenarios for teaching crews, it was no big deal when everything was working ok. The problems start when you’re dealing with complex emergencies or indeed if the sole pilot needs to visit the toilet. The ALM would as a minimum need to be able to do the R/T, input a change of course into the CNI-MU, deal with an inflight emergency and all whilst making the pilot a cup of tea…!!

Having done pilot incapacitation sims where the ALM sat in the co’s seat after the former was ‘killed’ even very experienced ALMs could be a drain on my capacity as they weren’t really trained for the task. I always felt that they were more useful in the middle seat where they were more comfortable. If they were going to sub for a lone pilot they would need a considerable amount of extra training in which case you might as well use a pilot. Sitting in the RHS is also where young co-pilots learn their trade prior to becoming captains.

I once had to start up an ac as the spare frame for a v important formation sortie, with the ALM outside on the long lead it felt very lonely on the ac all by myself…

[ExAscoteer2]

Yeah that'll work well. NOT!

[OmegaV6]

I'm guessing you didn't read/register this bit .....

for emergency scenarios where a threat or series of factors would require reduced crew operations.

If a ground crew "Chiefy" can fly an H model half way across the atlantic on his own (including take of ......) .. a suitably trained loady will be substantially more capable .....

[GlobalNav]

Yeah that'll work well. NOT!

It might be safer to train the co-pilot to perform loadmaster duties. But I know there's a shortage of pilots, not loadmasters.

[Chugalug2]

During the course of my flying career, both military and civilian, I saw the demise of many aircrew trades. My flight deck crews, other than we two pilots, started out with a navigator, signaller, and flight engineer. Eventually there was only the two of us left, but mercifully our cabin crews remained. Of all those departed specialisations, the ones I missed the most were the flight engineers. As KS says above, no problem when everything worked, but a godsend, both in the air and on night stops down route; to analyse faults, perform in flight workarounds, and organise possible rectification on the ground. Worth their weight in gold!

Apologies to the others for any hurt feelings. I missed you too!

[albatross]

Wouldn’t it be easier to X-train a pilot to be a qualified loadmaster?

Strange concept in any case.

”Hat , coat, cane, door !”

[ExAscoteer2]

Oh oh. Double asymmetric.

'Nuff said!

[SASless]

When either of the two pilots drops dead mid-air, or becomes incapacitated , (on a two pilot aircraft)....what happens?

Do we actually need this new program and expenditure of funds or could we just do a review of Incident Reports to determine the outcomes of all of those?

[NutLoose]

Would they upgrade the LM badge to a full set of wings? :}

[Herod]

I recall, back in the dim past of the Wessex, some of the loadies could fly the thing better than a lot of the pilots.

[gravedigger666]

I recon somebody is forgetting something....the human tendancy to screw things up now and again!! Another more darker part of me is thinking that there is lots of signals in recent months that somebody somewhere is expecting a very big confrontation in the next few years.

[BEagle]

Of all those departed specialisations, the ones I missed the most were the flight engineers.

Always the best moose-trappers down route too!

[huge72]

I recall, back in the dim past of the Wessex, some of the loadies could fly the thing better than a lot of the pilots.
Thank you Herod

When we ran short of pilots over the Water we would fly with 2 Crewman and 1 Pilot. The Left Hand Seat crewman were all checked out by QHI's and written up as SQAMs (Suitably Qualified Aircrew Members). Our duties normally consisted of the Navigation, Radios etc but we were capable of taking control in the event of pilot incapacity for whatever reason. Most would get hands on when away on task to spell him on transits etc.

[charliegolf]

Would they upgrade the LM badge to a full set of wings? :}

Upgrade?:E

CG

[Ninthace]

Surely, if it was that difficult, the loady would be doing it all already, single handedly, and still making the brew.? :E

[minigundiplomat]

Some of the comments here reveal the stark differences in philosophy and training between transport fleets and rotary fleets; it seems that pilots that come third out of three at streaming seem to consider themselves the most irreplaceable?

[Thud_and_Blunder]

There's a commissioned Loady who went one better - on a STANEVAL trip, he briefed the sortie, was put in the RHS from where he flew/operated the entire task and handled simulated a/c emergencies. He was awarded a D Cat - as a pilot; RAF was then obliged to give him the full formal wings course. I made my one-and-only visit to Cranditz for the Flying Supe course while he was there; his QFIs were bitching and moaning that he was guaranteed an OCU slot at the end of course, we pointed out that he already had more operational experience than most of them (creamies and ex-AT seat-fillers) and was already a proven asset. He went on to thrive in the civvy flying world, top bloke.

[charliegolf]

Some of the comments here reveal the stark differences in philosophy and training between transport fleets and rotary fleets; it seems that pilots that come third out of three at streaming seem to consider themselves the most irreplaceable?

Cruel-but-Fair Scale... 10.

CG

[Ken Scott]

Some of the comments here reveal the stark differences in philosophy and training between transport fleets and rotary fleets; it seems that pilots that come third out of three at streaming seem to consider themselves the most irreplaceable?

That’s something of an arrogant suggestion I believe, that being rotary puts you ahead of ME pilots in a Top Gun ‘who’s the best pilot’ style of Willy-waving. Of the non-FJ streamed pilots choice had as much to do with it as aptitude, on my BFT students could request an early streaming to rotary after only some 50 hours, long before they’d demonstrated any brilliance in aircraft handling to set them above the mere ME potential also-rans.

Many ME pilots came from more esteemed backgrounds, such as FJ pilots with medical issues (lost bang seat cat for example) or in my own case I was re-streamed from FJ and chose comfy beds over sleeping bags, I don’t believe that put me at the back of a metaphorical queue behind those sky-gods streamed straight from BFT.

I suspect the issue is more that handling a large complex aircraft with multiple engines and systems as well as potentially a large number of pax is seen by those who have flown them as more in need of a bigger crew than a simpler type, even if the latter might be a bit trickier to actually handle.

[minigundiplomat]

That’s something of an arrogant suggestion I believe, that being rotary puts you ahead of ME pilots in a Top Gun ‘who’s the best pilot’ style of Willy-waving. Of the non-FJ streamed pilots choice had as much to do with it as aptitude, on my BFT students could request an early streaming to rotary after only some 50 hours, long before they’d demonstrated any brilliance in aircraft handling to set them above the mere ME potential also-rans.

Many ME pilots came from more esteemed backgrounds, such as FJ pilots with medical issues (lost bang seat cat for example) or in my own case I was re-streamed from FJ and chose comfy beds over sleeping bags, I don’t believe that put me at the back of a metaphorical queue behind those sky-gods streamed straight from BFT.

I suspect the issue is more that handling a large complex aircraft with multiple engines and systems as well as potentially a large number of pax is seen by those who have flown them as more in need of a bigger crew than a simpler type, even if the latter
might be a bit trickier to actually handle.

I’m not sure what relevance the number of pax has - the difference between 40 and 96 is pretty moot. But I think many would quite happily swap an additional two engines for 5 gearboxes and a flying control system that even the person who writes the instructions for IKEA would struggle to articulate.

[PICKS135]

Surely with the KC series the boom operator would be better off being trained to fly the aircraft, as they already 'fly' the boom.

[downsizer]

That’s something of an arrogant suggestion I believe, that being rotary puts you ahead of ME pilots in a Top Gun ‘who’s the best pilot’ style of Willy-waving. Of the non-FJ streamed pilots choice had as much to do with it as aptitude, on my BFT students could request an early streaming to rotary after only some 50 hours, long before they’d demonstrated any brilliance in aircraft handling to set them above the mere ME potential also-rans.

Many ME pilots came from more esteemed backgrounds, such as FJ pilots with medical issues (lost bang seat cat for example) or in my own case I was re-streamed from FJ and chose comfy beds over sleeping bags, I don’t believe that put me at the back of a metaphorical queue behind those sky-gods streamed straight from BFT.

I suspect the issue is more that handling a large complex aircraft with multiple engines and systems as well as potentially a large number of pax is seen by those who have flown them as more in need of a bigger crew than a simpler type, even if the latter might be a bit trickier to actually handle.

Come on now, no one goes into an AFCO and says I want to fly a bus. There is a lot of flying training to be failed before you end up ME. :ok:

[NutLoose]

Come on now, no one goes into an AFCO and says I want to fly a bus. There is a lot of flying training to be failed before you end up ME. :ok:

I knew someone who did. Passed all the cranwell tests too. I tried to tell him that's not what the RAF wanted, but he had his heart set on the A330

[SASless]

Ah yes....the age. old rank structuring of pilots by the aircraft they fly!

One thing about it when FJ drivers do look up to Helicopter Pilots and show their respect and appreciation is when the FJ Pilot is on the Hoist looking up at the helicopter pulling him out of some unfriendly neighborhood.....no question then on what the pecking order really is.:p

[57mm]

Maybe that's true, but as a former FJ driver, flying in an aircraft where the wings are moving faster than the fuselage makes me distinctly nervous.....😉

[Chock Puller]

Really?

You should try it sometime and then you would realize the amount of gross understatement you just used!


Can we all agree that we are all on the same team here and that each type of aircraft and crew have valuable roles to play each with its varying difficulties and contributions to the successful completion of the over all mission of our services?

Banter is a way of life but we should remember we are on the same league although perhaps on different teams.

[NutLoose]

Maybe that's true, but as a former FJ driver, flying in an aircraft where the wings are moving faster than the fuselage makes me distinctly nervous.....😉


But flying an aircraft where the engine is moving through the air slower than your wings never bothers you? :p

[Lockstock]

There's a commissioned Loady who went one better - on a STANEVAL trip, he briefed the sortie, was put in the RHS from where he flew/operated the entire task and handled simulated a/c emergencies. He was awarded a D Cat - as a pilot; RAF was then obliged to give him the full formal wings course.

If that is true, and I doubt whether it is, the there was something seriously wrong and dangerous with that fleet.

An ALM given pilot wings on the basis of one sortie...? I smell utter bulls**t

[minigundiplomat]

Come on now, no one goes into an AFCO and says I want to fly a bus. There is a lot of flying training to be failed before you end up ME. :ok:

Never knowingly out eaten......

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Perhaps, Lockstock, you need to re-read the quote: he was not "given pilot wings on the basis of one sortie" as you write, he was categorised as a D Cat pilot, but was not able to carry out those duties until he had been through the BFT/ RW/ OCU courses and then been awarded his wings. Any BS you can smell is local; the pilot continued to practise his skills after leaving the RAF as a HEMS operator then as an instructor in the civ world.

Quite how you get from STANEVAL recognising the exceptional qualities of one crewman to there being something wrong and dangerous with that fleet is not clear to me.

[Lockstock]

Perhaps Thud and Blunder your embellished story may have been clouded with time. He may have been categorised as a 'pilots assistant' but if you say he was recognised by the RAF as a pilot, without having undergone any training and on the basis of one sortie then I think that's where your fairytale falls down. Never mind, it's a good dit, which is what this forum is all about these days :D

[ExAscoteer2]

When I was on Doms the non-pilots didn't get PA status without undergoing an approved course administered by ME Stds. Even then, very few could actually 'fly' the a/c but were taught to use a coupled autopilot ILS approach to 200ft with 'Approach Flap' followed by an arrival and a likely barrier engagement.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

OK Lockstock, there's nothing on the forum that requires you to believe anything you read here. Just because something that wouldn't have happened in the AT fleet actually occurred in the rotary world (a crewman, or loadmaster, being assessed as worthy of a pilot D Cat) which led directly to that crewman being sent for the full pilot's course to confirm the STANEVAL assessment - none of this requires your belief to be true. That the officer known as D*** M***** was given that Cat by P*** C*****h****, which was followed by DM being given the pilot's course and receiving his wings, is a matter of record and does not require you to understand how such a thing could have happened. Go blissfully into your world of fairy tales and dits and don't let actual history trouble you.

ExA - in the Puma world, particularly in the 70s and early 80s, single-pilot Pumas frequently had the crewman operate in the LHS. Sqn QHIs would give training to crewmen to prepare them for the unlikely eventuality that they might have to land the beast. DM was identified as being exceptionally skilled, hence the prep for and conduct of the aforementioned STANEVAL trip. There was a world of difference between the rotary world's integration of crewmen into the cockpit and that of the AT fleet. Pre-P2 in the late 1980s, the AAC had a similar policy of training observers and air gunners (ie ATGM operators) in the basics of getting the aircraft down in the event of pilot incapacitation.

[Lockstock]

Oh THUD AND BLUNDER, some strange inconsistencies in your fairytale story... `you initially said that "He was awarded a D Cat - as a pilot".. yet you are now backtracking and saying he was "assessed as worthy of a D Cat". Somewhat of a difference, maybe you are not experienced enough to understand. Your story is subtly embellished enough to be either imaginary or utter bull.

[Herod]

I'm with Thud and Blunder on this, although I have to admit not knowing the people concerned. See my post #11 regarding crewman's ability.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

He was awarded a D Cat - but not as a crewman, as a pilot. The second quote, for which you unsubtly changed the context, related to something that would probably never happened in the AT world (the full quote being: "Just because something that wouldn't have happened in the AT fleet actually occurred in the rotary world (a crewman, or loadmaster, being assessed as worthy of a pilot D Cat"). No backtracking, no inconsistency, certainly no embellishment - just as I wrote it.

I get it - you have difficulty understanding something that would not have happened in your particular slice of RAF life; I have enough experience to comprehend that and much more. I have no need to accuse you of being over-imaginative, prone to embellishment or even a bull-****ter. That you choose to do so to others is entirely down to you.

[Lockstock]

No, I have not unsubtly changed the context; go back and read your words which I have quoted - " He was awarded a D Cat - as a pilot".. which you keep changing to 'he was assessed as worthy of a pilot D cat". If you can't back up your original comments then stop backtracking..

Any fleet which awards an ALM a pilot category - not Pilots Assistant - to operate as a pilot without undergoing training under the supervision of a QFI/QHI with emergency handling, simulator sorties, take-off and landing practice, on the basis of one sortie is, in my opinion unprofessional, bordering dangerous and in breach of regulations.

[ExAscoteer2]

O

ExA - in the Puma world, particularly in the 70s and early 80s, single-pilot Pumas frequently had the crewman operate in the LHS. Sqn QHIs would give training to crewmen to prepare them for the unlikely eventuality that they might have to land the beast.

During my time on Doms I spent a lot of time giving 'handling lessons' to my PAs (mainly AEOps and Flt Engs (the Navs didn't seem interested) teaching them how to handle a visulal circuit and approach (all most illegal I might add(!).

[TUPE]

I’m on team T&B - I know the named characters, was on the SHF at the time and can vouch for the veracity of the facts.

[charliegolf]

Does anyone reading this little tete a tete not get that what was meant was, 'Staneval felt he flew that trip as well as a D cat pilot'?

CG

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Correct, charliegolf - with the added bonus that his assessment was recorded as a pilot categorisation, not as a crewman’s.

[Brain Potter]

To try and return this thread to its original purpose with a genuine question or two

What RW aircraft currently in service are routinely operated single pilot?

If they are operated SP, would both pilot crew positions be occupied at all times - with the non-pilot having had some formal training?

[charliegolf]

Chinooks have always been 2 pilot, and iirc Pumas went from Pilot/crewman ops to 2 pilot at Gulf War time. When Pumas were SP, the LHS was not routinely occupied. I don't recall a crewman ever having formal training.

CG

[TUPE]

I don't recall a crewman ever having formal training.

CG
We learned by osmosis 🙊

[SASless]

My experience has shown many helicopter are designed for single pilot operation, others can be flown by a single pilot but use two pilot crews, and in some EMS operations a single pilot aircraft will have a Medical Crew occupy the empty forward seat outbound to the pickup (some actually faced rearwards).

Instructor pilots have to be capable of flying a two pilot aircraft without assistance of the Student Pilots and sometimes inspire of the Student Pilots.

An example....the venerable Huey was designed for a ingle pilot in the righthand seat but was generally flown by two pilot in the Military but single pilot in the civilian world.

Then, when Vertical Reference flying (Long Line External Operation) the single pilot flew the aircraft from the Lefthand Seat.

Aircraft design plays a role in determining if it is a single or two pilot aircraft as well as the missions and SOP's of the Operator.

I never encountered a formal training course for Non-PIlot Crew Members to be able to assume full pilot functions although informal opportunities for them to have a go now and then did exist.

As to the Chinook.....it can be flown by a single Pilot without any other crew....why that would be done opens the discussion to lots of questions that would garner not many endorsing such.

In this day and time....could a 747 be flown by a single Pilot?

The question that has to be answered is if that single pilot becomes incapacitated for some reason....then what?

Why would one invite such a thing to happen by going to just the single pilot concept.

In single pilot helicopters I have been asked by. a. passenger what would happen if I died in flight.....and my usual reply was along the lines of you best hope your life insurance is paid up and your computer browser history has been deleted.

[tdracer]

When I was routinely going on Boeing Flight Tests, we tested 7 days per week, naturally people got tired of working weekends and wanted some time off. So on weekends we'd sometimes get an experienced, top-notch flight test pilot, and a young 'newbe' pilot who was simply learning the ropes.
The idea was that the experienced pilot would fly all the tricky test conditions while explaining things to the newbe. If anything happened to the experienced pilot, the newbe was simply expected to get the aircraft on the ground in one piece.
I suspect the USAF has something similar in mind - the loady would get some basic training on operation of the aircraft and how to do a straightforward landing. If the pilot is somehow incapacitated, the loady's job would simply be to return to base and get the aircraft on the ground in one piece.

[amc890]

Sort of like a Copilot then.

[Lockstock]

Correct, charliegolf - with the added bonus that his assessment was recorded as a pilot categorisation, not as a crewman’s.

Which is not only wrong, but clearly laughable.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Hmm. Despite corroboration, you seem to know otherwise. Laugh away, but perhaps this thread hijack has reached its end. Apologies all (bar one) for the diversion, and may the US fixed-wing folk reach a safe and happy conclusion to their trials.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Are there aspects of C130/KC46 ops which require a 2nd pair of hands in the cockpit during modes other than in-flight? SASless is absolutely correct that the CH47 CAN be operated single-pilot in-flight; the reason the Chinook was operated in the UK as 2 x pilot (or pilot + Nav, in the late 90s) was that in 4-wheel taxi the handling pilot couldn't monitor the flying controls AND operate the rear-wheel steering via the separate control at the left-rear of the interseat console. In extremis there were work-arounds, including the use of 2-wheel taxying or getting the No.2 crewman at the front move forward to operate it (under pilot direction if crewman's visibility was restricted).

[ExAscoteer2]

Are there aspects of C130/KC46 ops which require a 2nd pair of hands in the cockpit during modes other than in-flight?

Double Asymmetric as I explained before.

[SASless]

Without confessing to past Sins....If one occupies the Left Hand Seat both the Thrust Lever (Collective for Single Rotor Helicopter Pilots) and the Power Steering Control Wheel can be operated with ease.

Unless you have some rare anatomical abnormalities one would have to rely upon the Force Trim system to monitor the Flight Controls.....that being having two complete sets of Arms in order to have your hands on the controls and the power steering knob all the time.

An Aft Gear Swivel Lock must be released and the Power Steering actuator on one of the two aft landing gear actually swivels that gear leg and the opposite gear is free to caster following the powered gear leg.

Taxiing on all fours requires setting the Cyclic in a neutral position and leaving it alone while using one's feet for braking and the left hand for applying a minor bit of power by means of the Thrust Lever.

Pedals are kept centered while using the Power Steering.

Visibility is very limited when looking cross cockpit and with scant rearwards view past the 90 Degree angle.

There are certain emergencies that would prove difficult to manage were one to be alone in the aircraft.

My knowledge of the Chinook ended with the C Model but in all of the A,B,and C's Force Trim was on all the time requiring the use of the Cyclic Force Trim Release Button and the Thrust Lever had a similar friction brake system with its own release trigger on each Thrust Lever and was on all of the time unless triggered by a Pilot.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

The 4-wheel taxi turns would have to be kept really really gentle - we often needed a little in-turn cyclic against the trim on some of the narrower taxiways to avoid roll cross-coupling, which wouldn't be possible with your arrangement, SASless. Your knowledge certainly still applied with the D and its equivalent(s) elsewhere. Agree re the emergencies - cockpit actions while one pilot flies the aircraft with HYD out spring to mind. Wouldn't be able to reach the Master Armament switch from the LHS, but that's probably not a consideration for these C130/KC46 tasks either.

Thanks, ExA re double assymetric; saw your earlier comment, was just wondering if there were any ground-manouevring handling considerations (unless, of course, you are saying that double-assymetric is a problem on the ground, too).

[GlobalNav]

Sort of like a Copilot then.

Yeah, sort of, only not. This is so short-sighted an idea to address the shortage of pilots that it’s likely to happen, and there will be a day to pay the Piper when there is no time to do so. Of course the “brains” who dreamed this up and let it happen will be long gone and the blame, as usual, will go the pilot.
Dumb as dirt.

[WIDN62]

Double Asymmetric as I explained before.
You have explained nothing! You have merely stated "double asymmetric".

[throwaway1]

Double Asymmetric as I explained before.

Maybe on the Klassic. Perfectly feasible to fly double asymmetric in the J solely from the LHS.

When taxiing around and on the take-off / landing roll during unprepared / natural surface ops, the non-handling pilot would provide back pressure on the yoke to offload the nose gear. Would need three hands to do that solo with your hands already on the power and nose wheel steering.

[ItsonlyMeagain]

A couple of things to throw into the fray.

Having been streamed to Gp1, my first tour having never failed anything, was on the Puma in 82! I did 2 tours, the second as the Sqn Trg Officer, both with single pilot ops as normal. This, considering how poor the nav kit was at the time and the heights we flew at, was hard work. Consequently the crewmen (of multiple backgrounds) gave excellent help in the front when not need in the rear. As CG stated two pilot ops started to come in as the norm about the Gulf War time and for NI ops. NVG was coming in big time in the late 80’s and was proving to be an issue on manpower as was proved in the Gulf War. The Sqn in RAFG had 17 a/c and 17 pilots….. Indeed, on some exercises I recall being ferried back to base to pick up another frame as we had more of them than crew and on one occasion flew completely solo; it was allowed then.

Anyway, on to NVG. Yes, this needed 2 in the front. In the late 80’s I completed a conversion and started the slow process of getting others up to speed. As part of this it was intended to use the Navs in the LHS. Consequently, I was tasked with getting them up to speed to fly the aircraft if needed so yes some non pilots were given training. However, there was sometimes a reason why they were navs, not pilots!

Events overtook this and the Gulf War arrived and the trawl went out for Puma pilots, or anyone that had seen one and the most current ended up in the ME. It was then the job of a couple of us to get all trained up for NVG. 90 mins for the RHS, 60 for the left. Not a single incident and the Puma force became NVG capable and the end of single pilot ops dawned.

In the way of the RAF, I then headed off to pastures new and a Flt Cdr tour on the C130K. Here, unless you were on SF(!), it was 2 pilot ops. A grand time was had in the TAC role in a great multi crew environment. However, in answer to the question above, even practice double asymmetric flying was not easy. The outer engines on the C130 are a long way out from the centreline and they were at full power at times. Flying was all manual and it was impossible to trim out the rudder forces and there was subsequent aileron deflection. Basically, the captain flew, the rest of the crew operated. I am aware that modern aircraft are different having flown the A321/330.

So, in summary, whilst single pilot ops are and were for many years, possible but on some occasions, particularly on angry ops, not a good idea.


To further explore some more parts of the thread. Gp3 was called that because it came after fighters and transport a/c and was therefore logical. It was not for the also rans. One of my fellow streamed Gp3 colleagues was replaced by a medically downgraded student and he went to lightnings and several I knew transitioned to Hawk instructor, Buccaneer and Harrier. In all forms of flying I have done, I have met some excellent pilots and crew and as said above, we are all on the same team.

Me

[ExAscoteer2]

Double asymmetric on the K was a problem owing to the outboard nature of the thrustlines coupled with the fact that the props all rotated in the same direction with No1 engine being the most critical (port outer). You only ever got to see 'Practice Asymmetric' on the OCU at altitude (ie 2 engines actually shut down), otherwise it was simulated asymmetric (ie 2 engines throttled back to zero torque). Even then it was a handful and affected things like flap and gear selection sequences. For eg you'd take approach flap before the gear (so the u/c warning horn fuse would be pulled by the Flt Eng.

You may recall the Albert that landed gear up at Brize a few years ago - that was off a simulated double asymmetric approach.

I never flew the J, but on the K, if you were flying from the RHS it could be problematic to reach the 'T Handles' (electrical engine shutdown handles that also pre-route the fire extinguishant) since, unlike the 'Condition Levers' (mechanical engine sutdown levers) which were mounted next to the throttle quadrant, the T Handles were mounted on the eyebrow panel in front of the LHS. I certainly know of one K Series Co-pilot who was restreamed because he couldn't reach the T Handles.

WRT T&B's Q. Double asymmetric on the ground wasn't a problem per sé save for the fact that you could not select reverse. An a/c came very close to going off the end at Gib after a double engine failure on T/O.

[Ken Scott]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2 View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/651813-us-testing-concept-single-pilot-c130-kc46-assisted-lone-loady.html#post11404632)
Double Asymmetric as I explained before.


Maybe on the Klassic. Perfectly feasible to fly double asymmetric in the J solely from the LHS.

The J was certainly less of a handful on 2 engines than the K due to the far superior performance, I recall on the K (at light training weights) struggling to coax even 100fpm roc with my leg jiggling from trying to hold the out of trim rudder force. I sometimes used the co to follow through to take some of the pressure off whilst I readjusted my leg. There was also the issue of having to take the gear in the descent which if it was engs 1 & 2 out and utility hydraulics lost meant having to wind the gear down. To do this required the ALM to disengage the normal system by pulling out a handle on the front of the u/c bay and winding the handle like mad (for 240 turns?). With both main gears to deploy either he did both (a very long descent) or the Gnd Engineer could do the other. The drill was normally done with the co reading through the procedure from the Aircrew Manual.

Easier handling aside, and the J could fly level with the gear down at most weights and temps, the J still had the same drills to perform if utility hyds were out. With no co and the ALM (PA) not in the RHS because he’s down the back doing his best ‘Windy Miller’ impression there would be no one to read out the drill. If the ALM had recently practiced it he might be ok doing it from memory but it’s an example of an emergency drill that required 3 (or preferably 4) people. How likely is it to occur so could be disregarded for a 2 man crew? Probably cleared at the accountant’s level but it would take a brave senior officer to make that call I believe.

I never did double asymmetric in the K for training, it was always simulated in the aircraft, in the J it was purely done in the sim. I always found real single asymmetric in the J was different (and a bit trickier) in the aircraft than in the sim so my suspicions were that double asymmetric for real would be considerably worse than it was in training. I did do it in the sim with an ALM in the RHS, that experience led me to believe that they should always stay in the middle seat, where they were used to sitting, as I found it capacity sapping having to explain what I needed him to do to help me. He would have needed a great deal more training to have occupied that seat in my opinion, and I would always have preferred a co sitting there.

During the OCU teach of double asymmetric in the J we would always end with a confidence booster, a double EFATO at rotate at max AUW (70.3T), which was normally survivable albeit with some hefty use of the controls and they sometimes needed the hill off the end of R25 at EGDL to maintain flying speed. Yes, they were expecting it as it was a briefed event, and it was always engs 3 & 4 that went so they kept the hydraulics and could get the gear up, but it was designed to instill a confidence in them at what the aircraft could do. I recall in the K having to brief on route departures in the warmer months were I was going to crash the aircraft if we lost 2 engines during the takeoff…

[sycamore]

It would all depend on what the task really required..ie short ferry ,airfield to airfield,gear down,light weight
Anything more complex and I would have a GroundEngineer(not a Mech),who was trained to do ground-runs,etc,in the middle seat,Loady RHS,not only as an extra pair of eyes/hands,and voice,but as a`confidence` builder.Not disparaging `Mechs`,as they could be carried as well....

I would also add ,that any selection process should be done in the Sim,as a starter,with strict emphasis on `crew terminology` where systems have to be operated iie `u/c`..check ,pause `UP`.. you don`t want anybody with `fast hands`,otherwise it may end up like the Nepal ATR CRASH...

[EngAl]

Didn't the Colerne Herc crash result from a practice double engine failure. Resulting in an embargo on such practices?

[ExAscoteer2]

IIRC they were Practice single asymmetric with the No 1 shut down when the No 2 failed on a roller landing.

[NutLoose]

I would remind everyone young ladies would often ferry the likes of Lancaster’s and Wellington bombers on their own with no other crew.

[ExAscoteer2]

1. That wasn't Operational Flying.

2. How many were lost?

[NutLoose]

In World War II the ATA flew 415,000 hours and delivered more than 309,000 aircraft ranging from smaller planes such as the Spitfire and Mustangs to heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and American B17 Flying Fortress. 174 men and women pilots of the ATA were killed during the War – around 10% of the total who flew for the ATA. Initially, as the pilots were civilian and/or women, the aircraft were ferried with unloaded guns or other armaments. However, after encounters with German aircraft in which the ferried aircraft were unable to fight back, RAF aircraft were then ferried with guns fully loaded.

https://www.kenleyrevival.org/content/history/women-at-war/air-transport-auxiliary

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3194754/The-female-Guns-World-War-II-Inside-RAF-s-woman-ferry-squadron-rubbed-shoulders-men-flew-Spitfires.html

[Shytehawk]

I understood he only got halfway across the English Channel.

[condor17]

Was line training a new entrant F/O , ex RAF rotary .
At a coffee before walking out , he goes over to chat to another skipper ....
Comes back , '' that skipper used to be my crewman ! ''
Likely the senior ex-crewman skipper , flew with his junior F/O who in a previous life had been the skipper .

rgds condor .

[huge72]

When I joined 72 we had a crewman who did a lot of civilian flying to get his PPL. He eventually left the air force and went onto be an airline pilot retiring finally having flown Concorde. But of course we couldn't be pilots as we were only NCO's and didn't have the right qualities.

[charliegolf]

When I joined 72 we had a crewman who did a lot of civilian flying to get his PPL. He eventually left the air force and went onto be an airline pilot retiring finally having flown Concorde. But of course we couldn't be pilots as we were only NCO's and didn't have the right qualities.

Our Timmy?

CG

[Ken Scott]

When I joined 72 we had a crewman who did a lot of civilian flying to get his PPL. He eventually left the air force and went onto be an airline pilot retiring finally having flown Concorde. But of course we couldn't be pilots as we were only NCO's and didn't have the right qualities.

I’m not sure I entirely follow your logic.., did you go to Biggin Hill having applied to be a pilot only to be told, ‘sorry dear boy, you didn’t go to Eton/ Harrow/ ANOther public school, you can’t be a pilot, you have to be NCO aircrew’? Or did you apply to be NCO aircrew initially?

On the squadrons I served on ex-public school boys were a rarity, almost all were state school educated, not that it really mattered. So the point is that personal qualities mattered more than background. Obviously the RAF used to have NCO aircrew pilots, but I don’t think they were considered to be lesser beings as many were commissioned later, but in those days a person’s background was considered more relevant as to whether they were commissioned from the start.

[tdracer]

I would remind everyone young ladies would often ferry the likes of Lancaster’s and Wellington bombers on their own with no other crew.
Didn't the Lancaster only have one pilot?

[Ken Scott]

Wellingtons were operated with 2 pilots, Lancasters, Halibags et al were single pilot with a Flight Engineer to assist, the logic being that pilots took a long time to train while Flight Engineers were quicker so it was easier to replace losses.

Wellingtons were in service pre-war so that rather grim logic didn’t apply.

[Tango and Cash]

I presume this is one of those "for emergency use only" type plans... but if a serious shooting war starts (i.e. the emergency), which would we run out of first, KC-46 pilots or KC-46s for them to fly?

Apparently the Air Force thinks it's KC-46 pilots...

[GlobalNav]

I presume this is one of those "for emergency use only" type plans... but if a serious shooting war starts (i.e. the emergency), which would we run out of first, KC-46 pilots or KC-46s for them to fly?

Apparently the Air Force thinks it's KC-46 pilots...
It must be a proposed “solution” to not meeting manning requirements. Military aviators need better pay, job stability etc. It should be much easier than it seems to have been to recruit and train enough Air Force pilots. Perhaps the post-career opportunities with the airlines are not attractive enough. The cost of training alone should be a huge incentive. But reducing pilot force by using non-pilots is plain silly. Have the accountants taken over?