Typhoon Close Call At RIAT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
6Z3
When you have fully grasped the reasons for the convening of BoI per se, re-considered the circumstances of this 'incident' and come to understand the well-established investigative processes that follow, then you just might begin to fathom the intent behind my admittedly frivolous final comment.
When you have fully grasped the reasons for the convening of BoI per se, re-considered the circumstances of this 'incident' and come to understand the well-established investigative processes that follow, then you just might begin to fathom the intent behind my admittedly frivolous final comment.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from a few interesting snippets about the Typhoon FCS, PLEASE someone confine the other 8 pages of pointless/myopic/ill informed speculation to the Pprune archives. (Maybe a new thread 'Typhoon FCS' that contains fact not fiction?)
1. The pilot, for reasons known to him and those who debriefed him, made an error.
2. He was rebriefed and clearly identified the issues because... The aircraft flew again. He did 2 good shows on Sat/Sun.
3. That's it.
4. Next subject.
1. The pilot, for reasons known to him and those who debriefed him, made an error.
2. He was rebriefed and clearly identified the issues because... The aircraft flew again. He did 2 good shows on Sat/Sun.
3. That's it.
4. Next subject.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would never have happened in a Harrier Mr Farley, Sir ! 
I wonder if we learn from the mistakes of others or just enjoy the schadenfreude from certain sectors. When I make mistakes in my aeroplane, nobody ever sees them quite so publicly and I certainly don't tell anyone about them. Save a little prick (!) of conscience when I nearly do the same thing again. But then again I fly for fun and that's not allowed at the controls of a Typhoon is it ?
I wonder if we learn from the mistakes of others or just enjoy the schadenfreude from certain sectors. When I make mistakes in my aeroplane, nobody ever sees them quite so publicly and I certainly don't tell anyone about them. Save a little prick (!) of conscience when I nearly do the same thing again. But then again I fly for fun and that's not allowed at the controls of a Typhoon is it ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6Z3 and Southside
The BOI does apportion blame
However, it may not fit
The Nimrod Toronto Crash BOI was re-convened 3 times to "get the wording right" so the MOD could avoid being sued for the accident
The BOI does apportion blame
However, it may not fit
The Nimrod Toronto Crash BOI was re-convened 3 times to "get the wording right" so the MOD could avoid being sued for the accident
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I was there in the FRIAT stand and watched the whole sequence of events with my chin on the floor, surely someone must have a video of it?
Respect to Matt for climbing back in and for the subsequent excellent displays...
Respect to Matt for climbing back in and for the subsequent excellent displays...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advertising?
Looking at MOTF's (excellent) sequence of stills, would the shots with the BAE Systems banner behind the aircraft be considered 'good advertising'?
sw
sw
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: globetrotter
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safeware;
'...would the shots with the BAE Systems banner behind the aircraft be considered 'good advertising'?....
One would think so given that they and their European friends have produced an aircraft that was probably the only one of its type at the Show (or anywhere else for that matter) capable of providing the flight control reaction/engine response and powerful thrust needed to get out of such a tight spot. Credit where credit is due I think.
On a slightly lighter note - Have you noticed in the air trade rags that the Eurofighter advertisements all carry the strap line - 'Nothing comes close'. If the ad agency boys were at IAT on the day they would have been snorting into their G&T's.
bb
'...would the shots with the BAE Systems banner behind the aircraft be considered 'good advertising'?....
One would think so given that they and their European friends have produced an aircraft that was probably the only one of its type at the Show (or anywhere else for that matter) capable of providing the flight control reaction/engine response and powerful thrust needed to get out of such a tight spot. Credit where credit is due I think.
On a slightly lighter note - Have you noticed in the air trade rags that the Eurofighter advertisements all carry the strap line - 'Nothing comes close'. If the ad agency boys were at IAT on the day they would have been snorting into their G&T's.
bb
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has also been no mention of the FPV (Flight Path Vector) which is a real time dynamic presentation of the aircrafts flight path in the HUD and or HDD. The F16 is limited to 25alpha and no amount of extra pull will increase that so at max alpha FPV in the runway = ground kill therefore time to leave al la the T-Bird accident (Who I believe had an incorrect altimeter setting and went through his gate too low) The Tyhoon is a completely different kettle of fish and while the pilot may have exceeded his minimum height I would be reasonably sure he knew he had the required performance margin to not do a T-Bird. Air display flying by its nature has an inherant risk but only ME & his team will know how close he came - as also mentioned the Tyhoon is a quantam leap ahead of anything the RAF has had to date, many will not appreciate this if trying to compare it to "normal a/c" If indeed he did request to climb to 5000ft and repeat the manoeuvre to me that is a mark of the professional - Miscalculation, misjudgement, distraction whatever, he learnt and improved Good Job I say.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside zone 19
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone wanting a video of the 'Close Call', I have just received one this morning on email from an undisclosed person on 29sqn, I'm sure that there will be one doing the rounds soon!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chamonix
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres 2 quick links to the video:
1. (With sound) http://www.sukhoi.fsnet.co.uk/APG/RIAT.mpg
2. (Smaller file, no sound) http://homepage.mac.com/pgre/iMovieTheater2.html
1. (With sound) http://www.sukhoi.fsnet.co.uk/APG/RIAT.mpg
2. (Smaller file, no sound) http://homepage.mac.com/pgre/iMovieTheater2.html
Suspicion breeds confidence
The back of that bird was no more than 25ft above the deck. 1 second later would have been too late. It doesn't get much closer than that. I hate to have to clean that flying suit. Close one Mark 
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CV: NO Typhoon experience, some 'classic' jet low-level aeros experience and a few 'exciting' moments.
Having seen the videos, it appears that:-
1) The base height was 'broken'
2) It did not crash
3) It was 'under control' during the manoeuvre
More than that one cannot say. I suspect the alarmists on here have run away with the event. It is fairly safe to say something went wrong, either pilot or aircraft induced, and the pilot used some of the height margin in recovering. That is what it is for. Low-level aeros are inherently dangerous and can go wrong. Talk of 'BOI' and 'grounding' are over-done. It is apparent the Display Committee was satisfied. I join FJJP and FB11 in calling for an end to 'speculation'. Case closed, good display, great aircraft by all accounts.
PS Can I have a go?
Having seen the videos, it appears that:-
1) The base height was 'broken'
2) It did not crash
3) It was 'under control' during the manoeuvre
More than that one cannot say. I suspect the alarmists on here have run away with the event. It is fairly safe to say something went wrong, either pilot or aircraft induced, and the pilot used some of the height margin in recovering. That is what it is for. Low-level aeros are inherently dangerous and can go wrong. Talk of 'BOI' and 'grounding' are over-done. It is apparent the Display Committee was satisfied. I join FJJP and FB11 in calling for an end to 'speculation'. Case closed, good display, great aircraft by all accounts.
PS Can I have a go?
Sorry, but I can' quite see what all the fuss is about - It looks under full control all the way through. Looks like he allowed the aircraft to bottom out and build speed to me - If the velocity vector is displayed on the HUD, then he would know he wasn't going to dig a hole...
Nige
Nige
Champagne anyone...?
Soundtrack to the vid is, I believe, "Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?" by Moby from the album "Play".
Notwithstanding the 9 pages of "discussion" by various "experts" (admitedly with 1 or 2 actual experts ) I was wondering about the display auth aspect of all this. Are we seeing a case of commercial pressures overriding procedures here? We have seen cases in the past of guys porking their practice and being red carded for the actual show so what's the deal here? Fair play to the bloke and all that for reflying it again that afternoon but is that a chance that would be afforded others in such a situation? Is this just too high a profile product to allow the display to be canned?
I know it's RIAT and all that but is there an element of double standards here?
Notwithstanding the 9 pages of "discussion" by various "experts" (admitedly with 1 or 2 actual experts
) I was wondering about the display auth aspect of all this. Are we seeing a case of commercial pressures overriding procedures here? We have seen cases in the past of guys porking their practice and being red carded for the actual show so what's the deal here? Fair play to the bloke and all that for reflying it again that afternoon but is that a chance that would be afforded others in such a situation? Is this just too high a profile product to allow the display to be canned?I know it's RIAT and all that but is there an element of double standards here?