Inside Nimrod MRA4
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top quote from that article:
But the tiny size of the platform's galley is a cause of concern to the test team, which could one day be called upon to demonstrate the aircraft's maximum 14h endurance. As one RAF officer notes with alarm: "How are you supposed to prepare a decent curry using this?" Unless this is sorted by 2009, the Nimrod community's reputation as a "formation eating club" could be in danger!
The slimming route to ASTOR for the crews perhaps?
But the tiny size of the platform's galley is a cause of concern to the test team, which could one day be called upon to demonstrate the aircraft's maximum 14h endurance. As one RAF officer notes with alarm: "How are you supposed to prepare a decent curry using this?" Unless this is sorted by 2009, the Nimrod community's reputation as a "formation eating club" could be in danger!
The slimming route to ASTOR for the crews perhaps?
Oh, what a beautiful cockpit! What a dream for IRTs! And is that a NWS wheel I spy on the co-pilot's side? Luxury...
YS
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
My brother is not going to be happy. Apparently he's one of the kipper fleet's pilots with the healthiest appetite.
Originally Posted by FJJP
CCQ? Whatever is that?
YS
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly more eye pleasing than the old Smiths knobs and dials.....
But one thing the F/E did was to keep an extra pair of eyes looking in and out ......... saved my bacon a few times on those long dark nights not talking to anybody.
I am curious though, why did they get rid of the F/E when the lesson from the civvie world is now you need 4 pilots to do what 2 and an F/E did?
Still give it a few years and it will smell right!
Up the 120th!
Alwayz
But one thing the F/E did was to keep an extra pair of eyes looking in and out ......... saved my bacon a few times on those long dark nights not talking to anybody.
I am curious though, why did they get rid of the F/E when the lesson from the civvie world is now you need 4 pilots to do what 2 and an F/E did?
Still give it a few years and it will smell right!
Up the 120th!
Alwayz
Suspicion breeds confidence
Oh The Gorilla, isn't that just sour grapes? You said it wouldn't fly <well it has> and the govt in its infinate wisdom wants to buy some. Now the money has already been spent, I'd like to see some return on investment. Yours and mine.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with you ALWAYZINIT, with the exception of the comment about "Still give....", I don't agree with that at all!
Will these designers never learn.... it's electronics for electronics sake, the three crew setup has and always be much more efficient and safer to operate.
Cheers, FD
Will these designers never learn.... it's electronics for electronics sake, the three crew setup has and always be much more efficient and safer to operate.
Cheers, FD
Originally Posted by Flight Detent
Will these designers never learn.... it's electronics for electronics sake, the three crew setup has and always be much more efficient and safer to operate.
As a matter of something ‘being right’ if it ‘looks right’; compare the MRA4 flight deck with the updated C5 flight deck in the discussion on the C5 accident in the rumours and news section.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up North!
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alwayzinit
I am curious though, why did they get rid of the F/E when the lesson from the civvie world is now you need 4 pilots to do what 2 and an F/E did?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
"Will these designers never learn.... it's electronics for electronics sake, the three crew setup has and always be much more efficient and safer to operate."
It's also interesting (in a boring sort of way) that whenever electronic or computerized systems need to poll results to detect an error, they require 3 or more outputs, otherwise when it's just A versus B, there is no way of knowing which one is erroneous. How many crews have benefited from the F/E's largely independent input?
It's also interesting (in a boring sort of way) that whenever electronic or computerized systems need to poll results to detect an error, they require 3 or more outputs, otherwise when it's just A versus B, there is no way of knowing which one is erroneous. How many crews have benefited from the F/E's largely independent input?
Two’s in remember the analogy with points on a graph; one is just a point, two is a straight line, three is a curve, and four is an utter mess. But that’s not the reason why a dual/dual configuration (four outputs) is better; with such a systems arrangement it can vote the bad system out and still carry on with the redundancy of three ‘monitored’ systems. If only human systems could be monitored in the same way – but even with four crew members, the probability of them all failing at the same time could be similar to that of half of the electronics failing; ergo more black boxes.
