Hero pilot 'back-flipped' his fighter jet at 250ft to avoid a crash!
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
TomJoad
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.
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 unTomJoad
Last edited by TomJoad; 27th Jul 2013 at 00:22.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Last edited by TomJoad; 27th Jul 2013 at 11:21.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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'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
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeroplane Doesnt Crash Into Glider
Today an aeroplane didnt 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 didnt smash into the glider
Flt Lt Dastardlys navigator Flt Lt Dave Muttley was heard to chuckle and whisper something about a medal.
The baker girl didn't win.
Today an aeroplane didnt 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 didnt smash into the glider
Flt Lt Dastardlys navigator Flt Lt Dave Muttley was heard to chuckle and whisper something about a medal.
The baker girl didn't win.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
I was going to post something, but then I read the other comments by readers. Oh dear!
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by whowhenwhy; 27th Jul 2013 at 15:32.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-stonė?"
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.
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-stonė?"
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.
Last edited by Gerontocrat; 28th Jul 2013 at 07:30.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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 ?)