Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

BOI into the 2012 Tornado Collision over the Moray Firth

Old 18th Dec 2013, 08:03
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Thanks for the clarification DV.

So those with a TCAS "agenda" include Tornado DEC. TCAS wasn't new in 2008 so you've got to assume they did the proper assessments before making this decision which makes Hammond's statement even more odd.
dervish is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2013, 18:35
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,730
I used to fly gliders in Switzerland and most gliders there have an anti-collision system invented by a swiss-boffin. Like FJs, gliders are often flying in close proximity in thermals and so TCAS is useless. I can't remember how the little magic box worked - but it was very effective. It only cost a couple of hundred Francs - I'm sure the MOD could knock up something similar for a few million quid a piece.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2013, 18:42
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Originally Posted by Trim Stab
a few million quid a piece
plus 50M for integration, 50M for clearances and 150M to BAES for sundry expenses.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2013, 19:13
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Ah yes.....

Those hot weather trials in Death Valley (conveniently close to Vegas), cold weather trials in Norway on rates, or maybe Alaska?

Testing to 20g.....

It just goes on and on......
Biggus is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2013, 19:41
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 69
Posts: 763
Trim Stab,

It's called "FLARM" and an increasing proportion of the UK glider fleet is thus equipped. It has its limitations, but the kit is definitely an aid to flight safety.

However, if can be a distraction when you are tugging at a competition and there are 50+ gliders in the vicinity of the airfield.

Like any bit of kit, if you use it sensibly and don't become a slave to its indications, it can make you safer.
1.3VStall is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2013, 06:52
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,856
plus 50M for integration,
Optional according to recent pronouncements by DE&S and Min(AF)



50M for clearances
Optional if you are an RAF VSO



and 150M to BAES for sundry expenses.
I'll give you that one, especially since Walmsley retired. Before that it was 50/50 with Thales!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2013, 09:06
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,212
Aaahh, but we're encouraged to report "everything" (it's a reporting culture we're trying to establish, don't you know). Was that another aircraft I just saw? That ATC hadn't mentioned to me? AIRPROX! That, at least, would appear to be the mentality applied by some operating communities in both civ and mil. The fitment of TCAS to fast jets will probably increase the number of AIRPROX reports further due to a likely requirement for mandatory reporting of RAs, which will be somewhat more frequent in uncontrolled airspace than they are inside CAS.

Focussing on total volume of reporting is a mistake - it's the frequency of the serious ones that matters and I don't see that kind of detailed analysis being conducted in this article
Easy Street is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2013, 17:38
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,194
Can they not simply do it off the transponder?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 01:42
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 763
Need an integrator for those to work, Nutloose, Don't think GR4's have them as part of the avionics fit.
MAINJAFAD is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 10:14
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Or as some of us keep saying, just look out of the window.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 10:47
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Or as some of us keep saying, just look out of the window.

This probably explains why it's taken 15 years since endorsement NOT to fit a CWS. One school says it's needed, another doesn't, and the procurers at Shabbeywood sit twiddling their thumbs while London bats it back and forth.
dervish is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 12:25
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,118
I've never operated with TCAS or CWS but understand that it can be annoying and de-sensitising as well as helpful.

Are there any statistics as to how many actual 'saves' the equipment gives when compared to false alarms or preventions of 'getting close' as opposed to 'actually hitting'?

Also, can anyone offer an opinion on whether CWS if/when fitted to GR4 and/or a Typhoon would be a Go/ No Go system? One assumes it would have to be, but at the same time that seems a bit OTT.
orca is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 12:58
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,029
Plenty of other Class G airspace users have TCAS, or a version thereof fitted, so I guess there should be evidence of how useful it is. Whether or not that info translates into 400knots+ (600knot+ closing speeds) I'm not sure. I remain to be convinced that FLARM has any use on a fast jet, bearing in mind the range vs closing speeds.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 13:21
  #95 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 835
Or as some of us keep saying, just look out of the windo
What do you think the guys were doing during the 46 Class "A" misses, between 2000 and 2012?

It's comments like that that gave the "bean counters" an excuse to drop, initially, CWS for Tornado in PR11.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 13:22
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,856
Orca

Interesting question, given a non functioning IFF system was regarded as "Go" even after a GR4A being shot down because of it.

I think a good point was made above. A CWS was endorsed for Tornado in 1998, yet is still not fitted. SOMEONE assessed the pros and cons discussed here and endorsed it - in 1998 that would need to be pretty senior in OR.

Getting back to the July 2012 crash, Hammond has recently claimed this endorsement only dates from 2008, stating that is not sufficient time for it to be fitted in July 2012, so MoD can't be blamed.

At best, Hammond knowingly misled. But given MoD's form in such matters, it is a probably a deliberate lie. As usual, one must follow the lies to uncover the truth. The lie is about the endorsement and funding dates, tests and trials.

Exactly the same happened after the Patriot shootdown of 2003. ACM Sir Brian Burridge's direction that the IFF be made safe was ignored, for more than 6 years. He is also content the Board of Inquiry was grossly misled. Yet he is sanguine about this, meaning (presumably) he was over-ruled from on high. Which, again, must be pretty senior.

Similarly, one must ask WHO these over-rules and lies protect. Who decided that Tornado GR4 (in this case) need not be functionally safe? Again, the perpetrators have form. Sir Brian was ONLY a 3 Star at the time, whereas the people who, in the period 1998-2002, ruled that the aircraft need not be safe were led by a 4 star. Just a little above our pay grade, but that doesn't absolve one of the legal obligation to report the Organisational Failing. Only one person in PE did, as well as Boscombe Down. Both were told to shut up. Boscombe did.

There is MUCH more to this than just the CWS/TCAS question. The same basic policy decision, that aircraft need not be functionally safe, permeates umpteen fatal accidents, and MoD simply does not want this link publicised. But the Nimrod, Tornado/Patriot and Chinook cases, especially, have raised the profile and made the policy public, so it will be interesting what direction the Procurator Fiscal issues in this case.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 14:52
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 636
What do you think the guys were doing during the 46 Class "A" misses, between 2000 and 2012?
Not looking out of the window hard enough or well enough. Them's the breaks.

Yet another thread devoted to making an aircraft "safe" without thinking about the combat implications of such action. The aircrew's role is to find and destroy another aircraft (or to prevent them doing the same to you), ideally BVR, if necessary eyeball to eyeball; if they can't do that in peacetime, when will they be able to do that?
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 16:13
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,874
ATG, I've no idea what you are on about as the GR4 has no BVR capability or indeed any reliable way to detect aircraft BVR. Stuff like JTIDS (coming), IRST (not coming), PD Radar/IFF interrogator (not coming), Distributed Aperture (not coming) would all add value for detecting other aircraft in peace and war. Terrain masking at high speed reduces the ability to see and avoid. Have you ever experienced 1000kts closure in less than perfect vis?

Adding a CWS may just stops us thwacking each other without a war - we just need to make sure it works and does not compromise anything or get in the way.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 16:18
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 636
JTO - ALARP would indicate that CWS can't be added without

it work[ing] and does not compromise anything or get in the way.
If the way to beat GR4 is to drive at it really quickly, then we've got bigger problems frankly.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2013, 16:22
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,874
So we should leave the collision risk as it is to punish crews for not spotting each other - WTF???

I think you should leave the sherry alone.
Just This Once... is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.