INCIDENT AT VALLEY
That's a very dignified way of saying what needed to be said.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David340r wrote: Where the pilot is incapacitated shouldn't the navigator generally be able to at least stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude if not get it home unless the pilot is making some pretty forceful involuntary control inputs? No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.
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.
No hints of the navigator trying to assume control in either of those reports.
If it had been worded something like "in those two cases would the navigator have been able to stabilise the aircraft at a safe altitude?" then I'm sure the responses would have been less of a
disappointing arrogant PPRuNe response
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
David340 the rear of a Tornado is equipped with the stuff that isn't in the front cockpit, so there would be no room for a second set of controls. I suppose you could fit a button like the Russian use that brings it straight and level.
Don't assume - Check!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XT 123
XT = Trainer....... EXCEPT...... We had to do a Houdini and FIT the stick as required by training role..aircraft had very limited operational capabilities ie heat with it in IIRC..
There are/were Tornado variants with dual controls in the rear too..
XT = Trainer....... EXCEPT...... We had to do a Houdini and FIT the stick as required by training role..aircraft had very limited operational capabilities ie heat with it in IIRC..
There are/were Tornado variants with dual controls in the rear too..
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between Chippenham and Wooton Bassett
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember whether the command ejection selector was any different on the trainer than on the normal F3...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The basic ej system was the same gr/f
However when they started to piss about with sem's at-al to add an interim nvg capability to the F3 cue mucho fannying around the top of seat, micro switches etc etc.
Did anyone actually blow them off in an ejection btw??
However when they started to piss about with sem's at-al to add an interim nvg capability to the F3 cue mucho fannying around the top of seat, micro switches etc etc.
Did anyone actually blow them off in an ejection btw??
Agree.
And since no one has explicitly replied, not all versions of the Tornado or Phantom have rear seat controls (stick, rudders, throttles). Few Tornados, and Phantoms varied widely. At the risk of over simplification, I provide the following for education:
When aircraft are so equipped with rear seat controls the spectrum of how much experience/capability the Navigator/Weapons System Operator had in piloting the aircraft varies by service, era, and doctrine of the operators (and if the pilots let them touch anything
). In most cases a qualified WSO/Nav/back seater would indeed be able to conduct basic maneuvering, or in some cases the ability could go all the way up to full pilot qualifications. In some cases a "guest" occupant (Blue Angels publicity ride for example) the back seater would have no control instruction at all except not to touch anything. As for particular jets and qualifications, rear (or side by side) controls vary by aircraft and service. Most USAF Phantoms had dual controls, and early USAF F-4 Phantom operations had the WSO first qualified as pilots. Most US Navy Phantoms did not have rear controls, and the WSO was not a rated/qualified pilot. F-4 rear controls varied by buyer/user/prior operator, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done my sentiments, it gives some more strength to the investigators, I do wish that the 'click' would blend into a more general discussion and stop this 'Clip talking'
let everyone understand and join in, it furthers those that have not had the opportunity of enjoying our interest in a professional way
let everyone understand and join in, it furthers those that have not had the opportunity of enjoying our interest in a professional way
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly how the posters original question should have been answered,well done.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I do wish that people would not speak with authority about things that they don't know nothing about.
In both the F4 Phantom and the Tornado F3, the 2 stick variants were fully mission capable. In the F4K and M the RAF normally removed the stick when a navigator flew in the back because the radar display could not be pulled out to its design position. It was, however, perfectly possible to use the radar with the display fully stowed. Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft! Many other nations, particularly those equipped with the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly. Conversely the USN and USMC had no 2 stickers!
In the Tornado F3 the rear seat control columns remained fitted in the dual control aircraft throughout.
As for command eject, the concept of command eject in a two crew fighter was different to that of an instructional aircraft such as the Hawk. BAE and the RAF obviously thought that they would not want a student in the front to be able to eject an instructor in the rear seat. Clearly, little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger". We will see if the Accident Investigation makes any comment or recommendation in this area?
In both the F4 Phantom and the Tornado F3, the 2 stick variants were fully mission capable. In the F4K and M the RAF normally removed the stick when a navigator flew in the back because the radar display could not be pulled out to its design position. It was, however, perfectly possible to use the radar with the display fully stowed. Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft! Many other nations, particularly those equipped with the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly. Conversely the USN and USMC had no 2 stickers!
In the Tornado F3 the rear seat control columns remained fitted in the dual control aircraft throughout.
As for command eject, the concept of command eject in a two crew fighter was different to that of an instructional aircraft such as the Hawk. BAE and the RAF obviously thought that they would not want a student in the front to be able to eject an instructor in the rear seat. Clearly, little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger". We will see if the Accident Investigation makes any comment or recommendation in this area?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we will have to disagree on this..
Quote
"I do wish that people would not speak with authority about things that they don't know nothing about."
1. "Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft!"
IE Training sorties.
2. "radar display could not be pulled out to its design position."
It's in the stowed or emergency position ie ejection position
"the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly."
Were they the same radar sets?
However back on topic
"little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger" "
IE "We've always done it this way"?
...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training..
"I do wish that people would not speak with authority about things that they don't know nothing about."
1. "Most Pilot Instructors managed to use the radar as well as fly the aircraft!"
IE Training sorties.
2. "radar display could not be pulled out to its design position."
It's in the stowed or emergency position ie ejection position
"the F4E kept rear sticks fitted throughout and trained their WSOs the basics of how to fly."
Were they the same radar sets?
However back on topic
"little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger" "
IE "We've always done it this way"?
...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training..
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
glad rag, You have misunderstood, I stated:
And you answered:
.
My point was that it should have been possible in all command eject aircraft to set the system so that the front seater ejects BOTH crew.
In addition, I have over 2500 hours on both the F4 (D,E,K and M)and the Tornado F3 so I believe that I have some credibility to make comments about those aircraft?
As for command eject, the concept of command eject in a two crew fighter was different to that of an instructional aircraft such as the Hawk. BAE and the RAF obviously thought that they would not want a student in the front to be able to eject an instructor in the rear seat. Clearly, little thought was given to the use of command eject when flying a "passenger". We will see if the Accident Investigation makes any comment or recommendation in this area?
IE "We've always done it this way"?
...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training.
...I think it is extremely unfair to expect passengers, even those who pax a lot, to have the same, honed, instinct for survival as pilots/navs on ejection seat equipped aircraft.
An instinct that is brought to and kept, on an edge, throughout both RAF flying and operational training.
My point was that it should have been possible in all command eject aircraft to set the system so that the front seater ejects BOTH crew.
In addition, I have over 2500 hours on both the F4 (D,E,K and M)and the Tornado F3 so I believe that I have some credibility to make comments about those aircraft?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will know, whereas I do not, but from reading about command eject, I gained the impression that it does not merely ensure both crew are ejected, but that they do so in a sequenced order, to give both the best possible chance of ejecting safely. I think I read that under this arrangement the rear seat occupant ejects about half a second before the front seat occupant. No matter how honed the skills of the professionals are, that kind of sequencing/timing may be more difficult to achieve.
Stickstirrer
I am often one of the more vocal posters on here with all matters pertaining to Hawk operations. However, there are times to STFU. This is one of them.
I doubt (hope) that anyone is going to indulge your question I’m afraid. Now is not the time.
No offence intended but I have actually been impressed by the lack of speculation on this site so far. Please can we keep it that way?
BV
I doubt (hope) that anyone is going to indulge your question I’m afraid. Now is not the time.
No offence intended but I have actually been impressed by the lack of speculation on this site so far. Please can we keep it that way?
BV