F-22 Prang at NAS Fallon, Nevada
OAP
A fair question. Apparently I do not perceive it in the same way you do! I’m more than happy to be educated.
Please explain how a trend of pilots rotating below the correct speed could have been caught with routine FDR scrutiny.
BV
Please explain how a trend of pilots rotating below the correct speed could have been caught with routine FDR scrutiny.
BV
How was the trend caught in order to be identified and used in the report? I don't know, but evidently it is possible.
I suppose it's like the invisible spaceship at Lord's that used the SEP (somebody else's problem) cloaking device to avoid being seen. (Douglas Adams)
I suppose it's like the invisible spaceship at Lord's that used the SEP (somebody else's problem) cloaking device to avoid being seen. (Douglas Adams)
The parameters that the operator (StanEval, QFI, Company Senior Pilot etc.. as decreed ) wish to have flagged-up are decided and programmed. The monitoring goes along recording all parameters and every flight goes into the system record. The records are all routinely and automatically trawled and a print or electronic copy of the trends and levels is produced at whatever period is decreed (often, monthly), the monitoring agent (on the Sqn) then formally reviews the stats, reports, action a/r and signs off the file . The severity of the parameter thresholds is simply altered to achieve the level of alert required. For instance, if a G-Loc profile was worth watching for, a suitable threshold profile could be decided and tracked. Generally, there will be some thresholds that should imply remedial action before next flight and, it is possible to do that. However, the primary aim is really trend and performance monitoring.
Now Bob, I believe that you are a QFI? Can you not think of a way to use flight data monitoring to monitor early initiation of rotation and unstick ?
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 21st Nov 2018 at 20:18. Reason: performance monitoring corrected me
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Could one assume, in such a hi-tech airframe, that very basic piloting skills/discipline don't feature on the Supervisory radar? The focus may be more on the utilisation of the airframe in its intended environment ... off the ground and in a combat scenario?
OAP
I can now, of course. We are operating with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
I never debated whether or not FDR data would show if someone had rotated too slow. What I’m debating was whether any FJ unit would have ever thought to look for such a thing. Until now.
I know what is recorded on such devices and I appreciate the benefit of it.
I’m just using my knowledge of FJ operations to work out how such a trend could have been spotted before anyone knew it was an issue.
FWIW in a high performance aircraft such as Raptor I can see how it is entirely possible for such a misconception to breed unchecked. They don’t operate with such fine margins as transport aircraft and routinely operate at extremes of the flight envelope.
Whereas as a multi engine pilot will work out mass and balance and Vstop etc ad infinitum a Raptor guy can probably quite happily point the aircraft down the runway and push the noise lever forwards with almost complete impunity. I said almost!
It was an expensive mistake but I, for one, can see how it happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
BV
I never debated whether or not FDR data would show if someone had rotated too slow. What I’m debating was whether any FJ unit would have ever thought to look for such a thing. Until now.
I know what is recorded on such devices and I appreciate the benefit of it.
I’m just using my knowledge of FJ operations to work out how such a trend could have been spotted before anyone knew it was an issue.
FWIW in a high performance aircraft such as Raptor I can see how it is entirely possible for such a misconception to breed unchecked. They don’t operate with such fine margins as transport aircraft and routinely operate at extremes of the flight envelope.
Whereas as a multi engine pilot will work out mass and balance and Vstop etc ad infinitum a Raptor guy can probably quite happily point the aircraft down the runway and push the noise lever forwards with almost complete impunity. I said almost!
It was an expensive mistake but I, for one, can see how it happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
BV
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It's an old enough mistake to make. An RAF student colleague of mine was criticised by his QFI after a dual training flight for applying the toe brakes during the takeoff roll (they were normally given a quick application to stop the wheels after lift off before they were retracted into their bays).
Shortly after the sortie debrief the line chief asked to speak to the instructor. The main undercarriage doors had an inch of metal missing off the lengths of the outer edges. The brakes possibly hadn't been applied after all, but the gear had been retracted too early and as the aircraft settled slightly, the doors had scraped the runway.
A similar thing happened to one of the Red Arrows pilots in the late 1980s - but he ended up riding on the belly tank as the rest of the formation took off around him. He decided to leave the aircraft.
Shortly after the sortie debrief the line chief asked to speak to the instructor. The main undercarriage doors had an inch of metal missing off the lengths of the outer edges. The brakes possibly hadn't been applied after all, but the gear had been retracted too early and as the aircraft settled slightly, the doors had scraped the runway.
A similar thing happened to one of the Red Arrows pilots in the late 1980s - but he ended up riding on the belly tank as the rest of the formation took off around him. He decided to leave the aircraft.
Well Bob, I guess that the Raptor Guys are just going to have to live with the same jokes and songs that the Eagle drivers used to get at Red Flag....unless they raise their game. But, its a bit late! 
Professional aviators should realise that there is no shame in having your performance monitored. Even if you don't screw-up, it might save your life to have an early call on trends or weaknesses in your outfit.
Hmmm, Four-Hundred Million Dollars! They certainly should be good to fly that!
Cheers
OAP
Professional aviators should realise that there is no shame in having your performance monitored. Even if you don't screw-up, it might save your life to have an early call on trends or weaknesses in your outfit.
Hmmm, Four-Hundred Million Dollars! They certainly should be good to fly that!
Cheers
OAP
OAP
I’m terribly sorry but I think I must be a bit thick. I still don’t quite get your point.
I have no problem with devices which monitor flight parameters as I’m sure none of my peers would. Nobody is trying to hide anything.
The point we are discussing, very specifically, here is the underspeed rotate of a Raptor. How do you honestly expect that routine FDR monitoring would have caught this particular trend?
I understand how other trends might be caught and I fully appreciate the benefits to be had. I just really can’t get my head around how you think this trend could have been caught when nobody could honestly have guessed it was going to be an issue worth looking for in the first place.
As I said, maybe I’m being thick, but could someone please enlighten me?
BV
I have no problem with devices which monitor flight parameters as I’m sure none of my peers would. Nobody is trying to hide anything.
The point we are discussing, very specifically, here is the underspeed rotate of a Raptor. How do you honestly expect that routine FDR monitoring would have caught this particular trend?
I understand how other trends might be caught and I fully appreciate the benefits to be had. I just really can’t get my head around how you think this trend could have been caught when nobody could honestly have guessed it was going to be an issue worth looking for in the first place.
As I said, maybe I’m being thick, but could someone please enlighten me?
BV
Because Bob......all phases of flight have critical handling aspects. Careful analysis can reveal the important skills and parameters that need to be tracked and monitored. Comparison with other aircraft/systems may reveal other considerations that need tracking. Just look at the Handling Manual, the ODM, the FRC's, the Abnormals etc... Now, Take-Off is a very dynamic and historically risky event. Even a FJ has a considerable amount of critical handling on Take Off (even if you don't think so). Some of the most critical factors on Take-Off are weight, configuration, engine performance and handling. The handling includes rotation initiation speed, rotation rate, Alpha and pitch attitude(s). Individual types may have additional Take-Off handling specifics.
OAP
OAP
There is a clear trend of rotating early among a significant number of F-22 pilots, including the MP, despite being aware of computed TOLD.
BV
Just to keep the nomenclature straight, we are talking about flight data monitoring, not FDR monitoring. FDM is usually extracted from the FDR, but it can also be picked off from elsewhere in the system that feeds the FDR, especially when it's digital data. The data frame is set by the operator, as OAP pointed out, which means you decide what parameters (Key Point Values) you are particularly concerned about and set the alerts accordingly. I am not an expert in setting KPVs but a programme that looked at control inputs, pitch attitudes and pitch rates on take-off would show when you were getting low pitch rates compared with stick position. Match that with expected airspeed (because a FBW platform like the F22 is likely to know...) and you have a clear indication of the size of the problem. You are right that you would have to know what to look for, but routine monitoring would have picked this problem up.
There is work going on at the moment looking at FJ FDM for the RAF (it's already being done for Chinook and Puma). Some people get it, but the more senior FJ guys don't. They will eventually, whether they like it or not.
Just to keep the nomenclature straight, we are talking about flight data monitoring, not FDR monitoring. FDM is usually extracted from the FDR, but it can also be picked off from elsewhere in the system that feeds the FDR, especially when it's digital data. The data frame is set by the operator, as OAP pointed out, which means you decide what parameters (Key Point Values) you are particularly concerned about and set the alerts accordingly. I am not an expert in setting KPVs but a programme that looked at control inputs, pitch attitudes and pitch rates on take-off would show when you were getting low pitch rates compared with stick position. Match that with expected airspeed (because a FBW platform like the F22 is likely to know...) and you have a clear indication of the size of the problem. You are right that you would have to know what to look for, but routine monitoring would have picked this problem up.
There is work going on at the moment looking at FJ FDM for the RAF (it's already being done for Chinook and Puma). Some people get it, but the more senior FJ guys don't. They will eventually, whether they like it or not.
Just to keep the nomenclature straight, we are talking about flight data monitoring, not FDR monitoring. FDM is usually extracted from the FDR, but it can also be picked off from elsewhere in the system that feeds the FDR, especially when it's digital data
One last try...
I am clearly not articulating myself very well but I will try one last time to get an answer to the question I’m trying to ask.
I understand the system we are discussing. I realise what parameters are recorded and how they can be used to find data.
My question relates to how it would have fit into daily operations on the Raptor Sqn such that the trend for underspeed rotates could have been spotted and eradicated.
So, for instance, jets go flying then come back. FDR traces are downloaded. Somebody sits down and looks at the data, having previously been notified of key points to look out for. That person looks at all the fight parameters and says “‘ere guv’, that’s the third time this week I’ve seen aft stick pressure applied at a speed several knots less than the correct rotate speed of the day given the prevalent meteorological conditions”. The guv’ says “do you know what mate, you’re right I must go and see the Sqn Boss and let him know I’ve noticed several of the Sqn pilots apparently rotating at a speed below the ideal” (because the FDR analyst guy has an encylopaedic knowledge of the TOLD computer as well as being a trained FDR guy).
The Boss says “by Jove buddy, you’re quite right. Good spot. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I must put a stop to this dangerous and incorrect habit immediately”.
A $400,000,000 jet is thus saved by the clairvoyant FDR guy who just happened to be looking at a parameter at a certain stage of fight that nobody had told him to look for.
I realise this appears like I am being glib and facetious but do you at least understand the point I’m making?
How could this accident have been prevented by FDR monitoring without the benefit of the hindsight this accident has provided us with?
If I have not made my point my now I will give up.
BV
I understand the system we are discussing. I realise what parameters are recorded and how they can be used to find data.
My question relates to how it would have fit into daily operations on the Raptor Sqn such that the trend for underspeed rotates could have been spotted and eradicated.
So, for instance, jets go flying then come back. FDR traces are downloaded. Somebody sits down and looks at the data, having previously been notified of key points to look out for. That person looks at all the fight parameters and says “‘ere guv’, that’s the third time this week I’ve seen aft stick pressure applied at a speed several knots less than the correct rotate speed of the day given the prevalent meteorological conditions”. The guv’ says “do you know what mate, you’re right I must go and see the Sqn Boss and let him know I’ve noticed several of the Sqn pilots apparently rotating at a speed below the ideal” (because the FDR analyst guy has an encylopaedic knowledge of the TOLD computer as well as being a trained FDR guy).
The Boss says “by Jove buddy, you’re quite right. Good spot. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I must put a stop to this dangerous and incorrect habit immediately”.
A $400,000,000 jet is thus saved by the clairvoyant FDR guy who just happened to be looking at a parameter at a certain stage of fight that nobody had told him to look for.
I realise this appears like I am being glib and facetious but do you at least understand the point I’m making?
How could this accident have been prevented by FDR monitoring without the benefit of the hindsight this accident has provided us with?
If I have not made my point my now I will give up.
BV
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Bob Viking ... you made it clear to me. The technology exists. It just needs the will, time and manpower to look at the data.
So, for instance, jets go flying then come back. FDR traces are downloaded. Somebody sits down and looks at the data, having previously been notified of key points to look out for. That person looks at all the fight parameters and says “‘ere guv’, that’s the third time this week I’ve seen aft stick pressure applied at a speed several knots less than the correct rotate speed of the day given the prevalent meteorological conditions”. The guv’ says “do you know what mate, you’re right I must go and see the Sqn Boss and let him know I’ve noticed several of the Sqn pilots apparently rotating at a speed below the ideal” (because the FDR analyst guy has an encylopaedic knowledge of the TOLD computer as well as being a trained FDR guy).
Never having used TOLD I have no idea whether it is calculated on board or not, nor what the usual range of Vr is. If it is calculated on board then it is recordable, if not then I would imagine that deciding a gross estimate would not be difficult and could, if required, be modified for for daily analysis depending on the exercises being flown, averaged gross weights, altitude etc...
The idea of studying graphical traces doesn't really come into this scenario until detailed investigation is warranted. Most airlines seem to be able to manage this type of analysis without necessarily employing an extra individual solely for the task. Perhaps it would benefit the military if they were to look at other aviation sectors to see if they can learn anything that helps.
Before you ask, yes I am ex RAF FJ, QFI and airline.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Data from five sorties flown over a five-month period prior to the mishap clearly shows that the MP initiated rotation at 120±5 KCAS (Tab CC-3 to CC-4).
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Cambridge
Age: 55
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may think it obvious that such a parameter should be routinely monitored, but it appears that view is not universally shared.