Heads Up! Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun
Just watched episode 2 ( will have to catch up on # 1).. It was a pretty good effort all round ; excellent aerial shots , a likeable bunch of guys and gal , commentary not over the top , nice nostalgia (RAF Valley , and what looked like the good old A5 pass recovery to same ) . AAR brought back memories of similar embarrassing misses ; credit to the producers for highlighting that even the aces get it wrong at times ; they could have shown edited shots of a first time in prod .
Re Hawk ACT , I do wonder about the distractions of those aural warnings in the middle of a dogfight . In the old days on the Jag , out in the desert , the main distraction in air combat was the stall warning ; we usually turned it off (non standard of course) . Also marvel at all that stuff floating around in the Hawk HUD ; have to hand it to the folks making head or tails of that lot . The LCOSS on the F4 was about all any fighter pilot should be asked to look through .
Looking forward to # 3.
Re Hawk ACT , I do wonder about the distractions of those aural warnings in the middle of a dogfight . In the old days on the Jag , out in the desert , the main distraction in air combat was the stall warning ; we usually turned it off (non standard of course) . Also marvel at all that stuff floating around in the Hawk HUD ; have to hand it to the folks making head or tails of that lot . The LCOSS on the F4 was about all any fighter pilot should be asked to look through .
Looking forward to # 3.
I must admit I've enjoyed it up to now, and agree it's for the wider audience rather than us lot.
On the related subjects that have surfaced as a result (from a non aircrew perspective):
Agreed that today's generation are more likely to fly operationally, but remember in Cold War days normal flying was hazardous enough. As a young airman (ATC/Ops) in the 80s/90s it seemed that hardly a week went by without SAROPs On in UK or there was news of RAFG losing a jet.. OK, we were a bigger air force then but cold war flying was not without risk.
I was fortunate during my career to spend the majority of my career on Squadrons operating in a variety of roles, either as a posting or OOA. I never worked with the maritime fleet or AD but did do time with Tornado GR1/4, Jaguar, C130, Chinook, VC10 AAR and SAR Seaking Squadrons. All fleets were different but there was a noticeable difference in the way crews spoke and interacted with one another and non flying types. The way a Tornado GR1 Sqn in 1987 went about its day to day business was markedly different at all levels to a Tornado GR4 Sqn in 2007. I could talk and interact with the guys (and girls) in 2007 in a totally different way to 1987, admittedly partly due to rank but the respect was always there. Times change.
On the related subjects that have surfaced as a result (from a non aircrew perspective):
Agreed that today's generation are more likely to fly operationally, but remember in Cold War days normal flying was hazardous enough. As a young airman (ATC/Ops) in the 80s/90s it seemed that hardly a week went by without SAROPs On in UK or there was news of RAFG losing a jet.. OK, we were a bigger air force then but cold war flying was not without risk.
I was fortunate during my career to spend the majority of my career on Squadrons operating in a variety of roles, either as a posting or OOA. I never worked with the maritime fleet or AD but did do time with Tornado GR1/4, Jaguar, C130, Chinook, VC10 AAR and SAR Seaking Squadrons. All fleets were different but there was a noticeable difference in the way crews spoke and interacted with one another and non flying types. The way a Tornado GR1 Sqn in 1987 went about its day to day business was markedly different at all levels to a Tornado GR4 Sqn in 2007. I could talk and interact with the guys (and girls) in 2007 in a totally different way to 1987, admittedly partly due to rank but the respect was always there. Times change.
You are of course right about Battle Flight QRA, that WAS for real as were every equivalent before and since, but they have never resulted in anything remotely resembling deadly combat.
And I have to agree that the hooter going in 1968 WOULD have created a sense of urgency and alarm, of course. My point that I have struggled to make, and inadvertently set off this chain about alerts etc, concerns the current and recent post 1990 generation of FJ aircrew and the vastly different real world ops scenario that they face that was totally unknown to my generation. That is all.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
The Hooter. Waddington, early 80s, and the hooter went for a Station exercise. Things happened as they should, but at the debrief one of the Sqn Cdrs observed that it had taken him a considerable time to determine it was 'only an exercise'. The Stn Cdr replied, "And what difference should that have made?" Embarrassed silence ensued.
Attaching a `wig`,black,blonde,or red ,to the basket will usually improve the chances when tanking......
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Enjoyed the programme, however;
When was AAR one of the most dangerous aspects of fast jet flying? AAR used to be very much the domain of the Air Defence squadrons until the late 80s when every tactical squadron was expected to be AAR Qualified (if aircraft were AAR capable) I must agree with,
Each attempt shown last night demonstrated poor technique that could lead to a spokes at the worst possible time. I do hope the F35 has a very robust probe tip?
I tried to listen carefully to the ACT action but found the instruction difficult to follow. I loved the fact that aircraft on sticks are still a valid teaching tool. I would have thought that the Educators would have insisted on something more up to date?
There was great emphasis on "flying to the buffet" which is great to gain a feel as to the aircraft's performance. I was, however, surprised that the T2 has no Audio AoA. I assume that F35 has Audio AoA as it is such a benefit when performing the aircraft close to limits.
I thought that some of the Audio Warnings were distracting. What does the "Avionics" warning mean. Also, was the "Traffic" warning for the bandit or was there conflicting traffic in the area? What ever happened to the RAF Bubble which was 1000ft head and beam, 500ft in the stern?
A gripe to the film makers, continuity in places is very poor. Countless times, lining up as a single on the Centre-line and then showing a pairs takeoff. In the text box for R/T showing Maverick 2, 2 instead of Maverick 22. Small details but whey do RAF PR not ensure that it is correct?
When was AAR one of the most dangerous aspects of fast jet flying? AAR used to be very much the domain of the Air Defence squadrons until the late 80s when every tactical squadron was expected to be AAR Qualified (if aircraft were AAR capable) I must agree with,
Things have changed a bit re tanking since my day. Into the waiting position, references, bit of power and 'jobs a gudun' It now seem you have a 'mad stab' and if you miss perform DACT with the tanker.
I tried to listen carefully to the ACT action but found the instruction difficult to follow. I loved the fact that aircraft on sticks are still a valid teaching tool. I would have thought that the Educators would have insisted on something more up to date?
There was great emphasis on "flying to the buffet" which is great to gain a feel as to the aircraft's performance. I was, however, surprised that the T2 has no Audio AoA. I assume that F35 has Audio AoA as it is such a benefit when performing the aircraft close to limits.
I thought that some of the Audio Warnings were distracting. What does the "Avionics" warning mean. Also, was the "Traffic" warning for the bandit or was there conflicting traffic in the area? What ever happened to the RAF Bubble which was 1000ft head and beam, 500ft in the stern?
A gripe to the film makers, continuity in places is very poor. Countless times, lining up as a single on the Centre-line and then showing a pairs takeoff. In the text box for R/T showing Maverick 2, 2 instead of Maverick 22. Small details but whey do RAF PR not ensure that it is correct?
Takeaways so far: T2 avionics are sh*te and the Lightning is far too complicated for us mere mortals.
Indeed - the sub-titles are a bit irritating. On a related note, I re-watched Quantum of Solace this weekend and Bond was asked to read the tail number on a suspect's bizjet - "Golf Zero Bravo..." How did this pass muster??
A gripe to the film makers, continuity in places is very poor
In that respect, it was interesting that the task saturation was such that the Scottish RN student missed the 'Bingo!' warning. Although that's part of learning too.
I believe the audio warnings are in the name of flight safety.
Anyway
watched this episode, and as ever a minority of the old and bold are, well, raging at clouds and shouting for the kids to get off the lawn.
I've nothing but admiration for all the pilots shown - I certainly couldn't do their job,
Anyway
watched this episode, and as ever a minority of the old and bold are, well, raging at clouds and shouting for the kids to get off the lawn.
I've nothing but admiration for all the pilots shown - I certainly couldn't do their job,
Where do I start?!
I haven’t seen the episode yet so can’t comment on some aspects. I also haven’t engaged in AAR for quite a few years so I’ll leave that to more current individuals.
Dead pan
The Hawk T2 avionics are bloody great. I don’t know which aspects of the programme made you say that they are ****e but from someone with 1000+ T2 hours I can assure you that is not the case.
Davef68
I personally prefer people not to use the bingo warning (hearing is the first thing to go when people are maxed out and if you are waiting to hear an audio warning to remind you to check fuel that is bad practice).
Dominator
The T2 AoA audio is only active with the gear down. I wouldn’t want to have to listen to it during air combat (the Jag had one but then buffet wasn’t such a reliable medium and the effects of over AoA’ing were so dramatic I wouldn’t want to chance it anyway).
As for ‘avionics’ warnings, they are usually generated by the TCAS tripping off as it’s attitude or AoB limits are breached, ie in every dynamic manoeuvre.
‘Traffic’ warnings are from other formation members. Annoying yes, but since the Moray Firth accident it is very hard to convince a duty holder that TCAS should ever be set to standby whilst airborne. Could you imagine if formation members collided and the SI reported that the collision avoidance system had deliberately been turned off?!
I’m not saying I agree with the stance but them’s the rules.
As I said, I haven’t seen the episode in question so I don’t know why you question the RAF bubble.
And yes, fighting sticks are still the best teaching tool for BFM/ACM.
As for editing issues, that is beyond my remit to comment. Annoying, perhaps, but hardly worth getting your panties in a knot over.
BV
Dead pan
The Hawk T2 avionics are bloody great. I don’t know which aspects of the programme made you say that they are ****e but from someone with 1000+ T2 hours I can assure you that is not the case.
Davef68
I personally prefer people not to use the bingo warning (hearing is the first thing to go when people are maxed out and if you are waiting to hear an audio warning to remind you to check fuel that is bad practice).
Dominator
The T2 AoA audio is only active with the gear down. I wouldn’t want to have to listen to it during air combat (the Jag had one but then buffet wasn’t such a reliable medium and the effects of over AoA’ing were so dramatic I wouldn’t want to chance it anyway).
As for ‘avionics’ warnings, they are usually generated by the TCAS tripping off as it’s attitude or AoB limits are breached, ie in every dynamic manoeuvre.
‘Traffic’ warnings are from other formation members. Annoying yes, but since the Moray Firth accident it is very hard to convince a duty holder that TCAS should ever be set to standby whilst airborne. Could you imagine if formation members collided and the SI reported that the collision avoidance system had deliberately been turned off?!
I’m not saying I agree with the stance but them’s the rules.
As I said, I haven’t seen the episode in question so I don’t know why you question the RAF bubble.
And yes, fighting sticks are still the best teaching tool for BFM/ACM.
As for editing issues, that is beyond my remit to comment. Annoying, perhaps, but hardly worth getting your panties in a knot over.
BV
As an outsider with some knowledge of the system looking in at this process and having a son who is on the inside looking out ( almost at F-35 training) we as a family thoroughly enjoy this insight into what he does. The trainee pilots come across very well and on the whole it is as good as you will get from a program that has to strike the right balance with the viewers.
I take my hat off to all involved, the instructors, the support teams but especially the young trainees who are dedicating vast amounts of time and effort into achieving their aims. 7-9 years quoted from start to F-35 and the threat of getting chopped hanging over them at almost every turn; Now that is dedication.
Looking forward to episode 3.
The F-35B segments were very interesting, although the 'difficulty' of AAR was rather overplayed. Given that there's no 2-sticker, even after the best brief there is, single seat AAR will at first inevitably involve an element of 'teach yourself jousting'. The only Fast Jet I ever saw being downright dangerous was a Luftwaffe Tornado ECR, who I nearly sent home. After some inter-Tornado chat on their back boxes out in echelon, he was adequate the next time. It turned out that he was their boss, who hadn't actually attended the brief!
The Valley segment was better than in the first episode, but emphasis on pass/fail criteria was probably only there to keep the programme makers happy? What was VERY interesting was the radical change in ACM teaching. I was lucky enough to have done TWU on the Hunter at Brawdy and later a further TWU on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. In those 4 - 5 years, ACM teaching had changed radically, but was still 'guns-centric'. Whereas the T2 teaching is in a wholly new league and the benefit of mission debrief replay is huge. It seem to be very much more fluid with missile parameters rather than guns perhaps being the goal. No more 'base height brawls', grunting away on opposite sides of a circle on the buffet nibble for the other aircraft to make an error - now it's clearly aimed at Typhoon / F-35B ops. Quite rightly. I'd love to have a go - who wouldn't!
But missing a Bingo....
The Hawk T1 had a simple enough fuel gauging system, so I cannot imagine that it is worse in the T2. Don't fall off your perch, BV, but I agree with your comment! Towards the end of my Hunter TWU, we were having a fairly busy 2v2 session out over the Bristol Channel in 4 single seat jets. Hunter fuel gauges were useless in manoeuvre, so fuel awareness was essential. As we finished the last bout, one of my colleagues called a 'Bingo minus' call as he'd failed to keep tabs - so back we went at range speed, he was told to land first....and was off the course soon afterwards.
The Valley segment was better than in the first episode, but emphasis on pass/fail criteria was probably only there to keep the programme makers happy? What was VERY interesting was the radical change in ACM teaching. I was lucky enough to have done TWU on the Hunter at Brawdy and later a further TWU on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. In those 4 - 5 years, ACM teaching had changed radically, but was still 'guns-centric'. Whereas the T2 teaching is in a wholly new league and the benefit of mission debrief replay is huge. It seem to be very much more fluid with missile parameters rather than guns perhaps being the goal. No more 'base height brawls', grunting away on opposite sides of a circle on the buffet nibble for the other aircraft to make an error - now it's clearly aimed at Typhoon / F-35B ops. Quite rightly. I'd love to have a go - who wouldn't!
But missing a Bingo....
The Hawk T1 had a simple enough fuel gauging system, so I cannot imagine that it is worse in the T2. Don't fall off your perch, BV, but I agree with your comment! Towards the end of my Hunter TWU, we were having a fairly busy 2v2 session out over the Bristol Channel in 4 single seat jets. Hunter fuel gauges were useless in manoeuvre, so fuel awareness was essential. As we finished the last bout, one of my colleagues called a 'Bingo minus' call as he'd failed to keep tabs - so back we went at range speed, he was told to land first....and was off the course soon afterwards.
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Aug 2019 at 15:18.
Anybody else notice that for some reason they decided to obscure the serial numbers on all the Hawks?
What is the purpose of paying and training someone for 7+ years, and then cutting them at the very last step?
Beyond "tradition" and "it didn't do me any harm" that is?
Beyond "tradition" and "it didn't do me any harm" that is?
In the text box for R/T showing Maverick 2, 2 instead of Maverick 22.
Overall having only seen episode 2, I thought it came over as a good PR effort for the RAF. Slightly annoying that Grey Funnel Line’s finest are still referred to as THE HMS Queen Elizabeth though...
TT
If I had known that all it took was an errant ‘the’ to annoy Navy types I would have been at it years ago. All this time I’ve been referring to floors/doors/kitchens/toilets (decks/bulkheads/galley/heads) and calling everything that drives in or on the water a boat. I could have saved so much effort by just saying the HMS Arkroyal etc.
BV
PS. BEagle. I have noted the date. The day we agreed on something! 🤣
PPS. Edited due to misunderstanding a previous post and being unnecessarily harsh!
Last edited by Bob Viking; 28th Aug 2019 at 15:33.