Limited panel on instruments with a vengeance.
Thread Starter
Limited panel on instruments with a vengeance.
Currently enjoying a book called Meteor Eject by former RAF fighter pilot of 1954 era, Nick Carter.
https://www.amazon.com/Meteor-Eject-.../dp/1873203659
At page 131 he relates undergoing an Instrument Rating Examiners Course in the RAF. Here is a slightly edited description of what he said.
"The RAF still had no two-seat training version of the Hawker Hunter, so most of my flying on the course was carried out in the single engine Vampire T11. Consequently, as an IRE I would be qualified to carry out instrument rating renewals on pilots flying single-engine jets like the Hunter; although the course did call for us to do a few trips in the Meteor T7 - for experience. Anyone thinking a Meteor was a handful on one engine should try it on one engine under the hood on primary instruments (no artificial horizon).
On the test the hood was down from brakes off, to simulate zero runway visibility. It was therefore vital that you lined up exactly on the centreline with the nose wheel straight. Also, to ensure that the heading index on the G4B compass was set to the runway heading to help you keep straight on the centreline during the take off run. Many a renewal got off to a shaky start by the IRE having to take control before you were even airborne!
After take-off the candidate established the aircraft in the climb at the correct speed, with a couple of turns thrown in to remain in the local area, levelling at 8,000 ft on a cardinal heading. Then followed the most difficult part of the test, a climbing Rate One from 8,000 ft to 14,000 ft, through 360 degrees, in exactly 60 seconds. This was then repeated from 14,000 ft to 20,000 ft in the opposite direction.
Once at 20,000 ft you would be told to open the throttle and allow the speed to increase to the limiting Mach number, encounter compressibility, then maximum deceleration down to the stall and recover, while still remaining in limits.
As it that was not enough, the examiner would then take control and topple the artificial horizon with a series of aerobatic manoeuvres, leaving the aircraft in an unusual attitude, usually in a climb, upside down with the speed falling fast, then being told to recover!
Then whilst still on primary instruments with no artificial horizon, an instrument let-down was followed by a GCA (Ground Control Radar Approach) and overshoot".
............................................................ .........................................
Made this reader sweat just reading it. Nowadays, depending on aircraft type, in the current world of instrument rating tests the candidate can use the automatic pilot, automatic throttle, access to two artificial horizons and even a standby AH, and happily even a flight director. Not forgetting automatic brakes for landing after an automatic landing.
https://www.amazon.com/Meteor-Eject-.../dp/1873203659
At page 131 he relates undergoing an Instrument Rating Examiners Course in the RAF. Here is a slightly edited description of what he said.
"The RAF still had no two-seat training version of the Hawker Hunter, so most of my flying on the course was carried out in the single engine Vampire T11. Consequently, as an IRE I would be qualified to carry out instrument rating renewals on pilots flying single-engine jets like the Hunter; although the course did call for us to do a few trips in the Meteor T7 - for experience. Anyone thinking a Meteor was a handful on one engine should try it on one engine under the hood on primary instruments (no artificial horizon).
On the test the hood was down from brakes off, to simulate zero runway visibility. It was therefore vital that you lined up exactly on the centreline with the nose wheel straight. Also, to ensure that the heading index on the G4B compass was set to the runway heading to help you keep straight on the centreline during the take off run. Many a renewal got off to a shaky start by the IRE having to take control before you were even airborne!
After take-off the candidate established the aircraft in the climb at the correct speed, with a couple of turns thrown in to remain in the local area, levelling at 8,000 ft on a cardinal heading. Then followed the most difficult part of the test, a climbing Rate One from 8,000 ft to 14,000 ft, through 360 degrees, in exactly 60 seconds. This was then repeated from 14,000 ft to 20,000 ft in the opposite direction.
Once at 20,000 ft you would be told to open the throttle and allow the speed to increase to the limiting Mach number, encounter compressibility, then maximum deceleration down to the stall and recover, while still remaining in limits.
As it that was not enough, the examiner would then take control and topple the artificial horizon with a series of aerobatic manoeuvres, leaving the aircraft in an unusual attitude, usually in a climb, upside down with the speed falling fast, then being told to recover!
Then whilst still on primary instruments with no artificial horizon, an instrument let-down was followed by a GCA (Ground Control Radar Approach) and overshoot".
............................................................ .........................................
Made this reader sweat just reading it. Nowadays, depending on aircraft type, in the current world of instrument rating tests the candidate can use the automatic pilot, automatic throttle, access to two artificial horizons and even a standby AH, and happily even a flight director. Not forgetting automatic brakes for landing after an automatic landing.
Last edited by Centaurus; 25th Nov 2017 at 12:06.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
A similar profile was required at RAF BFTS in the 1970s, and later elsewhere, albeit on the slower Jet Provost.
Btw, a 360 degree rate one turn takes two minutes, not 60 seconds.
Btw, a 360 degree rate one turn takes two minutes, not 60 seconds.
Air Forces have a tendency to go all "Gung Ho" and begin testing for ridiculous situations, in which the test has a higher risk than the situation for which they are testing. Zero-vis take-offs? How often would that be encountered?
It's like the "two engines out on one side on a four engine aircraft" test. Lost many more aircraft performing that than there have been double engine failures in history...
It's like the "two engines out on one side on a four engine aircraft" test. Lost many more aircraft performing that than there have been double engine failures in history...
Last edited by Checkboard; 25th Nov 2017 at 15:59.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Air Forces have a tendency to go all "Gung Ho" and begin testing for ridiculous situations, in which the test has a higher risk than the situation for which they are testing. Zero-vis take-offs? How often would that be encountered?
It's like the "two engines out on one side on a four engine aircraft" test. Lost many more aircraft performing that than there have been double engine failures in history...
It's like the "two engines out on one side on a four engine aircraft" test. Lost many more aircraft performing that than there have been double engine failures in history...
The point being that launching in fog possibly (but no where near probably) ONCE in a lifetime is probably safer than getting everyone to do it in training.
In 14 years flying in the UK, the worst I have seen - on just a single occasion - has been 50 meters vis.
In 14 years flying in the UK, the worst I have seen - on just a single occasion - has been 50 meters vis.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
There is a great deal of difference between military and civilian requirements. I and thousands of others also trained in many strange scenarios for world war three, including flying low level at night with my head encased in a rubber bag and wearing a full charcoal suit (and sleeping in it in a hay loft) but thankfully so far it never happened in anger.
Need to remember too that the term "flight safety" was yet to be invented. The accident rate was through the roof. The Meteor was not called "The Meatbox" for nothing.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...tatistics.html
1. 150 total losses in 1952
2. 68 lost after running out of fuel
3. 23 lost doing official low level aeros displays
4. 890 lost in total
5. 436 fatal accidents between 1944 and 1986
2. 68 lost after running out of fuel
3. 23 lost doing official low level aeros displays
4. 890 lost in total
5. 436 fatal accidents between 1944 and 1986
Thread Starter
Air Forces have a tendency to go all "Gung Ho" and begin testing for ridiculous situations, in which the test has a higher risk than the situation for which they are testing. Zero-vis take-offs? How often would that be encountered?
Practicing the "zero-vis takeoff" is not really practicing a zero-vis takeoff, if you get my gist...
It's a coordination exercise done by the student/pilot under a covered canopy in the back seat of a PC9. The instructor is obviously in the front seat and can take over, quickly and easily, where necessary. Unlike, perhaps, some other "ridiculous situations", this one is actually not too ridiculous and, whilst I've certainly taken over from a student who perhaps forgot to squeeze sufficient right rudder when the mighty PT6 powered prop grabbed the air, we certainly weren't in any danger of exiting stage left...
Some "ridiculous situations" HAVE been removed from some training syllabi - an example was the Hawk 127 glide circuit (removed for students, at least...) - this requires a 15 degree ND, throw yourself at the runway at high RoD on short final maneouvre, which, was deemed to be a bit ridiculous when you were likely outside the glide envelope for a suitable runway 99% of the time anyway...
I think the RAAF experienced some exceptionally high G landings during glide practices in the Hawk.
It's a coordination exercise done by the student/pilot under a covered canopy in the back seat of a PC9. The instructor is obviously in the front seat and can take over, quickly and easily, where necessary. Unlike, perhaps, some other "ridiculous situations", this one is actually not too ridiculous and, whilst I've certainly taken over from a student who perhaps forgot to squeeze sufficient right rudder when the mighty PT6 powered prop grabbed the air, we certainly weren't in any danger of exiting stage left...
Some "ridiculous situations" HAVE been removed from some training syllabi - an example was the Hawk 127 glide circuit (removed for students, at least...) - this requires a 15 degree ND, throw yourself at the runway at high RoD on short final maneouvre, which, was deemed to be a bit ridiculous when you were likely outside the glide envelope for a suitable runway 99% of the time anyway...
I think the RAAF experienced some exceptionally high G landings during glide practices in the Hawk.
Thread Starter
Practicing the "zero-vis takeoff" is not really practicing a zero-vis takeoff, if you get my gist...
It's a coordination exercise done by the student/pilot under a covered canopy in the back seat of a PC9. The instructor is obviously in the front seat and can take over, quickly and easily, where necessary.
Once 500 in command hours had been logged (and these were real command, not pseudo ICUS hours), the pilot became eligible to hold a Green Card provided he passed the instrument rating test for a Green card. The permitted tolerances were practically the same for either test.
The only marked difference between the White and Green Card instrument rating was the removal of the cloud base and visibility restriction; thereby authorising so called zero visibility take off.
The rationale being that once the pilot had attained 500 command hours in his log book, whether as a fighter, bomber or transport pilot at the time, it was presumed by then he had built enough decision making time to assess the wisdom or otherwise of accepting a zero visibility take off situation which was fraught with risk. Clearly this would be a wartime operational decision. After all, the RAAF trained for wartime.
Well, I wasn't aware of that! That's a whole different kettle of fish!
Yes, I should have said, "these days" it's just a coordination/scan exercise.
Yes, I should have said, "these days" it's just a coordination/scan exercise.
Centaurus, don't forget the Blue Card instrument rating, where you held the card above your head, and if it didn't match the sky, you didn't go up!
In a dusty military operations world perhaps zero vis T/O is a handy skill?
.
In the RAAF in the early 70s, we didn't put our flappy-helmet-screen-thingy down until we were established in the climb. In peacetime, no point getting airborne if you can't get back down again if something goes wrong. 500' and 1500' vis was the minimum to even consider it.
However, we did practice IF takeoffs from the hover (in VMC) and they could be a little hairy in an unstabilised bird like the Huey if you were under the hood.
However, we did practice IF takeoffs from the hover (in VMC) and they could be a little hairy in an unstabilised bird like the Huey if you were under the hood.
Thread Starter
Centaurus, don't forget the Blue Card instrument rating, where you held the card above your head, and if it didn't match the sky, you didn't go up!
For more useless RAAF training - although I believe aero clubs did this too, we did blind take off's in DH 82 Tiger Moths. The student had a whacking great canvas cover over the rear cockpit and no way could you cheat. The instructor would taxy and line you up on the grass field. Then you would trundle over the grass at full throttle keeping straight using the very large Turn and Bank Indicator. Of course you had no idea how straight you were keeping since the P8 compass was useless and out of sight. The instructor would occasionally boot his rudder bar if you lost directional control.
You lifted off around 45 knots and pinned your scan on the Turn and Bank and eventually climbed at 58 knots. Don't know about the landing so I presume after your 45 minutes of instrument flying he flew the aircraft back to base and did the landing.