Trident autothrust system and autoland
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To 'camouflage' the performance of the early airborne radar, the story was put about that his successes were due to "being able to see in the dark like a cat", hence "Cat's Eye Cunningham".
The book mentions too, that John heartily detested the nickname !
CJ
And to help perpetuate the myth, they were introduced to the press all munching on raw carrots. Allegedly (but not truley accrately) the beta kerotine aided night vision. This article helped perpetuate the myth that carrots helped you see in the dark. The joke carried as the Luftwaffe tried it as well after having read the article!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 73
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....... and back to thread topic !!!!
Given the different performance carachteristics of the different variants, were the crew licenced on all three types in use with BEA/BA?
Secondly (assuming that they were) was the flight planning routine complicated by this factor, particularly T3 with it's 'fourth' engine?
Given the different performance carachteristics of the different variants, were the crew licenced on all three types in use with BEA/BA?
Secondly (assuming that they were) was the flight planning routine complicated by this factor, particularly T3 with it's 'fourth' engine?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wookey - No, we were not qualified on all three types. You were on either the T1 and T2 (that is, qualified on both, and alternating according to your roster), or you were licenced on the T3 only.
Having said that, when I left my T1/T2 fleet and converted onto the T3, it was a pretty straightforward conversion.
Regarding flight planning, I think I remember correctly - the T1 fuel planning sheet (can anyone remember what we called it?) was printed on white paper, the T2 was on blue paper, and the T3 on pink. Have I remebered that correctly? Performance data was also on different coloured pages.
My memory is heading 180 Magnetic, I'm afraid.
AD
Having said that, when I left my T1/T2 fleet and converted onto the T3, it was a pretty straightforward conversion.
Regarding flight planning, I think I remember correctly - the T1 fuel planning sheet (can anyone remember what we called it?) was printed on white paper, the T2 was on blue paper, and the T3 on pink. Have I remebered that correctly? Performance data was also on different coloured pages.
My memory is heading 180 Magnetic, I'm afraid.
AD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From about 1980 onwards all crews were 'Tridextrous' and flew all 3 types.
Colours correct, it was called the P3LOG IIRC, it then became the KELOG, when Pete(?) Kimmens and Simon Edwards redesigned it.
Colours correct, it was called the P3LOG IIRC, it then became the KELOG, when Pete(?) Kimmens and Simon Edwards redesigned it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 73
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From about 1980 onwards all crews were 'Tridextrous' and flew all 3 types.
Hobo, what happened in 1980 to change things? Alternatively, prior to 1980 was the reason that T1/T2 were isolated from T3 just the fourth engine and performance, or something else?
Hobo, what happened in 1980 to change things? Alternatively, prior to 1980 was the reason that T1/T2 were isolated from T3 just the fourth engine and performance, or something else?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, although Steve might know for sure (?), that the reason was that from about 1975 there were no new NEP/DEP pilots coming into BA on the Trident, so by about 1980 the minimum co-pilot experience was 8-10 years or so, and the CAA, who had vetoed it before, were persuaded by BA, with this amount of experience, to approve the tridextrous route - economics presumably being the driver.
I don't think it was the 4th engine, all this did was give extra thrust for T/O and although its operation was complex, it was just another system. I think the main reason was the very different pitch attitude on approach. IIRC 7-9 degrees in a T1/2 and 3-4 degrees in a T3.
I had done 2 years on the T1/2 when the T3 came in. Initially it attracted more pay, so all the senior guys went on it. After a short while there was parity with the T1/2 so nobody wanted to go on it - it didn't go to the Eastern Med - so juniors were posted. After 7 more years on the T3 I became tridextrous, 1 sim session in the T1 sim, 3 sectors line training with two landings. IIRC you couldn't do 3 consecutive sim checks in the same sim, and there were no requirements for recency flying on the 3 types.
I don't think it was the 4th engine, all this did was give extra thrust for T/O and although its operation was complex, it was just another system. I think the main reason was the very different pitch attitude on approach. IIRC 7-9 degrees in a T1/2 and 3-4 degrees in a T3.
I had done 2 years on the T1/2 when the T3 came in. Initially it attracted more pay, so all the senior guys went on it. After a short while there was parity with the T1/2 so nobody wanted to go on it - it didn't go to the Eastern Med - so juniors were posted. After 7 more years on the T3 I became tridextrous, 1 sim session in the T1 sim, 3 sectors line training with two landings. IIRC you couldn't do 3 consecutive sim checks in the same sim, and there were no requirements for recency flying on the 3 types.
Hobo: The following licencing quirk may amuse some of the posters on here.
As Steve posted earlier, The Gripper was crewed by three pilots in BEA/BA but by two pilots + flight engineer in some other airlines.
Now, when BEAirtours started operating the B707-436 they had no qualified Flight Engineers on staff as required by the CAA. The company got approval to qualify their F/Os as P2 and as flight engineers. To get this approval, one had to have 2,000 hours flight time on 4 engined aircraft. This was mainly Viscount and Vanguard/Merchantman people but, believe it or not , the T3 qualified also as it had four engines!!
This, I recall, did not sit very well with a branch of BA that flew predominately long haul!
As Steve posted earlier, The Gripper was crewed by three pilots in BEA/BA but by two pilots + flight engineer in some other airlines.
Now, when BEAirtours started operating the B707-436 they had no qualified Flight Engineers on staff as required by the CAA. The company got approval to qualify their F/Os as P2 and as flight engineers. To get this approval, one had to have 2,000 hours flight time on 4 engined aircraft. This was mainly Viscount and Vanguard/Merchantman people but, believe it or not , the T3 qualified also as it had four engines!!
This, I recall, did not sit very well with a branch of BA that flew predominately long haul!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tridextrous
The mists of time are starting to drift in, but I seem to remember that a general feeling at the time was that the T2 and T3 had more in common and the T1 should be its own fleet (if---if that was necessary at all). When "Tridextrosity" (??) was introduced, the view was that it had taken all those years for common sense to prevail.
Prober
Prober
Adverse Jaw
I beg to differ on your comment re "design fault caused Papa India."
Cunningham's testimony at the inquiry stated that we operated the Trident contrary to HS's design philosophy.
This was to retain T/O flap until acceleration point. If this had been carried out than none of the premature droop retractions would have happened.
BEA noise abatement procedure was one of the most foolish procedures that I have ever carried out - except the Vmca at 300ft in the Baron over the English channel.
Very interesting history from SLAST.
The philosophies in BOAC were incredibly different to BEA, I was in the first group that "went across" - there was a movement to send us all back - started by some of the 707 training captains (ex National Service)as we were not up to BOAC standards.
Fortunately I was on the Iron Duck with mostly ex Hamble training captains who understood the deficiencies in BEA.
One point was that I had never used wx radar in my 6 yrs on the Trident!
I think the greatest shock for my first line training captain was when I asked if it was OK to descend and then whether he would mind if I disconnected the autopilot - both standard practices in BEA.
It took me around six months to "get into the grove" and accept that when I flew a sector I made ALL of the decisions - including declaring the only Mayday I made in my career.
I beg to differ on your comment re "design fault caused Papa India."
Cunningham's testimony at the inquiry stated that we operated the Trident contrary to HS's design philosophy.
This was to retain T/O flap until acceleration point. If this had been carried out than none of the premature droop retractions would have happened.
BEA noise abatement procedure was one of the most foolish procedures that I have ever carried out - except the Vmca at 300ft in the Baron over the English channel.
Very interesting history from SLAST.
The philosophies in BOAC were incredibly different to BEA, I was in the first group that "went across" - there was a movement to send us all back - started by some of the 707 training captains (ex National Service)as we were not up to BOAC standards.
Fortunately I was on the Iron Duck with mostly ex Hamble training captains who understood the deficiencies in BEA.
One point was that I had never used wx radar in my 6 yrs on the Trident!
I think the greatest shock for my first line training captain was when I asked if it was OK to descend and then whether he would mind if I disconnected the autopilot - both standard practices in BEA.
It took me around six months to "get into the grove" and accept that when I flew a sector I made ALL of the decisions - including declaring the only Mayday I made in my career.
Cunningham's testimony at the inquiry stated that we operated the Trident contrary to HS's design philosophy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I carried JC on the jump seat once in the mid 70's, returning from a conference, and he said the only thing he would have, in retrospect, changed on the Trident was to have the droop and flap on the same lever, with the last 'flap' setting being the droop. IIRC this was echoed in later editions of Handling the Big Jets by DPD.
After PI, there was a mechanical interlock put on the levers, so the droop lever couldn't be moved without the flap lever in the up position.
During the course of this flight, he said that HS couldn't get to the bottom of why the T3 usually gave a firmer landing, and was more difficult to grease on, than the T1/2. Even he said he couldn't guarantee the landing on a T3. Their best guess was that it was to do with the different 'rigger's angle of incidence' ie the way the wings were fixed relative to the fuselage, and the different height above the ground that that put the trailing edge of the flaps. The theory was, that this distance, on the T3, was so critical, that mm's meant the air being 'sucked' out with a venturi effect (firm) or not (greaser).
bp
Which were?
After PI, there was a mechanical interlock put on the levers, so the droop lever couldn't be moved without the flap lever in the up position.
During the course of this flight, he said that HS couldn't get to the bottom of why the T3 usually gave a firmer landing, and was more difficult to grease on, than the T1/2. Even he said he couldn't guarantee the landing on a T3. Their best guess was that it was to do with the different 'rigger's angle of incidence' ie the way the wings were fixed relative to the fuselage, and the different height above the ground that that put the trailing edge of the flaps. The theory was, that this distance, on the T3, was so critical, that mm's meant the air being 'sucked' out with a venturi effect (firm) or not (greaser).
bp
.... the deficiencies in BEA
Last edited by Hobo; 16th Dec 2010 at 18:08.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 73
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the old rivalries linger on ?????
There have been a number of posts in this thread that have referred to the Trident's ability to cruise at high speed (Peter McLelland's reference to the mach meter in his photo etc.). I am curious as to whether the 'Gripper's' lack of climb performance was due to it being underpowered or due to lack of lift from the wing design and whether this translates into lower drag and higher cruise speed.
There have been a number of posts in this thread that have referred to the Trident's ability to cruise at high speed (Peter McLelland's reference to the mach meter in his photo etc.). I am curious as to whether the 'Gripper's' lack of climb performance was due to it being underpowered or due to lack of lift from the wing design and whether this translates into lower drag and higher cruise speed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hobo
You said,
'After PI, there was a mechanical interlock put on the levers, so the droop lever couldn't be moved without the flap lever in the up position.'
I was on my initial conversion 'sim' phase when PI was lost, but I'm sure the flap/droop interlock was in place before that accident. There had been a suggestion that some captains were in the habit of raising the flaps as soon as they were airborne, having utilised their effect of minimising the take off run, and by their retraction improving the 2nd sector climb angle.
By doing so, they were removing the lock on the droop at only two or three hundred feet.
The DC10 had a mechanical link between the trailing/leading edge levers, so that both levers moved together, and only the last selection would retract the slats. The system was (IMO) foolproof. Conversely, the Trident arrangement was an accident waiting to happen.
'After PI, there was a mechanical interlock put on the levers, so the droop lever couldn't be moved without the flap lever in the up position.'
I was on my initial conversion 'sim' phase when PI was lost, but I'm sure the flap/droop interlock was in place before that accident. There had been a suggestion that some captains were in the habit of raising the flaps as soon as they were airborne, having utilised their effect of minimising the take off run, and by their retraction improving the 2nd sector climb angle.
By doing so, they were removing the lock on the droop at only two or three hundred feet.
The DC10 had a mechanical link between the trailing/leading edge levers, so that both levers moved together, and only the last selection would retract the slats. The system was (IMO) foolproof. Conversely, the Trident arrangement was an accident waiting to happen.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AD, you could be right, does anybody else remember something being done to this lock after PI ...?
I think there might have been some who did what you describe.
I think there might have been some who did what you describe.
AD,
I have to say that I don't believe I ever encountered anyone who did this in 9 years as an F/O, in fact I can't even remember hearing about it being done. But that may just be my memory having a gap in it.... and I can't recall the sequence of design/mod to that interlock.
some captains were in the habit of raising the flaps as soon as they were airborne
Wookey,
Interesting question and I have no idea what the answer is! Certainly we flew initially at M 0.88 but it wasn't long before .84 became the norm. I think one of the factors was fuel burn and another was tendency to catch up with other traffic in airspace that was still largely procedurally controlled (not much secondary radar in those days).
cruise at high speed... underpowered or due to lack of lift from the wing design.... lower drag and higher cruise speed.