Page 3 of 3

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:19 am
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
Best example from the two crew FJ world in my experience was a flypast for a Navy Day at Portsmouth. My nav was my Flight Commander. It was Friday afternoon. We got a Left Hydraulic failure about 30 seconds from the overflight, so I hauled up and off. The cards said Land ASAP. My nav mentioned he had a speech to give at a dinner that night in Yorkshire. I said Yeovilton looked like the nearest suitable airfield, and without a pause he agreed. We spent the night in borrowed jackets drinking in the Mess in Somerset. He never said another word about it, nor seemed to bear any grudge.

The flypast worked out as the crowd thought my pull off was a missing man tribute, as I was second pair lead.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:23 am
by barkingmad
IIRC the AEW Shack was discouraged or prohibited from cranking up the AN-APS 20 close to or overland as allegedly it had the oomph to damage the old analogue TVs of the day.

P N you might be able to cast light or correct me on this?

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:41 am
by ian16th
barkingmad wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:23 am
IIRC the AEW Shack was discouraged or prohibited from cranking up the AN-APS 20 close to or overland as allegedly it had the oomph to damage the old analogue TVs of the day.

P N you might be able to cast light or correct me on this?
Don't know about damaging TV's, but back in the day, circa 1956, the Emley Moor ITV signal frequency was close enough to our GEE-H Tx frequency, to cause 'jamming' of the TV pictures in S. Yorkshire.

We did a frequency change! Not Emley Moor.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:57 am
by barkingmad
Probably the Emley Moor transmitter story was corrupted then ‘embellished’ by frequent retelling over a glass or 3.

Whilst talking TVs I gather from my screen we in Northeast England are due yet another Freeview retune 12th Sept due to musical frequency game.

I’d hoped by now they’d have sorted this channel shuffling but obviously not.

An opportunity to do a “flush” retune to clear the crap leftover before it settles down for another year.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:08 pm
by Boac
This has to be a forum record: CRM in aviation to re-tuning Freeview in just 2 pages. :-B

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:12 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
Barkingmad can hardly be claimed to be misrepresenting himself ;)))

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:20 pm
by ian16th
barkingmad wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:57 am
Probably the Emley Moor transmitter story was corrupted then ‘embellished’ by frequent retelling over a glass or 3.
Definitely true.
I was one of the people that did the changes on the Lincolns and Varsity's at Lindholme.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:50 pm
by Ex-Ascot
Just trying to catch up on this. RiS, no we never covered CRM in my day in the Royal Air Force. No matter what rank the other crew members were the Capt was the boss. We had one of the youngest VC10 Capts ever. he made AVM. A Group Captain doctor was in the jump seat when a pax visited the flt deck. He asked him if he was going to take over for the landing.

PN yes I was researching the Tristar auto land incident and saw your comment on TOP some years ago. There is an error there. They say that auto land was not fitted to the aircraft which bounced. It was not that. They intercepted the glide slope too late ending in a dirty dive and the flare was based on the average decent rate.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:19 pm
by Pontius Navigator
Regarding APS20 over land, after H2S I thought the APS should have been fired off a catapult in a Gannet.

No recall about overland and TV. The radar could 'drag' the land returns over the sea. The APS20 was said to be critical about its wiggly amps and being generator feed was susceptible to RPM changes. Can't remember but it was something like 1730 or something. Once off task and overland it became pilots playtime with engine RPM being changed. That was a reason for the radar being off on that crash aircraft.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:58 am
by barkingmad
Point taken re thread drift. Successfully retuned so here goes....

I recall the best RPM for the AN-APS20 generators in the Shack was 2150.

After every 6 hours the propellor pitch translation units required lubrication by increasing the RPM on symmetrical pairs to 2400 for some seconds, then winding down to about 1600 for some similar time to allow spring loaded pistons in the pitch units to squirt oil into the TU bearings. This procedure had to be performed 3 times before resuming normal operations and TU lubeing the other symmetrical pair. During this time the radar obviously was turned off and the suspense started when the “scopies” tried to re-establish satisfactory radar operation.

It is possible the unfortunate crew decided the lunchtime break in the Practice Interception session was the best time to perform this “maintenance” function and to leave the radar off for the subsequent practice diversion to Benbecula.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:22 am
by Pontius Navigator
BM, salute on your memory. My brief time on the Shack, 3 years, was not the highlight of my career. My gripe was that everything that needed to be done was divided 5 ways so I never felt really proficient in any bit.

One in 4 trips I would do radio; that was OK as you got 6 hours plus straight on. Down the back as a scopie you got to switch the radar on one in 4 times. Once or twice a month doesn't lead to real proficiency. In-flight a third of the time, if you weren't on radio you were the galley slave.

We had one Tacco, rather smarter than the average, who got one AEOp to always switch the radar on. Worked well.

Imagine as a 2nd pilot being one of 4 sharing the duties. One landing in 4 trips, actually handling the controls a third of the time.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:28 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
Worth mentioning perhaps that a lot of one's time in officer training is spent effectively doing CRM - it's one of the main points of every leadership training exercise. This is why it wasn't taught formally in flying training. I had a Nimrod 'wet' going for commissioning on my IOT flight. He said there was nothing different in CRM terms between being Captain of a Nimrod and what one was taught on IOT about leading a team, because I asked him about it.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:51 pm
by Rwy in Sight
I thought leadership in the army is based on the "I have more time here you obey me unless I received a call from higher up" principle. That's from my experience in a NATO armed force. In the CRM you need to devote time listening on subordinate advising against your initial thoughts.

I am definitely missing / have misunderstood something here so your comments would be useful.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:57 pm
by Pontius Navigator
RiS, on NATO, spot on. I sent a letter to a person at a NATO unit "Please can you . . . "

His reply was sent to his boss who approved it and sent it to the base commander who sent it to my Stn Cdr (our most senior officer but one rank down) who passed it to my Wg Cdr who, in turn, passed it to my Sqn Cdr, who passed the acknowledgement to me.

At the same time the Belgian 1* complained that my letter was too brusque and unusual from a Brit.

Re: CRM - Nationalities and feasibility

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:09 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
I was talking about RAF officer training; my experience of the infantry is similar to yours, though the army technical trades are far more understanding of the need to listen (REME, for instance. I worked with an ex-REME WO for a few years).