TGG wrote:The FlightChannel videos are generally very good.
To qualify - they are great for anyone who doesn't understand basic flying, ie they are tailored for the lowest common denominator. The C17 crash video is a case in point. Presentation of the 'history' but a lot of irrelevant information in the rush to appeal to the 'rabble'.
I agree, but still a lot better than the usual tosh that gets even the basics totally wrong.
Reading the report that I linked to above, it seems that all of this crew were inured to ignoring the stall warner and tickling the fully stalled devil's tail. The whole sortie started off in a sloppy way with the initial performance take off target speed being undershot by some 26 knots, didn't achieve briefed altitude, and things just got worse thereafter, flap retraction at below minimum retraction speed, overbank beyond briefed 45 degrees, stall warner ignored, overbank beyond 60 degrees, angle of attack limitation system overridden by brute force, stall, crash, fireball, dead!
Re: How not to fly an aeroplane
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:09 pm
by Boac
Amused by the over-use of 'Mishap' - they could have said 'Accident' A little closer to events, I feel.
Aircrew love airshows. I benefitted from an airshow in NZ.
Joe Public also like airshows but what do airshows achieve?
Airshows kill. Should airshows, especially military ones - your tax dollars for someone else's pleasure - continue?
Tax dollars? I have tended to pay pounds for the privilege of seeing some wonderful aircraft, flown by some very competent people do some very wonderful flying in them. Of course airshows should continue, here, in the USA and elsewhere!
I mean, if it hadn't been for airshows, what would you loafers in the RAF have done over the weekends? The Taine Ranges are always shut and Valley somnolent, whenever I have flown by...
Re: How not to fly an aeroplane
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:29 pm
by Pontius Navigator
TGG, this clip shows a standard Nimrod display. The last little segment is the Toronto crash.
TGG wrote:The FlightChannel videos are generally very good.
To qualify - they are great for anyone who doesn't understand basic flying, ie they are tailored for the lowest common denominator. The C17 crash video is a case in point. Presentation of the 'history' but a lot of irrelevant information in the rush to appeal to the 'rabble'.
The Discovery Channel ones are interesting too, but manage to take an hour (including adverts) to cover what is probably no more than half an hour of relevant stuff, given all the repetition to cope with the fact that everyone always forgets what happened before the ad break.
In this case one of the navigators and of course the crew chief were not on the flight.
The videos are the same PN.
Well the earlier display looked good. The Nimrod was such a graceful aircraft. I have now read the report on the crash. The cause not very far removed from the C-17 crash noted above it seems. Sad to see. You aren't the absent navigator are you?
Re: How not to fly an aeroplane
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:28 pm
by Pontius Navigator
No. When we did displays we always flew as a full crew. During the routine I would stand between the pilots and act as a talking ASI. Quite sporty at about 155 kts in a tight turn at a couple of hundred feet.
An exception to full crew was an initial practice with Ron Dick supervising my skipper. SOP was for the radar scanner to be strapped up. Ron Dick said it wasn't necessary but my kit, I insisted. At the end of the display we did our usual departure, nose raised and climb until the airspeed decayed to 170 kts. At this point Ron said lower the nose. I think the idea was to rotate the aircraft about 70-80 degrees and allow the nose to drop. That's the way I seem to remember. Instead my skipper over rotated so we were still nose up, climbing, but now inverted.
At this point I should say our attitude indicator was of no use and the pilots could not see the ground. We recovered and all the loose articles had miraculously stowed themselves.
When we did our display for real, no dramas. Passing 20,000 feet the AEO called me to look through the periscope and I had a perfect view of the airfield we had displayed at - through the upper periscope.
At this point I should say our attitude indicator was of no use and the pilots could not see the ground. We recovered and all the loose articles had miraculously stowed themselves.
When we did our display for real, no dramas. Passing 20,000 feet the AEO called me to look through the periscope and I had a perfect view of the airfield we had displayed at - through the upper periscope.
I assume that everybody was strapped in during the recovery from this somewhat unusual attitude?
Amused by the over-use of 'Mishap' - they could have said 'Accident' A little closer to events, I feel.
I think that it's an ideological thing to avoid using the word 'accident'. It's to avoid giving the impression that the crash was some kind of fluke or random occurrence.
In the cases of the B-52 and the C-17 the crashes were directly caused by the handling pilot acting like a cowboy and making some crass handling mistakes. That's not really accidental.