So, exmpa, in essence the complex systems in place with the FBW on Airbus aircraft to protect the aircraft are in fact offering a whole new avenue for mistakes?

There was nothing complicated about what happened at Habsheim. In effect he turned the aircraft into a glider, with predictable results. He also ignored the FMA which was displaying all the information required. Part of the reason for this may have been distraction because the display axis was different from the one he expected, that was down to inadequate briefing. There are SOPs in place to prevent what occurred at Habsheim, the primary one being that you switch off the Flight Directors when carrying out a visual approach that would have put the AT in to Speed mode, problem solved. By that point he didn’t require the FDs anyway as they wouldn’t be diplaying any useful information.

It’s worth considering the following, Airbus produced little cards with these “Golden Rules”:

1-The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft.
2-Fly,navigate,communicate in that order.
3-One head up at all times.
4-Cross check the accuracy of the FMS.
5-Know your FMA at all times.
6-When things don’t go as expected-TAKE OVER.
7-Use the proper level of automation for the task.
8-Practice task sharing and back up each other.

exmpa

in theory that plane should have responded to the throttle input by the skipper but the computers continued in the landing mode hence the collision with the trees

Habsheim was the result of mishandling, plain and simple. The PF descended in “Open Descent” mode, in this mode the thrust is at “idle” and speed is controlled by pitch attitude. The descent was continued in “Open Descent” at approx 600fpm until 30ft agl when an attempt was made to level off by raising the nose. Note that the low speed protection mode “Alpha Floor” that prevents flight at excessive angles of attack is inoperative below 100ft agl otherwise you wouldn’t be able to land the aircraft. The intention had been to carry out a low, slow fly by along the runway and climb away but because of the “Open Descent” mode all that happened as the nose was raised was the RoD decreased slightly and the speed, unconstrained by “Alpha Floor” decreased rapidly. PF’s response was to select TOGA thrust but because of the response time from idle this was too late and insufficent to prevent the aircraft hitting the trees beyond the runway. The engines responded correctly, in fact accellearting slightly faster than specification. The FADEC did not prevent the pilot achieving the demanded thrust setting, he demanded it too late.

The root of the problem was an imperfect understanding of the Airbus Vertical Flight Modes. In “Open” modes with Autothrust active; Climb or Descent; the thrust setting is constant at either Climb Thrust or Idle. The aircraft speed is controlled by varying the pitch attitude by elevator input. In “Speed” modes the system attempts to maintain the selected speed by varying thrust, thus a selected RoD or FPA can be maintained at a desired speed. The active and armed modes are displayed on the Flight Mode Annunciator at the top of the Primary Flight Display. What PF expected to happen was whne he raised the nose, the aircraft would apply sufficent thrust to enable him to maintain the desired flight path at the selected speed. To achieve this he would have had to have been in a “Speed” mode and this would have been displayed in the top left window of the FMA, it wasn’t, “Thr Idle” was there. To get into the “Speed” mode there are two options, select Flight Directors Off or pull the V/S knob on the Flight Mode Panel. Had PF done this then as he applied elevator input to raise the nose and reduce rhe RoD then the AT system would have smoothly increased the thrust to maintain the speed but at “Thr Idle” all he got was speed decay and by then it was too late. FWIW it was Mode Confusion that resulted in the loss of the Indian Airlines A320 at Bangalore. They tried to fly a visual approach in “Open Descent” with predictable results.

exmpa

Just been contacted by the purchaser of “Guy Gibsons” wings

As a matter of interest, how much did he pay?

exmpa

The Ring of Confidence

I have had a look through some old formation photos. They were taken in the period 1966/7. Only on one is the serial number visible, XR673 (Tail number 97), which appears to be a Mk4. It does have a crest in the band as does tail number 55. However tail number 94 has no crest.

There would not have been any badges specially applied for the graduation flypast. You just took whatever aircraft were available! 97 Entry grad’ was in spring 1970.

exmpa

I note that I flew XN584 a total of 15 times between 1966 and 1974. Initially at Barkston Heath and later from Cranwell. I last flew a T3 (XN471) on 29 Oct 1974, after that it was all T5s and 5As

Vulcans used the “toss-bombing” method

Not really, release was still from level flight. The attack was more properly a “pop up” rather than a “toss”.

The Type 2H delivery was developed to cater for two cases:

a. Delivery of the Yellow Sun Mk2
b. Unpowered release of the Blue Steel.

It could also have been used to deliver the Red Beard, but this was never AFAIK a primary weapon for the V-Force. Introduction of the WE177 with its laydown capability made the “pop up” delivery unnecessary. IIRC the 2H took some 72 seconds to complete and we were told that this was some 10 seconds less than the time required for a SA2 missile to acquire, launch and hit us! The escape manoeuvre was a 2g turn to present the tail to the blast (at low level you continued on the release track). EMP was not a subject much discussed in those days, but given the nature of much of the equipment, we are talking “valve technology” here, probably did not present as much of a problem as later.

The “pop up” attack lived on in the form of the 2J, used for the delivery of un-retarded 1000lb bombs. In this case you pulled up at 6 miles to 2500′ and released from there. Tactically not really a viable proposition, but it did enable crews to drop live bombs in training without the expense of retard tail units.

exmpa

OK, let’s have another try to make you see some sense. The generally held view by the “Bad taste in the mouth” brigade is that GA is a vital part of aviation activity in the United Kingdom and must be automatically supported by anyone who has ever been part of the aviation industry. So consider the following, and in doing so seek to understand the lessons to be learned.

In 1900 the Society of Workingmen’s Rifle Clubs (SWRC) was formed with the primary objective of:

“To fit Her Majesty’s subjects for the defence of Her Realm by the advancement of skill in rifle shooting by provision of skilled instruction and opportunity to practice and for the furtherance of such objects”

The SWRC later became the National Smallbore Rifle Association (NSRA) that is today the governing body for all small-bore rifle and target pistol shooting in the United Kingdom. The NSRA retains as its objectives one very similar to that quoted above. It is reasonable to ask if in 2007 that objective is still relevant. The answer of course is no, the relevance is peripheral at best. The NSRA is wholly a sporting body. The NSRA retains it original objective out of a sense of history and pride in its origins, it does not suffer from the delusion that it confers upon it an importance in the field of national security. They do not try to claim a link when one does not truly exist.

Let us look at a case a little closer to home, The Air League. Formed in the 1920s to encourage “Air-mindedness in the youth of Britain” it to retains its original aims and is still active in that field. However, look at its current list of causes and ask yourself if its current list of causes were the ones foreseen by its founders:

Environmental Pollution

Fighting Terrorism

People and Planes

The Air League has changed with changing times, it accepts that to promote its cause it must recognize the concerns of others and address them. The Air League recognizes the concerns of the wider population.

Now let us consider the case of Working Trials. A great many more people participate in this activity, conducted under the auspices of the Kennel Club, many more than you probably realize. There is also a considerable industry attached to it as the majority of working dogs in Police Forces, The Prison Service and private companies come from breeders associated with competitive trials. It is however a fact that a very small number of professional handlers; Police, Prison, Armed Forces; compete in trials. There is quite simply a clear divide between the hobby and the professional although both work to similar standards. The professionals don’t pursue their job as a hobby and no one thinks any the worse of them because of it. When running a trial the organizers must seek access to hundreds, even thousands, of acres of farmland for the tracking and search tests. They do this by gaining the co-operation of landowners by presenting the case for its recreational benefits and the image of the well trained dog. They argue their cause on its own merits.

Finally let’s look at the planning process. I am currently involved in trying to gain planning permission for a local sports association to establish a football training ground on an adjoining piece of waste land. The land in question is an old industrial site unused for a very long time and by its nature unsuitable for residential or alternative commercial development. The owner is happy to donate the land the proposed purpose. The project has the support of local residents, the council, the local MP and other sports clubs in the area. It is being strongly opposed by the local Wildlife Trust. The Wildlife Trust have classified the site as “grassland” in spite of the fact that the original grassland lies under some 20-30’ of industrial waste! Instead of assuming that we can steam roller their objections due to our overwhelming support we have instead held meetings to establish precisely what their concerns and objections are. We are in the process of establishing what we can do to accommodate them in our plans but if necessary counter their arguments. When the plans are presented formally for permission we shall be able to show that we have made efforts to include all viewpoints and made amendments in response to objections. We expect our plans to be accepted because we can demonstrate support and we have consulted fully. We didn’t ask the objectors if they have ever played football and then decided to disbar them on that account. We have acknowledged that everyone is entitled to a viewpoint.

For those of you that have got this far, well done. For those of you that use pejorative terms, the offer is open, I neither support nor oppose Kemble, it’s not in my back yard, its a long way away. Where have I said differently?I have no view on the matter other than that everyone is entitled to theirs, a view that is not held by many others here. I do not expect anyone to automatically acquiesce in their views because of any involvement or otherwise in any activity. You have to earn support, it doesn’t come free.

GA in the UK feels beleaguered and has mainly responded by retreating behind its airfield perimeters. It doesn’t work, you have to engage with those outside to gain their acceptance. For the activities that I am involved with, I write articles for the press, give talks at Women’s Institutes meet with councilors and MPs. It’s not exciting, it’s hard work and rarely shows any direct result, but it is essential. If you want your hobby or activity to survive then you have to get out there and promote it. Signing petitions and posting on internet boards just isn’t enough.

exmpa

Do you think airliner pilots grow on trees, or would you agree that perhaps they need training, and GA training flights provide the first step for a great number of airliner pilots?

Er no, I know they don’t. In fact none of the airline pilots I flew with in the 18 years I was employed as such grew on a tree. Where did the pilots you have worked with in the airline industry come from? Many of the newer pilots in the industry are products of integrated course, a good many of course are ex-service. The modular route still figures strongly, but with the move towards the Multi-Crew Licence I believe that will will weigh in favour of the integrated route. The bottom line is that the link between professional training and GA has been weakening for some time and is at best tenuous.

What do you define as a ‘public service’? I would certainly include an active airfield, particularly one offering flight training, as a public service.

SAR, Air Ambulance, Police Aviation. “Flight Training” is either a commercial operation of recreational, but it certainly not “a service to the public”.

It really is time to face up to the facts. This is a crowded little island and becoming more so. You have to be able to demonstrate that the disturbance you may cause is worth it for the benefit derived. You must be able to demonstrate this objectively. It is no use saying “Kemble has been here for years and that’s that”. Times change, circumstances change. The public accepted the necessity for a military airfield at Kemble in the past but that does not mean they have to accept the current operation.

Very little of what has been written on this thread would be of any assistance to Kemble’s case. Many of the attitudes displayed on this thread will only serve to alienate the public and in some cases the arrogance is breathtaking.

exmpa