Vrede,

Start by following this link Air Transport Users Council

exmpa

And it gets worse!!

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n…sp?story=699279

and everything published in the newspapers is totally accurate and entirely without embellishment…..

exmpa

This may be of interest

The Fauld Explosion

exmpa

The flag has absolutely nothing to do with the button position.

As you wish. I wonder how I managed to demo it all those times on E of C 2 then? Reduce speed until the flag appears, press the button partially and it disappears. No other gear indications.

I should add that it worked on the 3,3A,4,5 and 5A and having just checked my log book I see that I was given E of C 2 as the primary exercise on my my A2 ride, so I guess that the trapper thought it was OK as well.

exmpa

I need something that I can effectively research-analyse-design-test-analyse-conclude based on an aeronautical engineering subject.

OK how about this one:

On modern airliners the use of autobrake systems is encouraged because of reduction in break wear and improved passenger comfort. Current systems operate by providing a number of predetermined decelleration rates. With ever rising levels of air traffic there is pressure to increase flow rates and achieving minimum runway occupancy times after landing is an integral element of this strategy. Unfortunately the runway exits are not always in the optimum positions or of the best configuration to achieve this objective (e.g. 90degree turn off must be taken slower than a 40degree exit). An autobrake system which could be programmed to provide a constant decelleration rate to the required exit speed for a specific exit could be a valuable tool in the quest for improved runway usage.

In short what I am suggesting is a “dial a landing distance” autobrake system which takes into account the type of turn off to negotiated. Now I am not suggesting that it is really a gap in the market which airlines will beat a path to your door to buy! But it is the kind of thing which might make a good project.

exmpa

Crisp Monster

I cannot claim any specific knowledge of the incident you refer to, my maritime days were long after that, but the loss of the two 42 Sqn aircraft was always cited as prime example of the importance of rigidly adhering to “boundary procedures” to avoid confliction between aircraft operating in adjoining areas. So, let’s look at the circumstances in general terms:

Two large, modern (at the time) aircraft with eighteen highly trained crewmen vanished without a trace.

Yes modern but with pretty basic navigation equipment by current standards. Not difficult to be 10 or more miles away from where you meant to be (cf the 8 Sqn AEW Shack which flew into one of the Scottish islands 30 years later). The rapid fixing aid of the time was GEE, not much use at low level, and LORAN had limited coverage in the Southwest Approaches (SWAPPS).

What seems peculiar about the collision explaination is this; why would maritime patrol aircraft be flying in formation in the middle of the sea and in the middle of the night? It would seem to serve no purpose. Surely this sort of aircraft operates alone in order to cover the maximum amount of ocean. If they were not in formation but happened to “bump” into one another, this would seem extremely unfortunate considering the size of the Irish Sea and the fact that both aircraft were equipped with radar.

They wouldn’t be in formation; but consider this; if there is a potential target within the detection range of two aircraft, then it is quite probable that both will detect it at a similar time. Why can we say this? Because both aircraft will have optimised their tactics against the same type of target. So one can imagine the situation where both aircraft have a significant nav error, neither believes they are close to the buffer zone between their area and that of the other aircraft. They are both operating the same radar policy, say intermittent all round scan and a possible target is detected. Both aircraft independently turn on and commence a radar homing. the radar they are equipped with is the ASV21, a pretty basic set and optimised against small surface targets, not airborne targets. The aircraft nav lights are also pretty basic, no anti-collision lights and fairly dim nav lights. But who’s looking for nav lights anyway? There’s a possible target out there! ESM I hear you say? Again, if fitted, optimised against target emitters, not friendly sets and much more labour intensive than today’s kit or even the ARAR/ARAX of the Nimrod. So the scene is set for disaster over the target datum when the 2 aircarft arrive at abot the same time and collide. That I believe was the opinion of the Board of Inquiry (BoI)

why was no wreckage ever found? A searching aircraft apparently sighted orange wreckage floating on the sea around this time, but as this was not recovered due to the weather it could not be proven to come from the aircraft. Presumably a mid air collision would scatter wreckage over a wide area, and one imagines at least some of it would float.

The Shackleton operated at low level and low speed, any wreckage area following a collision would be small. As to why none was found, who knows, weather and sea state, the fact that the aircraft quite possible hit the sea largely intact but sank very quickly. Believe me, there was precious little on the surface when the Air India 747 went in West of Ireland. Were the search aircraft looking in the correct area?

One assumes these aircraft would have been visible on radar at some point, unless of course they were flying at very low level. None of the sources I have looked at in researching this have mentioned whether they were tracked at any point, but if they were not then this again suggests a collision at low level.

Not a lot of radar coverage in the SwAPPS in those days, the threat axis was from the East. Highly unlikely that they were seen by any agency.

It was noted in this article that an engine from one of the aircraft was trawled up in 1966, 11 years after the disappearence and some 100 miles NNW of the area the Shackletons were supposed to be operating in. This would indicate that either the current in this area is strong enough to move an engine several tons in weight many miles, or that at least one of the aircraft was way off course.

Well, the current would certainly not move an engine that distance! Nav error? Possible that a gross error could be made, confusion over the assigned area, it’s happened before, plus a plotting error it could add up. But 100 miles is the best part of 30 minutes flying in a Shackleton at low level, so who knows? Any way, by 1966 did anyone look particularly closely at the find and its position? Did the fisherman know where he was anyway? I did enough SAR missions to find fishing boats to have a healthy scepticism about their navigation (this was in the pre Omega/GPS days).

So in summary, by modern standards it seems incredible that two aircraft should collide over the ocean. By the standards of the time, 10 years after WW2 and still using the equipment of that period it becomes more understandable. All in all a tragic accident in a time when such events were relatively common.

exmpa

He got an OBE as well.

Maybe so; although I am not certain of its relevance; but I am not entirely sure that he has a licence.

exmpa