More appropriate and relevant to be posted here :

Defense selects the Rafale and the final decision will be for the president
Administratores.com.br, June 23

After much speculation, the Ministry of Defence decided to pick the Rafale fighter, made in France, to join the Brazilian Air Defense.

The decision was based only on technical issues.

President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva should convene the National Defense Council to discuss the matter. An explanatory memorandum of about 40 pages will be signed by Defence Minister Nelson Jobim, and the commanders of the Air Force, Brigadier Juniti Saito, and Navy, Admiral Moura Neto, confirms the choice. The document is divided between the positives and negatives of each of the three finalists aircraft – the Rafale (Dassault), the Gripen NG (Saab) and the F-18 (Boeing).

Each paragraph refers to documents prepared by the Air Force and the Navy. The Navy was consulted aiming at the aircraft carriers of 50 tons [50000?] to be built in the future.

It was also ensured the participation of Embraer in all stages of the project. In addition, the company is negotiating with France the development and sale of KC-390 military cargo.

In December last year, the Air Force delivered a report that put the F-18 as the winner rather than the Gripen, as speculated. Nelson Jobim ordered FAB to remake the document to adjust it to the National Defense Strategy (END). The FAB were using the same criteria as for FX1, which was canceled at the beginning of Lula’s first term in 2003. At that time, the cost of maintenance, the unit price of the plane and the commercial offset package were the items which had higher scores. This time, technology transfer worth 40%. At the end of Fernando Henrique, it was 9%.

The Gripen NG has a better assessment on the transfer of technology, but lost many points on other items and was considered a high risk project. In practice, the Swede plane had only good evaluation at the beginning of the evaluation process.

The Rafale, on its side, was only bad on price. The Gripen flight hours is estimated between $ 7 and $ 8000. Saab has promised that he would be at $ 3000.

If the decision is confirmed, Saab is in trouble because the Gripen NG is the only enterprise project along with the modernization of the C and D versions of the same plane. Even Sweden has not purchased the plane and will only do it if there is a deal with Brazil. Over 100 units of the Rafale are already delivered and another 180 are ordered . The aircraft is well evaluated in the UAE and Switzerland. The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is riding high in India.

Analysis (Marcelo Rech)

The fact that the Ministry of Defence has chosen the Rafale does not mean that the process is completed or will be confirmed by President Lula. There is an election in the near future and would not be a surprise if the decision will stay for the next administration.

The choice was technical.

The government believes the strategic alliance with France can compensate the fact that the Rafale is the most expensive among the three finalists. Embraer also gained a great deal. Gripen elected , it would just participate in the project. With the Rafale, it [Embraer] will be leading the process. The company also involves the development and commercialization of the KC-390 freighter in the business.

The United States could not, by law, closing a deal to buy the Super Tucano in return for selling the F-18, as speculated recently.
Jobim called for changes because he doesn’t accept a off-the-shell purchase, as I said several times in public hearings held in Congress. He wants the industrialization of Defense and the field of technology in Brazil. And he believes it will be possible with the election of Rafale.

Defense selects the Rafale and the final decision will be for the president

Administratores.com.br, June 23

After much speculation, the Ministry of Defence decided to pick the Rafale fighter, made in France, to join the Brazilian Air Defense.

The decision was based only on technical issues.

President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva should convene the National Defense Council to discuss the matter. An explanatory memorandum of about 40 pages will be signed by Defence Minister Nelson Jobim, and the commanders of the Air Force, Brigadier Juniti Saito, and Navy, Admiral Moura Neto, confirms the choice. The document is divided between the positives and negatives of each of the three finalists aircraft – the Rafale (Dassault), the Gripen NG (Saab) and the F-18 (Boeing).

Each paragraph refers to documents prepared by the Air Force and the Navy. The Navy was consulted aiming at the aircraft carriers of 50 tons [50000?] to be built in the future.

It was also ensured the participation of Embraer in all stages of the project. In addition, the company is negotiating with France the development and sale of KC-390 military cargo.

In December last year, the Air Force delivered a report that put the F-18 as the winner rather than the Gripen, as speculated. Nelson Jobim ordered FAB to remake the document to adjust it to the National Defense Strategy (END). The FAB were using the same criteria as for FX1, which was canceled at the beginning of Lula’s first term in 2003. At that time, the cost of maintenance, the unit price of the plane and the commercial offset package were the items which had higher scores. This time, technology transfer worth 40%. At the end of Fernando Henrique, it was 9%.

The Gripen NG has a better assessment on the transfer of technology, but lost many points on other items and was considered a high risk project. In practice, the Swede plane had only good evaluation at the beginning of the evaluation process.

The Rafale, on its side, was only bad on price. The Gripen flight hours is estimated between $ 7 and $ 8000. Saab has promised that he would be at $ 3000.

If the decision is confirmed, Saab is in trouble because the Gripen NG is the only enterprise project along with the modernization of the C and D versions of the same plane. Even Sweden has not purchased the plane and will only do it if there is a deal with Brazil. Over 100 units of the Rafale are already delivered and another 180 are ordered . The aircraft is well evaluated in the UAE and Switzerland. The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is riding high in India.

Analysis (Marcelo Rech)

The fact that the Ministry of Defence has chosen the Rafale does not mean that the process is completed or will be confirmed by President Lula. There is an election in the near future and would not be a surprise if the decision will stay for the next administration.

The choice was technical.

The government believes the strategic alliance with France can compensate the fact that the Rafale is the most expensive among the three finalists. Embraer also gained a great deal. Gripen elected , it would just participate in the project. With the Rafale, it [Embraer] will be leading the process. The company also involves the development and commercialization of the KC-390 freighter in the business.

The United States could not, by law, closing a deal to buy the Super Tucano in return for selling the F-18, as speculated recently.

Jobim called for changes because he doesn’t accept a off-the-shell purchase, as I said several times in public hearings held in Congress. He wants the industrialization of Defense and the field of technology in Brazil. And he believes it will be possible with the election of Rafale.

So the most important criteria was ToT and Gripen was first on this itemt…Given that rafale was last for the price one can assume that on a purely technical standpoint it scored very high !

http://www.administradores.com.br/informe-se/artigos/defesa-escolhe-o-rafale-e-decisao-final-sera-do-presidente/45865/

edit : sorry I think I made a mistake…That is not exactly the right thread…!

I’ll fix that…

Next posts for tomorrow;)

Well the specific set is PPI or B-Scope left, PA centre and elevation right. The centre MHDD is almost exclusively used for the PA format. The sole exception is the DORC format which is presented if the DRF is used. Of course it’s possible to swap the functionality of the displays if required. I think that Grandclaudon haven’t been accurately told how it works and he just came to a wrong conclusion by that. Wouldn’t be his fault. If you know how the AIS processes the data and how they are presented you know that the PA format is quite similar to the Rafales HLD. As you can see on some Rafale cockpit shots there is also a separate elevation format at the bottom of the HLD, such separate elevation format is usually presented on the right hand MHDD in the Typhoon.

Well I will differ with you on that. I don’t think that Grandclaudon could be so patently wrong. It would be very surprising that he would have taken such a clear cut position without a minimum guarantee. AFM, Air&cosmos or DSI or other sources would have brought this info to him quite quickly to correct him. The fact that he stands to his position in DSI several weeks after AFM is a good indication.

in debriefs the claims of detection are usually matched again the recorded position. Meaning if a Rafale pilot claims he has detected target X at time xx:xx:xx at bullseye location XXX it is matched versus the location of the suspect target, if the target was in fact in that position at that time according the recording the detection is confirmed, the same is done when a virtual missile is shot for example. Pilots don’t need to describe how something has been achieved, it’s enough if their claims can be verified/confirmed.

Certainly but leaving aside pilots curiosity to see how other aircrafts systems work is just ignoring the human nature. It is absolutely certain that these pilots talked beyhond factual datas that you are talking about. The “passion” and “competition” surrounding these events is a testament of the interest of both party in such encounters. In such long lasting exercises pilots have many occasion to talk to each other. A very natural thing is to compare what you have to other and argue. That is valid for us as forumers and this is also valid for pilots.

Well they didn’t said it this way, but meant it this way (pilots have to correlate separate sensor inputs unlike in the Rafale). There is sufficient information out there about how it works in the Typhoon. If the sensor fusion doesn’t work that would be another case, but there is nothing which indicates that. I think that the French simply think there is no/few sensor fusion, because the Rafale might lack such dedicated display formats for attack (a defensive display format and OSF image can be separately presented on the lateral MFDs as well).

Conversely I think that the french are much more aware about typhoon capabilities than you might think. Given the competition (pilots, industry) and the number of experts available to try to benchmark both aircrafts, to think that they would be totally ignoring typhoon capabilities is wishful-thinking.

Weren’t the results from Corsica reported before Grandclaudon reported them?

I don’t think so. As the boss of the provence squadron he certainly was a major player in this affair. That is why I believe his is giving the results of the exercises which took place under his own responsibility and not others.

I know, it’s of course valid to ask for more details instead of taking things for face value.
From what I have gathered over the time, the Rafale’s FCS is less restrictive and at least the roll channel is more precise.

I wished I could have gathered more details. Unfortunately I was not the only one willing to speak to Benco…even during professional days. But a pilot that I met in paris (place de la concorde, very crowdy) who participated at TLP and red flag had the same analysis (also vs MKI and F15K). Next time I’ll try to be more specific.

It is true that there are some separate display formats in the Typhoon such as the IRST/FLIR, DASS and attack formats, but they also include sensor fused information to a certain extend. The purpose of these dedicated formats is to provide more detailed information. The PA format presented on the centre MHDD provides similar sensor fused information as the HLD on the Rafale. It provides fewer details than the dedicated attack & DASS formats. The F-22 uses a similar approach offering a SA display format and dedicated attack & defensive formats which present more details relevant for attacks and defensive actions, this leaves the main tactical SA format de-cluttered.

I don’t necessarly disagree with you here. Just that in practise (AtA )typhoon pilots seem not to use the tactical display but a specific set of AtA functions on each screen with a screen per sensor. According to grandclaudon the single fused plot on the rafale is what gave rafale an edge in BVR. so that is reality versus theory.

Might or might not, while pilots have the tradition to introduce each other to the others office, it is often just a basic introduction with some small talk next by. You may get a rough idea, but experiencing a working MMI is something entirely different. Debriefs are usually not to the extend that they accurately describe their own systems capabilities. In debriefs you may watch the aircraft’s position imposed on a map and the pilots discuss the various actions happening in a chronological order. The recording is stopped and the pilot describes what he has done at that point, potential kills/misses etc. are assessed and weighted against the recordings and claims of the opposing party. In the case of radar sites the crew reports for example when they got a spike from where and this is matched against the SAM crews reports about their activity for example etc.

Again I somewhat agree. But here, it is not about knowing the system in depth but how it is used in the main lines. It shouldn’t be very hard to figure out/asked for french pilots what are the main reasons that gave rafale an edge : a more synthetic/clearer information in the cockpit while typhoon pilots had to corelate infos. That is not entering into the details.

To put it into the correct perspective, Grandclaudon spoke about inferior sensor fusion, it was A&C which claimed no sensor fusion. Whether the fusion of the Rafales sensor data is superior to that of the Typhoon is out of my scope. The Rafale definitely offers some unique capabilities (at least not reported for other types) and it might well be that the overall sensor fusion is better. But the pilots description is too unspecific and the A&C claim definitely wrong and contradictional to what Typhoon pilots have reported so far and what is known about the system.

I don’t think A&C said that Typhoon has no Sensor fusion. It just says that rafale has an edge in this area. However I agree that the way they put it can be confusing.

Don’t get me wrong on that, it doesn’t mean that the French are hiding something as such or that they lost all other encounters. But as they are so happily carrying over the results from Corsica and the UAE to the public one would assume they would do the same, IF they had achieved similarly impressive results on other occasions. I just don’t think that the difference between the two aircraft is that big, that the Rafale would dominate the Typhoon so clearly in general. In those exercises the Rafales did and I can just applaud them, but I think it had much to do with the pilot skills/tactics/preparations. The Rafale certainly has its qualities, particularly in dogfighting situations with guns only and also BVR, but given how both types regularly demonstrated a relative clear and mostly one sided dominance over teens it is difficult to believe that the Rafale would be so dominant over the Typhoon just because of its performances/capabilities. We know that both types had suffered looses against types which would be considered as far inferior either, those F-5 twin-seaters from the EdA with Typhoon kill marks or the Luftwaffe F-4F with “Rafale Eater” slogan and 5 kill marks…
They are both certainly not unbeatable. It’s a pity that we never hear the other side, this behaviour could reflect good on the Rafale or just indicate a more gentle behaviour of the other side.

The leakege come from one individual (Grandclaudon). So I think it is normal that he speaks about his own experience and not those of others. I don’t think it goes beyhond than that.

But wasn’t Bencos experience the very first of the Rafale & Typhoon encounters? It was WVR only and little edge for the Rafales in the results.

That was WVR ,and although he only told me about a specific engagement vs the typhoon as a pilot (his rafale with 2 drop tanks having the edge over the typhoon in three turns) he didn’t gave me the exact kill ratio like grandclaudon did. However when comparing both jets with a bird’s eye view (from what he saw and learnt from the opposing party) it lead exactly to the same analysis. Better FCS, sensor fusion and MMI. That sparked a controversy with jacko at the time.

Hello scorp,

Well precisely is something else. A generalised claim that the Typhoon has no sensor fusion at all is fundamentally wrong and by no means precise either. Btw from where do he want to know? Has he flown the Typhoon in such missions himself?

I think that this is your own interpretation. The level of sensor fusion can be different with for instance MIDS+ radar fused but not IRST and EW. That is how I interpret it. I think it is correct as I remember a debate about Typhoon PIRATE with a capture of a specific IRST display (with track symbols) in the typhoon which indicate that the IRST has a dedicated screen.

From where do he wants to know? Well you don’t need to make a full flight onboard to know this. A short tour in the cockpit with an introduction of Typhoon capabilities by a RAF pilot is sufficient. A debriefing of encounters with pilots talking to each other is sufficient as well to understand how the aircraft works in the main lines. Usually pilots are curious to know about other systems. I don’t think someone with the experience of Grandclaudon would be so patently wrong. If we, forumers can have an idea of how it works why wouldn’t pilots (especially with the experience of grandclaudon) that can have access to their colleagues from other nations as well as the hardware and practise against them.

Except for the use of generic AA-10C missiles, there was no restriction reported and GrandClaudon explained that the aircraft’s capabilities were fully used.

I agree with you. But firing a single target missile that has to be guided until impact is pretty restrictive against a blue Typhoon. As explained by grandclaudon being “red” doesn’t prevent you from showing the real capabilities of the aircraft as you are using the systems, sensor fusion and MMI of your aircraft not that of a SU27 or mig29. That is why according to him you can still learn lessons of about an aircrafts even when being red as only the “missiles” performance and characteristics changes compared to the real ones.

While true it has nothing to do with said exercises and their respective results. I wonder why we don’t have similar results presented from the French against other Eurofighter operators, we know that there were more confrontations, why are the French just talking about the results of Corsica and UAE? Do they particularly dislike the British or weren’t the results the same maybe not in favour for the Rafale…?

The Eurofighter claim that similar results in the UAE happen the other way round, weren’t commented either, let alone denied.

I think it is a little bit hypocrite to assume that if the rafale pilots didn’t talk about other confrontations then it automatically means that they lost or that something is hidden…I think it is a revelator that typhoon supporters hang on to the slightest thing to debunk Grandclaudon. I believe it is a weak argument and that we are lucky enough, for once, to have the results and an analysis. Besides the only other encounter I was personally told about during last Paris airshow was also in favor of the rafale (by “Benco” from the aeronavale) and his analysis was roughly the same as grandclaudon (as regard MMI, sensor fusion and FBW). Results in the other way round certainly happen of course but we don’t know the RoE. It is somewhat funny to see people debating about rafale RoE always require additional informations even when the pilot was pretty accurate (compared to that we are usually told in such exercises) and taking for granted eurofighter claims…If you take some distance, AdA arguments are much more convincing than the opposing party which bring nothing concrete to debunk them.
It is more than raw results it is also about “how do they think their aircarft is better”. Exept taking off faster and flying higher and I don’t see anything.

And btw how would a dogfight exercise would have favoured the MICA IR, if missiles would have been used? It’s true that at long distances the Rafale would have the edge with the MICA IR, but this hardly matters at shorter ranges.

I just tried to put the dogfight in a broader context. Gun dogfights give information about aircrafts qualities while an HMS is just a matter of integration. When someone told that in the real world typhoon would have (for now) an HMS and not the rafale I responded that in the real world the mica IR would be most probably fired before the merge.

Sintra,

First of all that’s certainly not the RAF who said that given the fact they wouldn’t have ignored that there were Red rafales as well as explained by Granclaudon. The question was obviously distorted by the journalist… Which is hardly a surprise as the questions were inspired by Jon Lake (He told that himself on eurofighterstarstreak forum).

Then Grandclaudon perfectly debunked this affirmation when rafale and typhoon flew together in AFM and in DSI and you avoided to post his answer.

“Firstly because the main point is to follow the mission commander briefing and to do your task : it’s hard by nature to have such a clear cut opinion as long as boss asset did their job very well. Secondly as far as capabilities are concerned the Typhoon is an air-to air platform (…) Rafale were tasked many times in strike which give us the opportunityto show the versality of the jet…”

Then he precisely explains (with arguments) why he considers that the rafale as an edge over the typhoon (AFM p42 and DSI+ air&cosmos): better sensor fusion and situation awareness, lower RCS and better multirole capabilities as well as better FCS. That is a substantiate response and analysis. Not a vague, inaccurate, unbacked, distorted statement/question inspired by JL. That goes beyond the 7-1 result which can be partially explained by the relatively less experienced Typhoon pilots although red rafale’s ROE were pretty restrictive. Besides don’t forget that rafale capabilities go well beyond the AtA role unlike the Typhoon. That not something to be ignored and should be encompass in the “performance” definition.

DSI :
[QUOTE][I]However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale’s systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane.[/QUOTE][/I]
AFM p42 :

[I]We have a very intuitive system with sensor fusion which provides tracks from differing sensors into a single tactical display. We don’t have one display per sensor. (…) For instance if one aircraft is seen by my radar, my EW suite and my wingmen (MIDS) I don’t have to correlate in my head all the informations of my three screens. I only have one track on my tactical display. The sensors are backing each others and we rae able to keep the situation awarness even if one sensor temporarly loses contact. It also enables us to perform discreet and surprising tactics[/I].

Air&Cosmos :
[QUOTE][I]the french Rafale fighter’s radar signature is, according to many pilots, much less important than the Eurofighter’s one. It is therefore an asset. Even better: the sensors fusion which enjoys the Rafale is also a crucial advantage in BVR combat, because it offers the pilots a much better understanding of the tactical situation during combat, and this, 360 degrees around the aircraft.

.[/QUOTE][/I]
About possible other encounters nothing is clearly said in AFM and his analysis would not make sense if he just picked up the good results. Given that he spoke in the open press taking the risk to be officially debunked I don’t think that would have been a smart idea and I doubt that a French officer like him would be capable of distorting the truth to such an extent. Especially when other rafales pilots make the same analysis (Corsica).

On a personal level this picture given by Grandclaudon and French pilots in Corsica is what has always been told to me for the last three years from a dozen rafale pilots that I met (Paris air show 2007 and 2009 + century of French aeronautics in Paris). I already posted several times on this forum the reports of these meeting as well as pictures. I don’t intend to be authoritative in this regard (as a rafale supporter) but those who follow my posts would certainly notice that grandclaudon’s picture was totally coherent with what I repported.

To conclude on Corsica if the typhoon vs rafale was with IR missile taken at their full potential as you wished with HMS for the Typhoon, the result would have been even worst (although it is hard to be worst than 9-1!). With at least three times the range of the asram and LOAL capability the mica IR+rafale combo, will not even let the typhoon go to the merge…With a third party designation the mica can be fired in the 6 o’clock as shown in 2007 test…And I would argue that the HMS is only a matter of integration while a gun dogfight shows the performance of respective jets like the FCS or the aerodynamic configuration. These performances can be also helpful for other missions. that is why it is still interesting despite gun dogfight tends to be outdated in terms of airwarfare.

It is a bit confusing but other precisely detailed facts indicates that it was not IR and cannon. Which is consistent with AFM and other french sources :
Why bothering simulating Mig 29 or SU27 with specific missile rules if that was a simple gun dogfights ? And simulating an AA-10C is hardly an IR missile or a gun fight. Link 16 refresh would be of a little use in a WVR range fight. Finally talking about sensor fusion would be out of context in a simple dogfight.

-True that for some it is a little bit hard to admit. Ten years of belief that are now gone. Given the accuracy of the claims and the variety of the sources you can expect something very clear to debunk these reports. Which is not the case now.

PS : I’ve checked Aln warnes editorial in AFM and I don’t see him saying it is rubbish personally nor does he said that the typhoon were superior, nor where Grandclaudon tell they were other encounters such as these two ones. He just said that most of the time they flew on the same side for the rest of the UAE stay and that rafale was often task for strike unlike typhoon. In DSI article he precisely debunks the RAF (p41 in AFM) claims that the Typhoon always played red chest giving a precise example explained in the article.

S Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated “red” attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. COLOR=”Red”]o, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also”red chest” (MiG-29 index “Charlie”) when they shot down 4 “blue” Typhoon – flying as Typhoon [/COLOR]- while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the “red” plastron role don’t prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.

Some advantages that make the difference.

However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale’s systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane. The french pilots have also appreciated the agility of the antenna of the electronic RBE2 radar – The Typhoon has for now only a mechanical antenna – allowing to refresh the situation in the whole volume monitored. But they insist, for close combat, on the perfect controllability of their Rafale, thanks to the excellence of FBW, to the extreme limits of the flight envelope.. To point the nose toward the target and to design it to the weapons system in the absence of a viewfinder-HMD while operating at very low speed. What are not necessarily capable of the main opponents of the Rafale …
Well obviously, one should not rejoice in excess. The extremely positive results of these meetings have been obtained in special circumstances. The pilots had been set specific roles by the commander of the COMAO device and were therefore not free to exploit in depth all the potentials of their weapons system. The results have been different perhaps in other circumstances (nevertheless, some time ago, another meeting between Typhoon and Rafale, in Corsica, was also turned into “massacre” at the expense of the first 8 losses to 0 ). But, simply put, the EC 1 / 7 pilots are particularly satisfied with their stay in UAE. Their demonstration has , aptly, made a strong buzz [noise] among the aviators of the region and troubled the Anglo-Saxons until now convinced of the utter superiority of their planes. A disturbance also compounded by the loss – virtual of course – of an F-22 gun shot by an UAE Mirage 2000-9 flown, this time, by a French experimented pilot. Really, when everything goes wrong … P