XN923Again, I am not trying to absolve anyone or contemn another party but, do you think that the insurgents might have known about the orange panels and copied them? Do you honestly think that these guys that go out there are “Cowboys” and don’t give a **** who gets hurt? Do you think that the one who saw”orange rockets” might have thought damn well he did… They were high up and they did clear there were NO friendlies.
True, they went on the best information they had, as did the controller, but that information was not good enough. The aircrews misidentified vehicles (British light tanks for Soviet built trucks), told the controller the wrong positions and went in before they were told to. The controller did not press for a grid reference or confirmation of exactly what the pilots meant. Were the mistakes all honest ones? Yes. Were they avoidable? I think they were. I don’t want to blame anyone as I’ve never been in that position and besides, I don’t know the full facts – and as you say I can guarantee everyone involved is feeling as bad as they should. (I gather one pilot is now instructing with the Air National Guard – despite what the UK press says, this is a good thing, as he will, one hopes, be passing on his experiences and helping other pilots not to repeat his mistakes).
However, I think the US and British governments’ handling of the affair does not give the impression that anyone is keen to learn any lessons from this incident, which is a shame.
XN923There was a lot in the error chain that I saw. Were the pilots perfect NO but, they did ask several times if the area was clear of friendlies…. then they asked again and were assured again.
Not my point – I said there were issues with the procedures that needed addressing, precisely because there were errors on both sides (and possibly because the Scimitars were in the wrong place as well, though I’ve not heard any suggestion that they were).
The fact that the controller assured the pilots there were no friendlies in their area, without enough info to go on, contributed to the pilots’ confusion. On the other hand the pilots gave vague and inaccurate information on their location to the controller. Furthermore the pilots had extreme difficulty identifying the vehicles on the ground, and there don’t seem to have been any problems with visibility, so perhaps more training should be given to pilots on vehicle recognition in combat conditions (and what the orange panels look like from the air – it’s one thing telling aircrew that friendly vehicles will have panels of orange plastic on top of them, and another for them to know exactly the shape, tone and nature of the panels from the air).
XN923Always thought the FD.2 was a great looking aircraft, anyone have any ideas on why it had such a long undercarriage thus causing a restricted forward view?
FD2 undercarriage wasn’t as long as the BAC 221’s (which was needed because of greater angle of attack for low speeds with the ogee wing I believe) but it was really the very long nose and low canopy both necessary for the high speeds it was intended to achieve. Interestingly, Peter Twiss once suffered a loss of hydraulic pressure and landed with the nose in the ‘up’ flight position. He concluded that it actually wasn’t too difficult and reflected that perhaps weight and space could have been saved on the nose tilt mechanism. Of course, the latter became essential after conversion to the 221.
The wing of the BAC 221 was new (retaining the existing spar structure), as was the air intake trunking, which went from the wing roots to over the wings. The fuselage was extended with a plug partly to allow the full ogee wing to be created and partly to allow a longer front UC leg (which incidentally came from a Fairey Gannet).
You can see the Delta 2 lineage in the 221, less so since they changed the canopy. There is a book on the 221 and FD2 out at the moment, and in the cover is a very rare photo of WG774 post-conversion and WG777 flying together.
XN923No doubt a very thin volume….
Perhaps he’s confused Osprey with Squadron/Signal’s “…In action” series. They did do a book on the Firefly.
BTW: Each one has a different author so the quality does vary.
Just because you’re disappointed with one shouldn’t turn you off the series. They are rather fun and (over here anyway) good value for money.
You’re absolutely right – my bad, and I apologise to all concerned
XN923Thats it, unfortunately these things happen- its a sad side effect of human conflict.
…Though one that should be discussed, dissected, investigated and unpacked to see if there is anything that can be done to prevent as many future occurrences as possible. There were a number of mistakes in this instance which should not have been made and could easily be addressed. Other factors such as battlefield stress and ‘fog of war’ are less easy to control but just saying ‘it’s war, **** happens’ doesn’t really help anyone does it?’
The USMC investigation ruled that the pilots were not at fault because they followed procedure. If that’s the case (and I have my doubts) surely this means the procedures need improving?
Blue-on-blue may be an inevitable consequence of war, but not all cases of it are unavoidable. This case was avoidable.
XN923Aren’t there a number of models at the Fleet Air Arm museum in Yelvilton? Or is it just wind tunnel models of Concorde? I know they have a drop model of the BAC221 research aircraft though (modified Fairey Delta 2).
Try contacting the research dept at Yeovilton, they might have some info on the programme.
XN923Bought one Osprey combat aircraft book, the one on the Fairey Firefly, and it seemed to me to have a number of slips and errors so I haven’t bought another. Maybe they are better on US aircraft though.
Edit – Apologies – I am talking rubbish. The Firefly book is by Squadron/Signal. I have a couple of the Osprey modelling-related titles and they are very good, for some reason I mix up those two publishers sometimes.
100 times ‘I must check my facts before posting’
XN923No arguments there. I think target recognition might have a bit to do with it though – would they have mistaken (presumably more familiar) US tanks for flat bed trucks with rocket launchers on?
The fact that this keeps happening (from WW2 on as you say) suggests there are cultural issues that need to be dealt with in US forces, air and ground.
It’s no consolation to the family – but it will provide a few answers that they otherwise might not have got.
XN923Public spirited? My afterburners. They’re sensationalist ghouls. Getting the tape released may indeed be a good thing, but you can bet that good intentions were not at the heart of their releasing it.
You’re right of course, and it’s one hell of a scoop for the Sun, but it’s not without risks. Perhaps we should switch that appelation to the one who leaked it. The Pentagon clearly wasn’t going to release it, even for the inquest.
But that’s not really the point is it?
XN923Watched online a few hours ago and still shocked at the footage, I feel bad for all involved, just a pity that the orange panels could not be seen correctly.
Strikes me from the transcript that the orange panels could be seen well enough – the pilots refer to them repeatedly, then convince themselves that they are ‘rocket launchers’. Pity that the pilots’ target recognition was apparently so poor, that they went in without giving the controller accurate information on where they were and that they opened up without their controller giving them the go ahead. It seems there might be some training issues that need to be addressed.
The Sun has indeed done a brave and public spirited thing – and I never thought I’d say that, either.
XN923Hi,
Talking to my nephew last night he asked ‘how many aircraft types have you flown in?’ So I started making a list; now this is the problem; we all know what a DC9 is, but is it the same aircraft type as an MD80 or MD90 or Boeing 717? How about the Bell Jet and Long Ranger Helicopters?
Also is a Spitfire Mk24 really the same aircraft type as an Spitfire Mk1? or is this all a question of whats in a name?
I would appreciate people’s thoughts.
Steve.
Good question, and never one there will be a solid answer to. The Spitfire Mk21 was going to be called the Valiant at one point, and considered a different type, but Vickers decided against it in the end. As far as I can tell the shape of the rear fuselage from the base to the level of the base of the canopy, from the back of the cockpit to the leading edge of the tail was more or less the same on every variant of Spitfire (although the structure was strengthened from the MkVIII onwards). Everything else changed at some point I think – although no doubt within minutes I will have been proved wrong!
XN923XF708 flew in to Duxford from Kemble on the 23 sept 1972.
She has over thirty years at Duxford and very little attention done to it.
The Shacks down at Charlwood near Gatwick get some attention to them as they are kept with help from friends and on there open days they run them up.
Nice for the neigbours.
What would you say to someone who lives near the Gatwick Aviation Museum?
Anything you like, they can’t hear you!
I first went to Duxford in about 1984 and then the Shackleton was under cover. However, the next time I went (probably the year after) it was outside and has been ever since. Externally at any rate, the Gatwick ones look much better (and you can go inside one of them, looks alright inside as well)
XN923What’s green and eats nuts?
XN923… would suggest to you that airshows are clearly not a viable spectator sport for gnomes…
…Which as a person of short stature, exacerbated because I can’t stand for any length of time at the moment, is a shame. They could have my dollar if they gave more thought to the plight of gnomes
XN923At the risk of merely reiterating points that others have already made…
I’d love to go to Legends, I think it would be a fantastic experience, but I probably won’t this year. I tend to go to airshows on my own, and because of a back problem I can’t really stand for more than ten minutes at a time. This gives me the choice of turning up at the crack of doom and reserving my space at the crowdline all day, or turning up later/having a look round the stalls and museum and taking my chance with the view or lack thereof.
Last year I went to four airshows, Biggin Hill, Redhill, Wings and Wheels at Dunsfold and the Spitfire show at Duxford. With the first three I didn’t have a problem and had a great time. The last one I enjoyed least – because of the number of people there and the restricted views further back I felt compelled to ‘park’ my seat earlier and even when sat at the crowd line a few people tried to wedge themselves right in front of me when the flying was about to start. I can only imagine what it’s like at Legends. I love Duxford, but I wish they would give more thought to the visibility of the show if you aren’t right at the front.
Sign In
