Thunderbirds and Altimeters

Video?? There's video and I missed it??? Drat! Anybody have a link to it?
Please? )
Steve R.


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
If you look at the cockpit video it's obvious that his head is tilted
way back watching the horizon while he was inverted prior to initating
the Split-S. My primary question is why he didn't abort the Split-S
and simply continue the roll at the top of the maneuver and perform
an Immelmann instead of pressing on with the Split-S?

"Nick Coleman" wrote in message
...

Without pre-judging this pilot, what happens to a pilot who makes a
mistake
and totals the aircraft? Out of the team? or out of the AF completely?

Nick

Last word I have is that he's been transferred down to DC at the Pentagon.
It's a desk job for sure if you survive this kind of mistake. But make no
mistake yourself in judging Chris Striklin. He's a good pilot. He never
would have gotten a slot on the team if he wasn't. He just got caught up in
an error. He made a mistake.
He was lucky. He's still a good pilot and a fine officer. It's just that you
can't make this kind of mistake and remain a Thunderbird. It's impossible.
The team has learned something and will move on retaining that
knowledge....hopefully using it to good advantage in the future. It's a done
deal.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Steve R." wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

If you look at the cockpit video it's obvious that his head is tilted
way back watching the horizon while he was inverted prior to initating
the Split-S. My primary question is why he didn't abort the Split-S
and simply continue the roll at the top of the maneuver and perform
an Immelmann instead of pressing on with the Split-S?

Video?? There's video and I missed it??? Drat! Anybody have a link to it?
Please? )
Steve R.

Subject: Thunderbird pilot found at fault in Mountain Home AFB crash
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2004-01-25 22:59:09 PST

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186582

Ummm.... nevermind. I saw the link later while i was reading a different
thread. Thanks though! )
Steve R.


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

There's something about this report some of us don't quite get, and it
concerns the zero set on the altimeters. The TB fly a zero set altimeter
for
a show. It's not only basic for low altitude acro work, but it's
specified
in the regulations for the Thunderbird mission and procedures

What puzzles me isn't whether or not he zeroed the altimeter prior to
launch or was attempting to convert AGL elevations to MSL altitudes,
but rather why he failed to recognize via outside visual cues that he
was simply too low to the ground to even THINK about initiating a
Split-S maneuver.

Clearly, he knew that something was wrong early on since he reportedly
exerted "maximum back stick pressure and rolled slightly left to
ensure the aircraft would impact away from the crowd should he
have to eject." Despite his exceedingly close proximity to the ground
the fact that he managed to eject successfully is another indication
that he realized quite early on that he done screwed up!

If you look at the cockpit video it's obvious that his head is tilted
way back watching the horizon while he was inverted prior to initating
the Split-S. My primary question is why he didn't abort the Split-S
and simply continue the roll at the top of the maneuver and perform
an Immelmann instead of pressing on with the Split-S?

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
I've observed similar results with new students in the T-45C. The
primary
instrument scan is on an ADI which has all the essential flight data for
BI.
But the altimeter and airspeed are presented as digital information with
a
"wiper blade" for movement (roughly 2 knot and 20 foot increments ...
one
sweep = 100 knots or 1000 feet). Not intuitive for the pilot trained to
standard instrumentation. We do not have BI-1 check rides.

There are backup steam guages ... 2 inch airspeed and altimeter ... that
are
well out of scan. A partial panel scan is tough. Of course I can dump
the
system and leave them with a wet compass, a peanut gyro, a clock and the
standby pitot statics. Fun to fly a TACAN approach using the
alphanumeric
bearing to station and DME. Kind of a graduation character building
exercise, the Kobiyashi Maru scenario.

R / John

Hi JC

I've lived through the perfect Kobiyashi Maru scenario. I have beaten
Captain Kirk. I am the best!!!
My wife appeared at the head of the stairs one night before we went out
for
dinner and asked me,
"Do I look fatter in the blue dress.....or the red one????"
"NEITHER, says me, thou art beautiful in BOTH!!!!"

Well then, you won't mind telling us when you quit beating her?

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
I've observed similar results with new students in the T-45C. The
primary
instrument scan is on an ADI which has all the essential flight data
for
BI.
But the altimeter and airspeed are presented as digital information
with
a
"wiper blade" for movement (roughly 2 knot and 20 foot increments ...
one
sweep = 100 knots or 1000 feet). Not intuitive for the pilot trained
to
standard instrumentation. We do not have BI-1 check rides.

There are backup steam guages ... 2 inch airspeed and altimeter ...
that
are
well out of scan. A partial panel scan is tough. Of course I can
dump
the
system and leave them with a wet compass, a peanut gyro, a clock and
the
standby pitot statics. Fun to fly a TACAN approach using the
alphanumeric
bearing to station and DME. Kind of a graduation character building
exercise, the Kobiyashi Maru scenario.

R / John

Hi JC

I've lived through the perfect Kobiyashi Maru scenario. I have beaten
Captain Kirk. I am the best!!!
My wife appeared at the head of the stairs one night before we went out
for
dinner and asked me,
"Do I look fatter in the blue dress.....or the red one????"
"NEITHER, says me, thou art beautiful in BOTH!!!!"

Well then, you won't mind telling us when you quit beating her?

Not sure if I follow? KM is a no win scenario offered in a problem.
(Wife with two dresses vs appearance = no win)
By attacking the problem source and changing the premise, you create a
possible win scenario (survival in this case.......and creative
thinking.......and in the case of not offering my wife a fat in one, not in
the other ......a sure formula for avoiding instant execution!!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..

Well then, there ya' go!! Here in Florida it's flatter than Sabrina
the Teenage Witch but if I flew in mountainous terrain like you I'd
roll in the field elevation prior to launch myself.

Roger that, I've spent some time running up and down Florida in both
F-4s and bugsmashers; not a lot of terrain to hide behind! If I
remember right, the highest spot is near Crestview, about 243ft above
sea level. Most places you are within the tolerance of the altimeter!
(75ft)

Anyone who needs two altimeters to shoot an instrument approach has
no business flying in the soup in the first place. Airport elevations
are clearly depicted on the approach plates and if one is unable to
compute his height above the ground after quickly glancing at his
altimeter with the correct altimeter setting can expect to auger in
exactly like poor ol' Cap'n Stricklin did.

Apparently it's a big thing "over there", maybe they were too cheap to
buy a radar altimeter? But hey if it works, so be it. Anyone else
have experience shooting approaches with QFE set on an altimeter?

Furthur, we don't generally (that word again! use cryptic "QFE" or
"QNH" catch phrases in the U.S. Instead, simply say "AGL" or
"MSL" and you'll less likely be misunderstood since said terminology
is the accepted practice here in the U.S. not to mention much more
intuitive than those steenkin' European Q-codes are.

Standard ICAO terminology (just like these stupid Class B airspaces -
I want my TCA's back!). And there is a difference: QFE means setting
your altimeter to the kollsman setting that will result in a 0 ft
reading at touchdown - NOT "AGL". It's only AGL at touchdown (unless
you are flying over a really big pool table...or Florida). QNH is the
same as our local altimeter setting, gives pressure altitude, which is
approximately MSL altitude until above the transition level, then its
only a reference pressure altitude. But you already knew all that, of
course.

Evidently you still don't understand the problem. The statement above
was referring to Stricklin's stunning lapse of judgment that resulted
in him attempting to perform a Split-S maneuver despite the fact he
was way too low.

Oh believe me, I know exactly what the problem is. Doing pops on the
bombing range required the exact same figuring of the pull-down and
apex altitude, and if you miscalculated or rolled and pulled too low
or too tight you would at best drop a lousy bomb and lose some
quarters; if you really pooched it you could easily end up dead. Lost
some good friends that way. And you absolutely could not depend on
visual cues - especially if it was a first look target, and the
approach terrain wasn't at the same elevation as the target, etc. You
plan the flight, and fly the plan, and if it doesn't look right you
abort. Stricklin didn't fly the plan (for whatever reason), then
waited a bit too long to abort, that's all. Damn glad he got out!

Best of luck there (flying gliders, it'll be a loooong recovery!)

No recovery needed or planned, thank you - Racing glass is the only
way to fly!

Happy aviating,

Kirk

Dudley Henriques wrote:

The problem is that the pilots can brief for the right target and then miss
it if the concentration is broken. In this incident, the visuals were missed
as well. It was a multiple error. It involves broken concentration, and this
is the main issue in these accidents. Everyone involved in low altitude work
knows that there are multiple cues and what they are.

I saw an interesting program on Discovery, or maybe The Learning Channel,
a few days ago. It dealt with visual perception. One experiment/example
they used was showing a group of people (about 15 or 20) a film of people
practicing basketball. The group was told to try to count the number
of balls in use. At the end the group was asked if they had seen anything
unusual in the film. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the group raised their hands.
When they played back the film again it turned out the big majority had
just plain not seen a guy in a gorilla suit walk right through the scene.

Visual perception depends a lot on what we expect to see, so it is easy
to believe that a person could miss the visual cues until it was too late
if he was not expecting a problem.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.