Hi All,

Thanks again for your support of this ever-growng aviation blog. By the 3rd of this month we had surpassed the total number of visitors to the blog in December and today we're set to eclipse January's numbers. A phenomenal effort by you all.

As a consequence, I have had a very diverse range of requests for future content; from military aviation to commercial airliners and general aviation commentary. However, a common underlying theme is to discuss certain aspects of learning to fly.

Whilst I have held a flight instructor rating for nearly 25 years, I do not hold myself up as any supreme authority; nor should any individual. We are always learning as long as we fly. However, as there have been so many requests that I will post some blogs on learning to fly with the disclaimer that nothing supercedes any manuals, regulations or the final word of your individual flight instructor or examiner.

These blogs will be a guide to the burgeoning pilot that hopefully provoke some thought as they venture down the aviation road. They will look at such things as the use of GPS, flying an approach and so on, but are neither definitive nor specific to any particular aircraft type. They are there to be read, considered and applied at your sole discretion.

I trust that these 'Practical Pilot' posts, like the others thus far, will continue to encourage our shared interest in aviation.

Cheers,

Owen

The view through the 'Head-Up Guidance System' (HGS) of the Boeing 737-800.

                                     Image by Steve Ruttley.

     Check back here for the upcoming 'Blog Post' on Head Up Displays.

Hi All, here's something a little different today.....

The De Havilland aircraft company had a fine tradition of civilian training and touring aircraft prior to the outbreak of World War Two. From Humming Birds and Hornet Moths to Dragons and Albatross, the British company produced a vast range of machines. At the upper end of the speed spectrum was the twin-engined monoplane, the DH88 Comet. Manufactured from wood, the Comet blew away the competition in the 1934 MacRobertson Air Race from the UK to Australia, though just as significantly, it planted the seed for a revolutionary military aeroplane. The DH 98 Mosquito.

The Mosquito was originally conceived as a high speed unarmed bomber. In 1940 with Great Britain facing its darkest hour and a shortage of resources, it needed aircraft and it needed them quickly. Though the Air Ministry had some reservations about the unarmed aspect of the design, it could not argue with de Havilland’s expertise in wooden aircraft production techniques. Additionally, the fact that its construction called for minimal amounts of treasured metal resources offered up a viable alternative.

After a series of changes in the aircraft’s perceived role, the original order was modified to a requirement for 20 bombers and 30 fighters. The prototype initially built in a hangar disguised as a barn at the home of de Havilland, Hatfield. It narrowly missed being destroyed during a successful Luftwaffe bombing raid on Hatfield that did spell the end of a number of materials and over twenty people. However, the Mosquito survived and undertook its maiden test flight in November of 1940 at the hands of Geoffrey de Havilland’s son of the same name. During the subsequent trials the Mosquito’s speed established it as the fastest combat aircraft on either side of the conflict; a title it held for the next two years.

Into the Fray.

The Mosquito’s first operational sorties were in the role of Photo Reconnaissance (PR) in August 1941, a task it was ideally suited to with its high speed. Early in 1942, the aircraft began to see service as fighters and bombers. The Mosquito had far exceeded the original specifications and through minor modifications was able to carry 500 pound bombs in place of the originally planned 250 pounders. The first bombing raid was a daylight strike on Cologne after a “1000 bomber” raid had taken place the previous evening.

The versatility of the Mosquito became apparent and aside from being a fighter, bomber and photo recon aircraft, it successfully served as successful night-fighter and even participated in the “Hunter/Killer’ pairing of Turbinlite operations. The Mosquito was also extensively used in the precision-navigation role of ‘Pathfinder’ where it would fly in advance of the main bomber force to mark the target with incendiary ordinance. BOAC (the forerunner to British Airways) even used civilian registered Mosquitoes during the war to run the gauntlet between Britain and neutral Sweden on a regular air service. There seemed very little that the Mosquito could not do.

Special Roles

In its time, the Mosquito was called upon to fill some rather niche roles that have gone down in folklore. Two of these were 618 Squadron’s use of the bouncing bomb ‘Highball’ and the breaching of prison walls in ‘Operation Jericho’.

While much has been written of Barnes Wallis’ bouncing bomb and the Dambusters raid on the Ruhr Dams, there was an alternate deployment of the bouncing bomb planned for use by the Mosquito. This version of the bomb was known as ‘Highball’ and while the Dambusters used a cylindrical style bomb, ‘Highball’ was far more spherical.  Also conducted under a great veil of secrecy, 618 Squadron was tasked with using the bomb in an anti-shipping role with its number one priority the sinking of the German battleship the Tirpitz. Unfortunately, despite all of the effort and training, 618 Squadron never had a shot at the Tirpitz and eventually the squadron was deployed elsewhere.

A task for the Mosquito that did see notable fruition was ‘Operation Jericho’. Conceived in 1943, this mission involved an attack on the Amiens Prison in France which was holding amongst others, numerous members of the French Resistance who were scheduled to be executed. The daring low level attack took place on the 18th February 1944 and included squadrons from the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF. Its plan was to destroy the prison walls to facilitate the escape of the inmates, with an alternate plan of destroying the prison outright should this fail. It did not, and while there was loss of life, hundreds of prisoners were able to escape.

The Numbers

To quote specifications for the Mosquito is akin to comparing racehorses; there are so many types and so many variables.

In essence, the Mosquito was a twin-engined combat aircraft of primarily wooden construction. It was operated by two crew, including the pilot, and whether the second crewman was a navigator, bomb aimer or radar operator was dependent upon its designated role.

Powered by two Rolls Royce Merlin engines, it could carry nearly two tonnes of bombs deep into the heart of Germany. As a fighter it could carry 4 × 20 mm Hispano cannons in the fuselage and 4 × 7.7 mm (.303) Browning machine guns in the nose. Some photo reconnaissance versions had a service ceiling of 40,000 feet and a number of marques had a top speed in excess of 400 mph.

Ultimately, nearly 8,000 Mosquitoes were built and of these around 6,700 were delivered in wartime. As an aircraft it was not purely versatile, it was truly prolific as well.

The End.

As with all types, a number of Mosquitoes met ignominious ends on scrap heaps at the end of the war. However, several models survived and the Mosquito production line remained open until 1950. They saw service with air forces around the world and saw action with the Israeli Air Force during the Suez Crisis. A less adventurous tasking involved duty as target tugs while others took to the seas as a carrier-borne variant sporting folding wings.

To the very end, the Mosquito continued to fill roles that no other aircraft could. The model continued onto the Mk. 43 which was a trainer with the RAAF, but there were so many variants and marques before the final propeller stopped.

I had the pleasure to be interviewing a ‘Battle of Britain’ veteran who in 1942 received a new posting to a Mosquito squadron with some trepidation. He had heard very little of the new type other than the fact it was wooden and therefore seemingly a backward step in fighter technology.

He went on to fly the Mosquito more than any other aircraft and commanded a Mosquito squadron post war. He never lost his affection for the ‘Mossie’ he grew to love and sixty years later still had a twinkle in his eye when remembering de Havilland’s “Wooden Wonder”.

Overhead Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport.

Hi All,

As the numbers continue to soar on this blog and a new group of readers join us, I thought it would be worthwhile to re-visit five of the most popular aviation blogs thus far. Here they are.

1. Golden Days.

2. So You Want to be a Pilot?

3. The Fatal Stall.

4. A Glimpse of the 'Red Tails'.

5. The Big Bang Theory.......of aircraft engines.

For those of you new to this aviation blog, welcome aboard! And for those that are continuing to come back, thanks for your support and please enjoy the growing list of original content.

Cheers

Owen

We in the aviation world are actually a little further ahead of the game. We don’t give ourselves enough credit, but while corporate entities strive to maintain a level of secrecy, aviation seeks to share its shortcomings. The dissemination of safety findings on a global scale in an effort to circumvent repeat occurrences is one of our industries greatest achievements. When faults are found with aircraft, or the way in which we may operate them, that information is freely broadcast. It is a level of operational maturity that has not been achieved overnight, but it is a work in progress we can all be proud of.

Air safety investigation has come a long way over the decades. Rather than simply attributing every smoking wreck to “pilot error”, our knowledge based has broadened to delve deeper. We recognise that the finality of an accident is the result of numerous factors slipping through the net before ultimately combining in a lethal cocktail. The pilot is the final line of defence and sometimes he is just not enough. Sure, there are still instances of rogue pilots blatantly contravening every rule of good sense, but fortunately they are in the vast minority.

From ICAO and the national regulators of aviation down to individual operators, the pursuit of safety is an ever developing challenge. At its very core, success lies in open, honest reporting. Everyone has the ability to observe and speak up and in its most basic form; this is one of the places where safety begins. It may be wrapped grandly in a formal reporting system, or bound in the pages of an official accident report, but fundamentally it is about being honest. Whether it involves reporting potential safety issues or dissecting a tragedy in hindsight, there is no room for cover-ups or misplaced silence. Well chosen words may save lives.

But the road is not paved with gold just yet. There are still companies and cultures that do not encourage ‘speaking up’; whether on the flight deck or on a written form. In these environments, the benefits of safety have still yet to take full hold. Only when aviation professionals feel comfortable reporting mistakes and transmitting ideas can the group work together to minimise risks. Generally referred to as a “Just Culture”, it is an environment that encourages open communication without fear of reprisal.

So what does that mean to a lone pilot sitting in his Beechcraft Baron on a dark, wet threshold about to open the throttles?

It means that you are not alone. Somewhere before, a pilot has executed the same manoeuvre and contributed to the pool of knowledge that better prepares the next pilot. On such a dark wet night there are many dangers lurking. Sensory illusions due to acceleration trick the mind and only the instruments can be trusted. What if an engine should fail? Am I able to return to land or is there an escape path? Nearly every scenario that can be conjured has happened before and whether it culminated in a fatal crash or a moment of cold sweat, there is a lesson to be learned. The facts may be discovered by sifting through the wreckage or analysing a flight data recorder. Happily, they may also be found through self-reporting by a sensible, living, breathing pilot.

By whichever means the facts should surface, pilots should grab them with both hands. Aviation is an ongoing process of education and this is never more applicable than when we have the opportunity to read or the near misses and misfortunes of others. To the outsider this may appear ghoulish, but to those in the field it is cherished knowledge. Often sobering, these tales of misadventure fill the accident report sections of journals across the world.

It is equally important that we remain impartial as we digest the cold, hard facts. For in the safety of our armchairs it is impossible to recreate the mindset of another, or to feel the pressures and distractions that may have led to some terrible omission or oversight. It is not our place to judge with the benefit of hindsight, rather we should glean every ounce of knowledge that can be stored away for use on our own dark, wet night. Often, the pilot will have paid the ultimate price for a perfectly human error and there is nothing to be gained from slurring the reputation of another. In fact, such talk infers a sense of superiority and a belief that the mistake was merely simple and stupid. Beware! There is no room for such complacency in aviation.

I once watched a filmed re-enactment of the final approach of an ill-fated airliner. As the final stages of the approach became more hurried and communication more confused, error after error began to surface with increasing frequency. But rather than sitting in judgement, the hair rose on the back of my neck and a doomed sense of empathy with the crew stirred in my guts. I sat in air-conditioned comfort, knowing the final outcome of this approach, but I equally recognised the conditions that had placed this aircraft and all onboard in harm’s way. I could see the lurking demons of weather, systems failures, commercial pressure and fatigue stalking the hapless crew and I wanted to warn them from my comfortable chair. But it was all to no avail.

Far from sitting in judgement, I tried to take something from the tragic outcome that would improve my own operational performance. And so should we all when presented with safety information or the findings of an accident report. As with 'The Fatal Stall', from time to time this blog will re-visit a range of aircraft accident and incidents in an attempt to enhance the safeguards in our own flying. There will be no judgement placed on those who have ‘stared down the barrel’ in the accidents we review, rather we will endeavour to draw some positives from an otherwise unfortunate outcome. Nor will there be any sense of complacency, for there but for the grace of God, go I.

 Chris Sperou doing what he does best.

Hi All,

The first full month at of this blog has come and gone.

When I launched the new website in December, I was venturing into the unknown. A little fish in a very big pond, I wasn't sure if anyone would actually find the website and blog. With so many commercial websites out there with online strategies and advertising, I accepted that I may just be a voice in the wilderness. You have all proven this to be very wrong. 

Over the last few weeks the response to the blog has been exceptional. I have made over 50 posts since its inception, but already there have been more than 5,000 unique visitors and well over 10,000 page views! Equally significant has been the messages, comments and subscriptions to the website that have been flooding in. Very kind words and worthwhile feedback; please keep it coming!

For it is my desire to share this wonderful world of aviation that drives me to put in the effort, but it is your interest that will ultimately determine the future of the blog. The fact that so many people are reading the articles inspires me to keep going and I thank you all for that.

So, with the first full month behind me and the future ahead, I maintain committed to producing more original content on a broad spectrum of aviation topics. So please continue to come back and visit, follow me on Facebook and Twitter and let me know what you think. This has been a big first step, but I can't wait for the rest of the journey.

Thank you.

Owen

Being Prepared.

As with all emergencies, sound training before the event is vital. In the case of ditching, the training provided varies widely between operators. Often the degree of overwater operations will be a determining factor in the level of training provided. Whilst ditching training may be a core component of emergency training to off-shore helicopter operators, the same may not be true for those flying inland scenic flights.

It will always be impossible to train for absolutely every contingency in every emergency situation. Whilst budgets and time constraints may play a part, the varying scenarios of each emergency offer much too broad a spectrum to cover. Not to mention those events that our imaginations are still yet to conjure. As such, all emergency training is designed around regulatory requirements, training budgets and probability.

Airline training departments and aviation authorities design their syllabus to a background of risk management to assure that as wide a spectrum of non-normal situations as possible is covered. In turn, beyond the initial training, a recurrent program will provide ongoing training for the entire career of both flight and cabin crew.

The focus of training is linked to a factor of likelihood and by all accounts ditching falls into the ‘remote’ category for multi-engine jet transport operations. This is not purely a function aircraft engines’ ever-improving reliability or their safety in numbers. The regulations for over water operations are stringent and seek to ensure that the aircraft can at all times divert to an alternative airfield in the event of a critical systems failure.

Even so, it is a case of double jeopardy to lose ALL available engines and be forced to land on the water. The Hudson River case also proves that the aircraft doesn’t need to be over the middle of the Pacific Ocean to end up floating.

To this end, ditching training at airlines falls into a category of its own. The process of ditching is discussed at length in the manuals and crew training in emergency equipment, life rafts, evacuations and subsequent survival is ‘hands on’. Crews are scrutinised on these skills annually by both theoretical and practical examination. A failure to meet the regulatory body’s set standards results in the crew member receiving further training before they are allowed to return to line flying.

Yet in this stringent training environment, the training of pilots to fly the actual ditching manoeuvre in the simulator is not a mandated exercise by the FAA (US), UK CAA or CASA. That is not to say that individual operators do not include it in their syllabus of training, or that flight crews have not taken it upon themselves to rehearse for the eventuality during simulator training sessions. Simply, to date it has not been regulated. This may well stem from the risk assessment of the probability of ditching when compared to the incidence of other emergencies such as engine failure or depressurisation.

In a similar way, the thought of losing all four engines and their associated systems on a Boeing 747 was previously thought to be virtually impossible. Then in 1982, British Airways Flight 9 encountered volcanic ash over Indonesia with the subsequent loss of thrust on all engines. Again, the crew performed admirably in a situation beyond the scope of their training and manuals to ‘adapt, improvise and overcome’. Subsequently, the books were re-written, simulator training was updated and checklists modified. Today, pilot education of volcanic ash and its effects is routine.

This may well prove the case with ditching as well. Simulator exercises ‘reverse engineer’ the data from such incidents and use the lessons learnt to train pilots. With the data generated from US Airways Flight 1549, it is quite possible that a change in the training requirements in this area will be forthcoming.

Getting Out.

So many factors came in to play in the case of the Hudson River ditching, not the least of these being an experienced and well trained crew on both sides of the flight deck door. The two pilots had over 35,000 hours experience between them, while the three flight attendants had a total cumulative service in excess of 80 years!

For a successful outcome, the entire crew had to perform their designated roles to the best of their ability and, seemingly in this instance, at a level above. This was critical, not just in executing a successful ditching, but in safely evacuating 150 passengers.

Evacuations are generally described as prepared or unprepared, depending on whether the crew has had enough time to ready the cabin, its contents and passengers for the evacuation. It is also an opportunity to call for the donning of life jackets. The flight attendants would have had some advanced warning on Flight 1549, but it would have been minimal. Fortunately, as the aircraft had just lifted off, the catering carts and crew may well have still been secured away.

On coming to rest, the cabin crew is now faced with assessing the available exits, launching the rafts or slide rafts and evacuating the passengers with a minimum of time and panic. It is a fine balance to maintain order in the cabin while they undertake their duties and voicing loud, concise commands are central to organising the potential chaos. These are the very scenarios and drills that cabin crew train for year after year throughout their career.

A water landing presents the additional challenge of available exits. Notwithstanding fire, damage and extreme aircraft attitudes, in a land evacuation most exits are generally available. This is not necessarily the case when the aircraft is afloat. The attitude with which an aircraft settles on the water may preclude the use of certain exits, particularly the rear doors if the aircraft sits tail low and the door sill lies below the water line.

To further aid in keeping the hull watertight, the A320 also has a “Ditching Pushbutton” on the overhead panel. When activated, the guarded switch automatically closes valves and inlet doors which will lie below the water line.

The A320 is certified so that all doors and overwing exits can be used in a ditching and accordingly are equipped with escape slides. Despite this certification, it is a primary task of the crew that the viability of the exit is assessed before opening the door, as a door below the water line will allow the water to come flooding in and further impede the stricken aircraft struggling for buoyancy. Preventing over-zealous passengers from cracking these doors open in haste is yet another duty for the crew.

Opening the door will result in differing scenarios based on the aircraft type. For some aircraft, the escape slides double as life rafts, while others call for the crew to manually launch rafts that are stowed elsewhere in the cabin. Similarly, distress beacons can be integral to the rafts, or launched independently.  The evacuation is only started at an exit when these rafts are inflated and ready to accept passengers. It is also imperative that the life jackets are only inflated when clear of the aircraft. Another tragedy associated with the Ethiopian Airlines 767 ditching was the death of passengers within the aircraft having survived the impact. With their jackets already inflated, they floated to the aircraft ceiling and were unable to escape via an exit.

With doors open and the slides or rafts inflated, the passengers are shepherded towards the exits in a speedy manner to clear the aircraft before it can submerge. The crew will check the cabin again to ensure that all of the passengers have evacuated before being the last to exit. Once clear, survival and rescue become the next priorities. Again, the crew have been trained for contingencies varying from desert survival and dehydration to arctic hypothermia. The crew of Flight 1549 fortunately ditched close to land with a readily available flotilla to ferry the passengers to safety. Facing any significant time in the sub-zero waters may well have resulted in a different outcome.

It is said that cabin crew are there to provide the passengers with life saving assistance in an emergency. When the emergencies are not taking place, they are available to provide cabin service. This is not only a truism, but a very healthy mindset for all those involved with air transport. The crew of Flight 1549 and their wealth of experience emphasised the critical role to be played by those in the cabin in case of emergency.

In the Wake.

Being confronted with a multiple engine failure is the dread of any flight crew. To be further confronted with ditching the aircraft with only minutes to react is the stuff of worst case scenarios.

Yet events such as US Airways 1549 and the British Airways 747 left powerless by volcanic ash have proven that ‘worst case’ can on occasions become reality. The investigators will seek out the facts, volumes will be written and procedures modified. As proactive as aviation safety endeavours to be, sometimes  lessons have to be learnt from experience. Undoubtedly this will be the case again in the wake of the Hudson River ditching.

Fortunately, landing a jet transport aircraft on water is a rare event. Despite the mass of variables that can confront a crew and the time constraints that may be imposed by fate, training, experience and measured, appropriate responses can make the seemingly impossible survivable. It is a credit to the entire US Airways crew that all of the passengers went home to their families.

Safety briefing cards in the seat pockets and preflight presentations are provided with the hope that the actions contained therein are never required. In the same way flight and cabin crew train for most conceivable eventualities year after year, crossing their fingers that simulations are as close as they get. Yet time and again when the unthinkable has occurred, training has kicked in and the crew prove that they are up to the task.

The ability for a crew to ably fulfill their roles when confronted with an emergency is a function of both thorough training and the correct mindset under pressure. The landing of US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River is testimony to this. These are invisible intangibles to the passengers as they board yet another routine flight, yet are possibly the most valuable component of the ticket price.

Should the unthinkable occur and their aircraft is faced with ditching, it will be this training, preparation and mindset that dictates whether they sink or swim.

Title Image. edp24.co.uk

Hi All,

Thanks again for the huge support of my new aviation blog.

I encourage you to follow me on Facebook for the latest updates by simply clicking on the Facebook 'F' icon at the top of this page. That will lead you to my Facebook page titled "Owen Zupp. Author". Then simply click on the 'Like' button.

And for those already following the blog and Facebook page, please feel free to spread the word. Stay tuned for more new upcoming content.

Cheers

Owen