Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:52 pm
warbird1 wrote: Again, I question the PIC's judgement and decision making abillities.
The context of the whole original programme makes that a bit clearer. Even in the section shown on You Tube it's shown that they were short of pilots, two(?) having walked off the job the night before, thus ending up using one guy who'd not flown a B-25 since W.W.II. As ever, assessing the whole of the data can explain (if not excuse) the story.
Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:15 pm
Geee ! 
I thought I was watching Catch-22 !!!
Strange taxi procedure, to say the least...
I thought I was watching Catch-22 !!!
Strange taxi procedure, to say the least...
Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Michel C-GNCJ wrote:I thought I was watching Catch-22 !!!
Yeah, it's kind of like Catch 22, except the story's real.
Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:49 pm
I dont find it odd at all. In my career, I have given just a bit over 4200 hrs. of instruction in many types of aircraft to include the 25, 17, PBY, etc. and sometimes training transpires when people would least realize it.
And, I have received instruction in locales where most people wouldnt expect that to be occurring.
When one is comfortable and confident in type, with broad experience, an instructor will let the student go to the edge of that instructors comfort level before intervention.
Could there be a yobo at the yoke? We dont know. The narrator does mention that an exiting pilot has been replaced by someone who hasnt flown since WWII and he's in plane two. If so, that is bizarre.
Based on what we percieve we make assumptions. Dependant upon on our experiences our perceptions will differ.
One must keep in mind that a short clip is being viewed (editing?) and is enhanced by a narrator who may or may not know what he is talking about. You may not be seeing or hearing what actually transpired following the abort. It does appear that the 3rd airplane eases over to his right after lift-off after the aborting 25 veers left. Then, the film appears to be edited as we see the 25 re-emerge screen left for a back taxi.
But, clearly the airplanes waiting for departure in sequence, can see the departure end of the runway and the returning back-taxiing airplane.
The 25 requires judicious use of both throttle and rudder to preserve directional control. To a lesser extent aileron depeding on wind direction and velocity. My opinion is that the flying pilot was experiencing directional control problems.
I find it more interesting that rotation was not initiated at any point depicted in the clip as I recall after one quick viewing. Typically, the nosewheel is floated at about 85/90 (soft field technique) poising the wing at an alpha that will provide lift-off at 120.
Directional control was such a pre-occupation at this point that rotation was omitted probably due to inattention to airspeed. All this being said....maybe the seat slid back with departure power applied. There could be a multitude of reasons why that control issue happened, to include a lack of proficiency.
And, I have received instruction in locales where most people wouldnt expect that to be occurring.
When one is comfortable and confident in type, with broad experience, an instructor will let the student go to the edge of that instructors comfort level before intervention.
Could there be a yobo at the yoke? We dont know. The narrator does mention that an exiting pilot has been replaced by someone who hasnt flown since WWII and he's in plane two. If so, that is bizarre.
Based on what we percieve we make assumptions. Dependant upon on our experiences our perceptions will differ.
One must keep in mind that a short clip is being viewed (editing?) and is enhanced by a narrator who may or may not know what he is talking about. You may not be seeing or hearing what actually transpired following the abort. It does appear that the 3rd airplane eases over to his right after lift-off after the aborting 25 veers left. Then, the film appears to be edited as we see the 25 re-emerge screen left for a back taxi.
But, clearly the airplanes waiting for departure in sequence, can see the departure end of the runway and the returning back-taxiing airplane.
The 25 requires judicious use of both throttle and rudder to preserve directional control. To a lesser extent aileron depeding on wind direction and velocity. My opinion is that the flying pilot was experiencing directional control problems.
I find it more interesting that rotation was not initiated at any point depicted in the clip as I recall after one quick viewing. Typically, the nosewheel is floated at about 85/90 (soft field technique) poising the wing at an alpha that will provide lift-off at 120.
Directional control was such a pre-occupation at this point that rotation was omitted probably due to inattention to airspeed. All this being said....maybe the seat slid back with departure power applied. There could be a multitude of reasons why that control issue happened, to include a lack of proficiency.
Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:05 am
B25PBYGUY wrote:One must keep in mind that a short clip is being viewed (editing?) and is enhanced by a narrator who may or may not know what he is talking about.
The person telling what happened (not the main narrator) as a voice over is Jeff Hawke. (He's the leader, and had a huge number of hours on warbirds as well as having flown the camera B-25 for the Battle of Britain film - among many others.) IIRC the narrator isn't an expert, but did fly with the crew across the Atlantic.
This was not a conventional civil operation.
The full ripped-off documentary in 5 parts.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0Me81QS-AGY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jOB1o-AwMII
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RNNr0uDjJ ... re=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m4AalxrEgO4&NR=1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2rhAXn4MU
Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:41 am
At first I thought "wicked crosswind" as we can see one of the 25s clearly crab into the wind soon after rotation.
But that was my taidragger experience talking... Taildraggers weathervane into the wind if rudders and ailerons are not used properly. Tricycle geared aircraft such as the B25 should simply deviate with the wind, so it could not be it. I know just about nothing about the peculiarities of the B-25, so I'll leave conclusions to others...
The other thing that made me jump was the comment that one of the aircraft was piloted by a WWII veteran that had not flown a B-25 since the war... Gee, I felt rusty flying my little 140 after only 6 months last spring !!! I would think any half concious pilot who has not flown a type for so long would simply pass unless a current pilot is sitting in the right seat. Talk about being "rusty" !!!! Could it be him at the controls of the errant one ?
I too would be preoccupied enough by directional control to forget about rotating !
The scared voice of the lady begging for the cameraman to run away was interesting too...
As for "maybe the seat slid back with departure power applied..." I'd say YEAH that would shift one's attention big time !!! And explain the rapid second take-off. Interresting point.
That was one whacky take-off attempt for sure...
But that was my taidragger experience talking... Taildraggers weathervane into the wind if rudders and ailerons are not used properly. Tricycle geared aircraft such as the B25 should simply deviate with the wind, so it could not be it. I know just about nothing about the peculiarities of the B-25, so I'll leave conclusions to others...
The other thing that made me jump was the comment that one of the aircraft was piloted by a WWII veteran that had not flown a B-25 since the war...
Gee, I felt rusty flying my little 140 after only 6 months last spring !!! I would think any half concious pilot who has not flown a type for so long would simply pass unless a current pilot is sitting in the right seat. Talk about being "rusty" !!!! Could it be him at the controls of the errant one ?
I too would be preoccupied enough by directional control to forget about rotating !
The scared voice of the lady begging for the cameraman to run away was interesting too...
As for "maybe the seat slid back with departure power applied..." I'd say YEAH that would shift one's attention big time !!! And explain the rapid second take-off. Interresting point.
That was one whacky take-off attempt for sure...
????
Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:12 am
it's shown that they were short of pilots, two(?) having walked off the job the night before,
They seem to have been the smartest of the lot
