Random writing mostly related to the history and interpretation of the history of aviation. Sometimes extra to published articles, sometimes responses to other sources.
An image of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's Lancaster crew taken by Paul B shows the flight engineer and navigator working (closer to the camera) with the two pilots above and ahead.
Two things. Firstly the Flight's Lancaster isn't configured as the W.W.II Lancasters were - the wartime examples flew as one pilot (on the left) and with a flight engineer on the right on a not-permanently-fitted jump seat, and with the navigator further aft in a screened off compartment.
Secondly I was immediately reminded of a wartime painting: "Take Off: Interior of a Bomber Aircraft" by Dame Laura Knight, official war artist.
Because of the Flight's reconfiguration of the cockpit area for modern use, there's a remarkable similarity to the crew in Knight's painting - even though the crew in that are aboard the (now-extinct) Short Stirling heavy bomber, the only one of the RAF's three heavies two have a two pilot cockpit. It is interesting how, though different, the crew's positions echo their counterpart's. (For accuracy - in Knight's painting the nearest figure is actually the radio operator, not the flight engineer as in the Flight's image.)
Lancaster from the BBMF's Facebook page here. Details of Knight's painting in the IWM collection here.
The axiom 'if it looks right it'll fly right' has more than enough exceptions to ensure it shouldn't be taken seriously. Most obvious examples are ugly, highly successful aircraft (it's often forgotten that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II was initially regarded as so ungainly it was said to have been 'delivered upside down') but there's also a dishonourable list of beautiful failures.
A good pair would be the British Bristol 188 (above) and the American Douglas X-3 Stiletto (below).
Both experimental aircraft from the golden age of probing the supersonic possibilities, both essentially failures - to be fair, both more to do with inadequate engines than airframe issues, but it has to be said their concepts were ultimately found to be unviable. Another connection is that both featured exotic metals in their primary construction. Stainless steel in the Bristol and Titanium in the Douglas, and both providing major headaches for their manufacture.
On the 11 September, 2013, at 7:24 pm, just at dusk, the Bristol
Military Biplane Boxkite replica VH-XKT flew for the first time.
Three years ago tonight.
The first flight in 2013.
Built by Project 2014, Group Captain Ron Gretton, AM, OAM, and Wing Commander Geoff Matthews, OAM, both RAAF Retired, for the RAAF Museum, this proved the aircraft worked, and it was to go on to be flown on
both days of the 2014 Centenary of Military Aviation Airshow at RAAF
Point Cook on the 1st and 2nd of March 2014.
Sadly the aircraft is currently grounded, but it did what it was designed to do.
An RAAF
Museum Archives image of one of the original Australian Army Boxkites at
RAAF Point Cook, circa 1914-15.
1. Often called 'The Miracle on the Hudson', it wasn't a 'miracle'. It was training, developed procedures, design. Behind that came experience, skill and lastly, luck - first bad, then good.
2. The successful forced landing on water wasn't one pilot's achievement, but the achievement of an aircraft crew, both cockpit and cabin crew, and those that trained them, those that legislated to ensure they had the tools training and experience to do an exceptional job. (Humans seem to need solo heroes. Don't forget those that give heroes the tools and backup.)
There's something called Cockpit (sometimes Crew) Resource Management. Worth a look, it's about teamwork and can apply in any team. It has not been about 'one pilot in charge in an airliner' for decades now. For instance, see: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Crew_Resource_Management
3. 'They' weren't out to 'Sully' him. The (US') National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) portrayal in the film (and in the trailer, above) is a fictionalised film device to have an adversary and dramatic tension. There are a lot of questions, checking and paperwork after an airliner crash. Their job is not to blame or pillory the pilot or crew, but to gather data for future accident prevention.
It's the media where the pillorying occurs. (Captain Sullenberger believes it was, the NTSB weren't asked to be involved in the film making.) Unsurprisingly, there's been negative views from ex-NTSB members on this film. Whether that's fair or not the NTSB and their peers in Australia, Canada, the UK, Europe, New Zealand and so on are a key element that goes to make airlines flying as safe as it is for us. Enjoy the film, but remember: "Allyn Stewart, one of the film’s producers, told the New York Times that the film is not meant to be a documentary." Indeed.
[I generally don't touch modern airliner activities, but this accident is unarguably a part of aviation history, and too important to leave to a no-doubt gripping entertainment by 'Hanks'. Oh, sorry, actually a large team making a film.]
James Kightly ('JDK') is a professional writer and journalist covering vintage aviation. For James' professional and contact details see James' home page. For James' aviation writing blog, see Vintage Aeroplane Writer. To contact James by e-mail see Contact!
Posts
