|
A
comparison ... wartime skill at
instrument flying under stress versus a standard of skill at
instrument flying and navigation on instruments in gliders
(pieces combined from other writings brought together ... the
first section is from an article written so that those
unfamiliar with gliding would understand ... then there is a
section from the write-up - ‘This man’s War’...
and finally back to gliding)
First I need a rather
long introduction. I am going to illustrate with gliding. Many
people have the wrong idea about competitive or cross country
gliding, particularly at National and International level. To
fly a glider is easy. To get its best performance using the
air or atmosphere in which it flies I found more demanding
than any of the Air Force flying I did - but let us
exclude ops. Places I mention are in Australia.
Comparisons are said to
be odious but here goes. I feel the Air Force could have done
better.
I move to gliding but
some background first. Some countries e.g.. UK allow gliders
to fly in cloud. Australia does not. Some of us, particularly
ex WWII pilots were naughty and
we did. We
had primary instruments as a matter of course and at times
used rather unreliable disposal A\Hs. In Australia the then
Department of Civil Aviation
retained control of new models and accident
investigation but control of actual flying and training was
delegated to the Gliding Federation of Australia (and some
financial help was given).
We thus had a very peculiar and interesting
relationship with
the Departmental Examiners of Airmen (most of whom were ex-
WWII) . They controlled the airports we sometimes used but not
our flying training. They
knew we did at times cloud fly.
We knew they knew
and they knew we knew they knew. At times they flew with us as
a sort of ‘good relationships’ thing and at times we had a
sort of “in the bar” fellowship. In Queensland at least.
Once a year
there was a conference of about a dozen DCA officials
and a dozen Gliding officials chaired by the Director-General
of Civil Aviation where mutual problems etc. were discussed.
It was an extremely professional meeting. Australia had
been chosen to host the World Contest in 1974. We wanted cloud
flying for the contest so it was put to the D.G.
We asked for clearance to cloud fly for training
purposes, to
obtain International Awards, and for Cross Country and
Competition.
What followed next was
very interesting. Without a pause the D.G. said, ‘I can’t
see a problem with that.’ There was an immediate chorus of
objection from his Examiners.
‘Why?’ he asked.
The Examiners knew we did fly in cloud and obviously
could. ‘We don’t think they could navigate in cloud’
said one. Again without a pause the D.G. came back - ‘Very
well. The Gliding Federation will arrange a test to prove they
can and when they are ready I’ll make my examiners available
to make an assessment’.
What an interesting
situation! I landed the job. My Club made its aircraft and
facilities available and the test was planned. I had no
trouble getting half a dozen ‘guinea pigs’. I ensured they
had no power experience. Gliding experience varied from 60 to
500 hours. If I
can make a very subjective comparison this would compare with
Air Force training etc. of 100 to 800 hours.
This comparison may seem strange but I will not
elaborate. Deliberately chosen, one
had failed his Glider instructor training.
Eventually I will be
comparing the end result of RAF learning to fly IF with glider
pilots also learning IF. So
let me compare what is involved further. First, the aircraft.
I am talking about the performance glider, not the hang
glider or ultra light. Equipment now involved here could be
oxygen equipment, radio, (parachutes) survival
equipment, IF instrumentation was of course needed for the
test. The glider could fly and did fly in conditions that had
all light aircraft grounded.
The glider is easy to
‘pure fly’. The actual landing and touch down is easy
except for one thing - there can be no second try. There is no
cure for being too low on the approach. Roughly, the glider
has a built in glide of a three foot per second loss which
must be ‘counteracted’ by skill.
The power pilot (clear
air or IF) will
tend towards set speed straight and level flight, hopefully in
air with little turbulence. The glider pilot after performance
will not fly at a constant speed, not at a fixed height, not
on a fixed course. He will maintain his height or gain height
most often by circling in a thermal of upward moving air. Let
me illustrate with the extremes. 1. Calm dying day conditions
where he could circle for maybe fifteen minutes and gain
little height and slowly drift downwind to continually varying
his turn in ‘no sink’ to
stay up. 2. At the other extreme I have had a day where
I only bothered to take every third thermal - one turn and
centred on 1000 fpm lift. The best I’ve had was 2000 fpm, to
the other extreme where I have barked my shins in the
uplifting turbulence. So
for the test the pilots could expect moderate turbulence with
the need to vary their thermalling turns to stay centered. (Of
course Cu Clouds provide good but turbulent lift, but the
examiners, as we expected, when they came, said they had
strict instructions not to enter cloud. A normal ‘hood’
would be used.)
The cross country or
competition pilot often
does more detailed pilot navigation than his power
counterpart. He
must be much more ground conscious. The ground surface often
determines his lift areas and there is the possibility
(unlikely at times - likely at other times)
that he will land out. He needs a safe area and should
know where to walk to a phone and how to direct his retrieve
crew. Often he
will use a four mile to the inch survey may to get enough
detail. Usually it
will be stick-on plastic covered and
he will keep notes and make his marks with a chinograph
pencil. At a certain level of experience he will time his
climbs as these determine his optimum speed to fly. As a rough
guide, as he gains experience what he records will increase -
then drop off later as he develops his personal speed
techniques and gains experience. So keeping a running flight
plan on a map was pretty standard practice.
By the sixties the old
P4 compass had been replaced with compasses that did not have
the turning and acceleration errors - or almost so. The
primary instruments were standard. The AHs were battery driven
WWII disposals and often unreliable. One small help. Variation
over Eastern Australia is 11degrees E and this varied little
between Queensland and Victoria. It was possible to off-set
the compass so it reads true. Almost. But deviation was a
problem that had to be watched.
I now come to the
absolutely critical difference. I remember from my Air Force
training how everyone considered IF hard and unpleasant and
unpopular. Many glider pilots actually wanted to cloud fly as
a test of their skill as pilots, to gain the International
Performance Awards which were a measure of their skill, (and
in my club to try to beat that bloke Howland). They did know
climbs in Cu clouds could be almost terrifying. One
International Award required a gain in height of 5000 meters -
16404 feet and this was seldom possible in Australia in the
clear. So let us move on to the test that was devised.
Their basic instrument
training would of necessity involve a lot of turning flight.
It involved course keeping, recovery from spins and unusual
positions on primaries - all the usual IF training. They would
need a wind. Wind is important to cross country glider pilots.
There would be the official met report obtained by phone. Then
actual ground observation before the flight. If necessary a
check in the air. Drift over six minutes in a steady climb
would give an acceptable wind for mid cloud level air.
Observed cloud drift for, say, six minutes would give the wind
at base. The examiners, when they came, would of course
examine training methods and log books.
A test method was put to
the Department and accepted. Two examiners arrived. One had
glider experience. I converted the other - no problem with
pilots of examiner experience. They flew together to check the
hood. The test was to consist of about twenty flights half on
primary, half with AH. Each flight was to last 15-25 minutes
with two climbs and the associated straight flying. The pilots
were expected to decide on their wind before going under the
hood - to record what details on their map they wished during
the flight. At the end of the test they would be expected to
position themselves from their recorded information within one
minute. Of course for the test the examiner flew for that
minute while the testee stayed under the hood did his sums and
marked his position on his map. Of course this bore little
relation to real cloud navigation. It was simply a devised
test to check ability to navigate.
I kept out of the way at
this stage. I later learned the AH was playing up so they
asked the examiners if they could do all the tests on
primaries. I know
they didn’t realise what a shock this would have been to the
examiners. But it does say something for the attitude to IF.
Result?
Mean error over the full run was just under one
nautical mile. The examiners were amused when on one test the
testee applied his wind backwards. Everyone is human. But
seriously, I don’t think those tested realized how bloody
good they were. If such results can be obtained with a
group including a few who would probably not have made Air
Force standard - I SUGGEST THE AIR FORCE COULD HAVE DONE
BETTER. But let us now move to the Air Force. This extract
is in italics.
I’ll move now to a very serious aspect and assessment of wartime
flying and the pilots involved. At B.A.T. flight I continued
to play around with reduced instrument flying.
I tried a number of under the hood takeoffs with turn
and bank and either the ASI or the altimeter only. I needed to
have done one previous flight in the particular aircraft to
assess its individual ‘feel’ and of course I had as my
safety pilot a pupil who would in a week or so be an
instructor himself. I had
two reasons for doing this - one obviously was that I liked
doing it. The other was more serious. It was of course as
difficult a test as you could devise of instrument flying
ability.
As part of
the training I gave my pupils on beam flying, I did go
a little beyond the syllabus and give them a few minutes
flying on the old basic panel - that is, T&B , altimeter
and airspeed - the way they originally learned. As I expected
none had any real trouble. They shouldn’t have had trouble.
The chance often arose so that after they were settled on
primaries I would lead the aircraft into actual cloud, then
tell them - come out from under the hood now as we are
actually in cloud. This they did and I had two pupils who
within a minute completely lost control of the aircraft and
there it was heading earthwards. They could not recover
so I had to. That was a shocking situation. It could be
said that of all the hundreds of pilots I had found just two.
Yes, two out of maybe six I did this too. It is a potentially
frightening situation.
It can
reasonably be assumed that the instructor intake did not come
from the lower half of pilot ability. Where were most of the
other pilots of this experience? Slogging it out in that hell
over Germany at night. And they wouldn’t have a very
competent instructor beside them , in daylight, in a situation
where there was really nothing to worry about. There would be
the confusion of the blackness of night, the searchlights, the
night fighters, the anti-aircraft, the likely need for over
the limit evasive action, and the possibility of severe
aircraft damage. I have often wondered how many of our losses
were due to, simply, pilot inexperience and lack of ability.
One reason perhaps why the ‘better’ op jobs required the
experience of a non-op tour first.
Anyway,
what to do about the problem I felt I had uncovered? My
‘tests’ were completely unofficial and not part of the
regular schedule. There was no way I could fit in extra
instrument training. Anyway, that was not the problem. They
could fly on instruments. The fault in my view was obviously
lack of confidence in themselves or a sort of fear of real
tough I..F. The
best I felt I could do was to demonstrate it was possible to
go well beyond what they had been asked to do and for me to do
it as a fun sort of thing - under the hood takeoffs on reduced
primary as we took off for the normal exercises. The take off
was not part of the normal beam exercise. One small point
amused me. I allowed them to pick whether I had the ASI or the
altimeter. I felt if they were a bit worried they gave me the
ASI. If they wanted to test me they gave me the altimeter. I
don’t know whether any of this was a help but as I have
indicated I thoroughly enjoyed doing it.
There was one follow on.
The rotten dogs must have been talking about it in the mess.
One night the C.O. passed me and without pausing or
altering his expression he said as he went by, ‘I’ve heard
about you, Howland.” I took that to be “Permission to
carry on but be careful”
The way of good old Upavon.
But now back to gliding
...
What followed after the
test was both interesting and disappointing. The World body,
after bad experiences in the previous World Comps in Yugoslavia
ruled for no cloud flying in future contests. The Australian
mood also changed. Younger pilots reached National Admin level
and they tended not to favour Cloud Flying. The reason is not
hard to find. In
contrast some ‘young bloods’ argued for cloud flying to be
officially allowed in gliders with no DCA notification or
permission. Of course DCA would never agree to this. So those
of us who had the experience and the background to push cloud flying at top level backed off and the
matter disappeared into history.
Final comment ...
Times change. Interest
in cloud flying has not revived since I left the activity in
the seventies. But
- where I would hand in my sealed barograph and camera for
turning points they now hand in a sealed satellite navigation
box which goes into the scorer’s computer and start, finish,
turning points, score etc. are instantly available ... even a
print out of the route covered (with turns shown) is possible.
Progress continues.
|
