Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Holden's Lightning Flight

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#21

Post by rkagerer »

Waterluvian wrote: post #2

> According to Holden, in a review before Air Marshal Kenneth Porter, he was asked whether he agreed that "With the limited flying experience I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot", which he answered in the affirmative, following which Porter related some of his own unfortunate flying incidents. I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t und…

I appreciate the fact they were able to acknowledge the mistake and get over it.

It was a ballsy move, done with the best of intentions, could have been fine, but near-catastrophically wasn't. Lesson was obviously learned, and both the shortcomings in judgement and in the regs were addressed. I'm glad they let the guy go back to work. It's not like he exhibited a pattern of recklessness. I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#23

Post by zelos »

js2 wrote: post #12
red369 wrote: post #7

Love this story. There is something interesting that nags at me though. - There's a test pilot on staff at the base, but they're not qualified for the Lightning. - There's a test that needs doing, which doesn't require a test pilot (unless something goes wrong). - There's no qualified test pilot available for the test, so Holden decides to run the test with someone who knows how to move the plane down the runway, but…

If I've read the original account correctly, there was no longer a test pilot on staff at the base at the time of the incident: "In my service, one of my postings took me to 33MU Lyneham where as the CO of a civilian manned aircraft storage unit, I had Canberra, Meteor and Lighting types, which were gradually being prepared for dispatch to various flying unit tasks. When the Meteor and Canberra types had been cleared…

This paragraph from near the end of that article gives the incident a different feeling:

Some years after the incident, my hidden fears of high speed flight came to the surface and I had to spend two periods in hospital. I had not come to terms with the emotional side of the event

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#25

Post by t43562 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #2

> According to Holden, in a review before Air Marshal Kenneth Porter, he was asked whether he agreed that "With the limited flying experience I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot", which he answered in the affirmative, following which Porter related some of his own unfortunate flying incidents. I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t und…

He is establishing the acceptance of blame.

1. People who don't admit fault are refusing to learn any lesson and that's dangerous. It's the strategy that populist politicians use because someone percentage of people judge you on the confidence of your denial more than on the facts.

2. It's especially convenient if he admits fault because then the blame for people higher up is greatly reduced and the overall fallout from the incident is less. The event could have made the RAF look bad.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#26

Post by TeMPOraL »

rkagerer wrote: post #21
Waterluvian wrote: post #2

> According to Holden, in a review before Air Marshal Kenneth Porter, he was asked whether he agreed that "With the limited flying experience I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot", which he answered in the affirmative, following which Porter related some of his own unfortunate flying incidents. I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t und…

I appreciate the fact they were able to acknowledge the mistake and get over it. It was a ballsy move, done with the best of intentions, could have been fine, but near-catastrophically wasn't. Lesson was obviously learned, and both the shortcomings in judgement and in the regs were addressed. I'm glad they let the guy go back to work. It's not like he exhibited a pattern of recklessness. I feel like these days, it's…

> I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)

Who knows, maybe one day we'll find tales of heroism and bravery extend to cover personal integrity against bureaucratic process? It would be a good thing to happen now, in fact, to motivate the current and next generation of people to do the right thing in the world they live in.

EDIT: I suppose the very thing we're discussing is one of such stories.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#27

Post by marsx-dev »

chasil wrote: post #5

The de Havilland Comet (involved in this event) also has a famously dark history as the first passenger jet. This status was short-lived when square windows popped out of their frames at high altitude when the cabin was pressurized. The line had a much longer service life hauling freight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

[dead]

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#28

Post by t43562 »

If you're not a fan you might not know that the Lightning had tremendous performance for its time and long after that time too.

It could climb to 36000ft (11km) in less than 3 minutes. It could pull up off the runway straight into a vertical climb although this wasn't optimal. Apparently it could intercept at 65000ft and this was tested against the U2. It could go supersonic without afterburners in level flight.

All of this gave it relatively short range but it suited its purpose.

It apparently had very good handling but it was full of complicated systems and very powerful so therefore would be a scary thing to have an unexpected flight in.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#29

Post by Steve44 »

t43562 wrote: post #28

If you're not a fan you might not know that the Lightning had tremendous performance for its time and long after that time too. It could climb to 36000ft (11km) in less than 3 minutes. It could pull up off the runway straight into a vertical climb although this wasn't optimal. Apparently it could intercept at 65000ft and this was tested against the U2. It could go supersonic without afterburners in level flight. All…

> Apparently it could intercept at 65000ft

Reportedly it intercepted a USAF RB-57F[1] at 80,000ft and also did a zoom climb to just under 88,000ft.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/raf-lightning-pilot-recalls-...

[1] A reconnaissance aircraft based on the English Electric Canberra. NASA still flies a couple of them for high altitude research.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#30

Post by Steve44 »

monkpit wrote: post #17

> Holden ran down the runway, narrowly missing a crossing fuel bowser TIL Bowser is an actual word, huh.

Common word in the UK. Basically a tanker is for transporting, a bowser also dispenses. It's usually fuel but can be any liquid, such as water.
Post reply on HN