Live data from Hacker News

Holden's Lightning Flight

en.wikipedia.org

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#41

> 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…

Oh, I took this as a bowdlerized version of the actual conversation, which I might be willing to pay to have a copy of if I am right?

"Commander Holden, for posterity, with your limited air time, am I right in suspecting the testing of this experimental aircraft would have been better left to a more experienced pilot?"

"Sir, fookin' 'ell yes sir. And tell 'im what does to pack a second set o' britches."

(Apologies, my knowledge of the British language is limited entirely to Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins)

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#42
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For fuel and other liquids? Its used in Sri Lanka but specifically for water. Sri Lankan's and Australians also both confuse monitor lizards with iguanas, although Australians have at least created a new word as a result.

Yes, exactly that. Most popular for used in a petrol station situation. What new Australian word are your referring to?

Goana, which is corruption of iguana. Same mistake historically, but its a different word now so feels less wrong.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#43

That makes the decision seem even stranger. If there really wasn't a qualified Lightning test pilot available, I wonder whether the pressure to get the aircraft moved quickly was the main reason they took the risk. It would be interesting to know what the expected downside of waiting 24–36 hours actually was.

I don't know that it was that deep, to be honest. "Here, you're the electrics guy, go and see if you can reproduce the fault you get when you run that thing up to taxi"

Yeah, the story reads to me less as if it was time pressure and more like they underestimated the risk.

"What could go wrong" etc etc

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#44

That makes the decision seem even stranger. If there really wasn't a qualified Lightning test pilot available, I wonder whether the pressure to get the aircraft moved quickly was the main reason they took the risk. It would be interesting to know what the expected downside of waiting 24–36 hours actually was.

I suspect it was just wanting to get the job done. The difference between this amazing story, and absolutely nothing happening was a fraction of an inch.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#45

> 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 (as someone British and from an Army family) read that as - "You know you screwed up right? Please reassure me you know that and won't do anything like it again". Followed by an admission that we all screw up sometimes (implied by the stories).

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#46
It is probably worth noting it is not unusual to have people who are not pilots move aircraft.

For example in the US FAA regulations only require a pilot during flight time. Flight time includes self-powered ground movement if it is for the purpose of flight. If it is self-powered ground movement for some other purpose no pilot is required.

Non-pilot mechanics often move aircraft. Their employers typically mandate specific training for this and only allow people who have had that training or are pilots to move planes.

Insurance companies also might impose restrictions, typically only allowing pilots or mechanics with plane moving training.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#47
Having 17y of experience flying military (subsonic) jets and being test acceptance pilot for a few years as well, I feel I can share my perspective on this extraordinary event:

First I was just wow!

Then I read the PDF from 2013 blog and little bit of relief came from knowing that he was qualified pilot too.

But there is a big but! Before that, he flew dramatically different, slower only propeller planes, no jet, no supersonic jet. I can imagine that it kinda might be smth like having driving licence, but being put into an F1 car and asked to handle it properly in order to follow the track in highspeed, but in 3D.

Anyway, I recall my first flight on L-39 after having 20h on Ulla and 50h on Z-142: it was the same flying one is used to, but since releasing the brakes on runway the speed makes the biggest (initial) difference. And then the landing. Otherwise flying is always the same, same flying controls, what changes is the avionics, speeds, g-loads and capability to do certain manoeuvres.

Regarding speed jets are obviously different level fast from propeller engine planes, landscape runs below you way much faster than you are used to. Higher speed means less time for decision and reaction, no time for "wait, I need to think something over", because times flies and jet flies with it, fast. Nobody waits for you and your pondering there. Its totally different workload.

"I needed to get the feel of the aircraft, if I was to get it back on the ground". "..how does one interpolate or extrapolate Tiger Moth, Chipmunk Harvard flying to a two engined, 11 ton, beast like the Lightning?" That is exactly it. Get to feel the aircraft comes with time and experience, especially with final part of the landing (hovering above runway) your brain and eyes need to learn to see proper angle shown to you by instructor.

The most difficult to initially learn is the proper flare phase, when you transition from the approach to the actual touchdown. During final seconds you learn to feel through your butt the rate of descent - you coordinate butt feeling of descending (less speed means less lift, thus more descending) with hand pulling the stick to compensate decreasing speed with increasing the angle of attack (thus increasing lift), you smoothly balance this dynamic imbalance, you slowly decrease speed, increase lift and slowly decrease the height above the concrete in order to land smoothly from desired height. If you overcompensate (pull too much), plane can jump few meter up in the air, which you dont want (being higher with decreasing speed means you can just stall/fall on runway from few meters), if you undercompensate you will hit the ground with sharper descend angle sooner and with higher speed (which can start the sequence of hits and jumps that need to be taken under control). Practice makes you learn from these mistakes, make corrections for the wind aspect, air temperature (extremely cold or hot makes difference) ,take into account different configuration of aircraft, different fuel weight affects this too.

So there is a lot of trial and error and time needed learning to land safely. All in all, it took everybody ~10h before our instructors let us fly first jet solo. Of course we could crashland sooner with less experience.

Well, to conclude, every landing is different and every airline passenger can confirm, that sometimes it can be even adventurous.

I am sharing all this just to show, how extraordinary his landing was! Kudos!

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#48

> 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…

The "ballsy move" is completely separate from the mistake.

I don't think there was anything particularly ballsy, or perhaps even reckless, about agreeing to test the taxiing behaviour. It never crossed his mind that this could lead to a situation that got out of his control. Starting the airplane was a complete accident.

Getting the airplane airborne once it was running out of runway - and then landing it again - did take balls, but is not really the part of the incident that the review board was there to scrutinise.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#49
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly that. Most popular for used in a petrol station situation. What new Australian word are your referring to?

Goana, which is corruption of iguana. Same mistake historically, but its a different word now so feels less wrong.

I didn't know goanna was a corruption of iguana, I would've said bungarra.

Re: Holden's Lightning Flight

#50

> 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…

Tongue in cheek dry humour, nothing more. "That wasn't a very good idea was it old chap?"
Post reply on HN