|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Oct 21, 2012 23:39:22 GMT 12
Another random question from me ;D
Did the RNZAF use Signallers in WWII or was it get in and go?
Does anyone know the different actions and signals for the signallers on the ground, when planes taxied,took off or landed? I always muck around pretending to be one when people drive up my driveway at home and it got me thinking, what are some of the real signals..
I also remember hearing a story of a pilot landing with no landing gear in the Pacific.Why was he not warned about the landing gear on approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 22, 2012 10:02:35 GMT 12
I assume you mean marshallers?
Signallers used wireless sets and radios to communicate with aircraft. Marshallers handle them on the ground using hand signals.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 25, 2012 12:16:37 GMT 12
Luther,
It was (and still is!) every pilot's responsibility to check that his/her undercarriage is correctly lowered and locked prior to landing, no excuses. However because at trainig stations when new pilots were getting used to retractable undercarriages (and sometimes thought they were still flying a Tiger Moth) it was the practise to have a "Duty Pilot"(later a dedicated Aerodrome Control Officer) to mainatin a close watch for such pupil pilots and if any was seen to be attempting to land with his aeroplane's "feet" hidden from view, they would let rip with a signal pistol 1.5 inch (known as a Very Pistol) with a red star, which was supposed to shock the pupil out of his daydream and get back on the job and lower his u/c. Of course the aircraft's manufacturer had fitted all such aircraft with a cunning piece if equipment which sounded a very loud electric horn near the pilot's ear in case he should reduce his RPM below a certain figure without lowering his u/c too, but there were cases where the pupil pilot still landed with his u/c stowed in the wings (or engine nacelles) and complained that he was upset by a terrible noise by his ear which upset them and made them forget all the landing drills. There were (and still are) cases where the u/c refuses ti come down of its own accord, but there were drills for such instances which sometimes worked and sometimes did not.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Oct 29, 2012 20:58:42 GMT 12
I assume you mean marshallers? Signallers used wireless sets and radios to communicate with aircraft. Marshallers handle them on the ground using hand signals. Thanks Dave.So that's why I couldn't find much about it on the net. |
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Oct 29, 2012 21:05:18 GMT 12
Luther, It was (and still is!) every pilot's responsibility to check that his/her undercarriage is correctly lowered and locked prior to landing, no excuses. However because at trainig stations when new pilots were getting used to retractable undercarriages (and sometimes thought they were still flying a Tiger Moth) it was the practise to have a "Duty Pilot"(later a dedicated Aerodrome Control Officer) to mainatin a close watch for such pupil pilots and if any was seen to be attempting to land with his aeroplane's "feet" hidden from view, they would let rip with a signal pistol 1.5 inch (known as a Very Pistol) with a red star, which was supposed to shock the pupil out of his daydream and get back on the job and lower his u/c. Of course the aircraft's manufacturer had fitted all such aircraft with a cunning piece if equipment which sounded a very loud electric horn near the pilot's ear in case he should reduce his RPM below a certain figure without lowering his u/c too, but there were cases where the pupil pilot still landed with his u/c stowed in the wings (or engine nacelles) and complained that he was upset by a terrible noise by his ear which upset them and made them forget all the landing drills. There were (and still are) cases where the u/c refuses ti come down of its own accord, but there were drills for such instances which sometimes worked and sometimes did not. David D Very interesting reading! Any idea what what the procedure was when the U/C wouldn't come down, was it water landing or belly landings maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Nov 1, 2012 11:17:23 GMT 12
Luther,
Sometimes yes, sometimes no! After all known methods of lowering the undercarriage had failed (including, if possible, discussion with the commanding officer or flight commander, or the resident Engineer Officer or NCO over the R/T if this was available), the decision had to be made to either belly land (on land) or ditch (sea), or to bale out if the other alternatives were considered to be too dangerous for any reason (such as one leg up, one down, or poor ditching characteristics, or unexpended odnance or fuel tanks hanging underneath that could not be jettisoned by all known methods.) The best story I have heard was an Anson flying from New Plymouth late in WW2 in which the bicycle chain which formed part of the u/c raising/lowering system came off the sprockets and the lone pilot on board considered this task beyond his capabilities and landed with u/c fully retracted, thus damaging his Fairy-Reed metal props and graunching his ASI pitot head under the nose. He had apparently radioed his plight to control and another Anson went up and flew alongside, encouraging the unlucky pilot to get his hands dirty (these chains did junp off their sprockets from time to time, and were usually re-fitted by somebody on board other than the pilot without too much trouble). The fellow that told me this yarn was the pilot of the other aircraft, and he was quite put out that the other chap needlessly caused damage to his Anson when the well-known solution to the problem could so easily and quickly been applied.
David D
|
|
