LOCKHEED F-104 STARFIGHTER PILOT FLIGHT TRAINING & SAFETY FILM 49704
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2018
- This 1970s color film about pilots assessing if they are able to safely fly F-104s each time was directed by Alan J. Levi and produced by WASP test pilot Betty Jane Williams, LORI Productions, for Lockheed California Company. This film opens with a gramophone, 1960s clock radio, and a “Notice to Airmen” bulletin board (:10-:26). The frosted “F-104 Flight Safety” door is shown and a pilot in an orange jumpsuit enters and joins men in suits around a conference table. The men introduce themselves; their goal is to identify if there’s a common denominator in pilot caused accidents (1:28-3:20). The lights are turned off and the film projector shows an animation of the first accident. The pilot stretches and yawns. In wing formation, he suddenly dives and crashes (3:21-4:24). The men discuss the possible cause as vertigo from tiredness (4:34-5:42). The lights are turned off and the film projector shows an animation of the second accident. An actual air speed indicator and nozzle position indicator are shown. The animated pilot ejects, lands using a parachute, and the plane hits the ground nose first (5:43-6:35). The men discuss the possible cause as not enough simulator time addressing emergency procedures (6:36-8:24). The lights are turned off and the film projector shows an animation of the third accident. The pilot gets in the plane without doing a pre-flight but the mechanic says everything is okay. Before the plane leaves the runway, it experiences a flat tire. The men discuss the possible cause as a combination of maintenance and pilot error (8:26-11:19). The lights are turned off and the film projector shows an animation of the fourth accident. The pilot takes cough medicine, flies, encounters headwinds, runs out of fuel, and ejects. The plane crashes. The men discuss the possible cause as using drugs that impair judgement (11:20-13:22). The lights are turned off and the film projector shows an animation of the fifth accident. Two F-104s collide in formation flying at night. The lead pilot ejects and the other crashes with the plane. The men discuss the possible cause as being night and pilot fatigue (13:24-15:44). The five animated accidents are quickly reviewed (15:45-16:48). The discussion turns to finding a common cause. The pilot in the orange jumpsuit writes factors on the chalkboard for pilots to ask themselves before flying (16:49-22:50). The 60-second solution is to ask themselves the four “SAFE” flying questions: Stick time, Alcohol and drugs, Fatigue, and Examine the aircraft (22:51-24:14).
The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a single-engine, supersonic interceptor aircraft which later became widely used as an attack aircraft. It was originally developed by Lockheed for the United States Air Force (USAF), but was later produced by several other nations, seeing widespread service outside the United States. One of the Century Series of fighter aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations from 1958 to 2004. Its design team was led by Kelly Johnson, who contributed to the development of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed U-2, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and other Lockheed aircraft.
The F-104 set numerous world records, including both airspeed and altitude records. Its success was marred by the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan.
The poor safety record of the Starfighter also brought the aircraft into the public eye, especially in German Air Force service. Fighter ace Erich Hartmann was forced to retire from the Luftwaffe due to his outspoken opposition to selection of the F-104.
The final production version of the fighter model was the F-104S, an all-weather interceptor designed by Aeritalia for the Italian Air Force, and equipped with radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. An advanced F-104 with a high-mounted wing, known as the CL-1200 Lancer, was considered, but did not proceed past the mock-up stage.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
As an old fighter pilot, I have made many of these mistakes. I disagree with the conclusion, that puts it back on the pilot. In 20 years of flying, I only once canceled because I was sick. I saw other pilots fly when they were drunk. We all pushed the weather to the point of danger, and three times I flew without proper preflight of the aircraft. Why? PEER PRESSURE. What will your fellow pilots think of your failure to perform the assigned mission? If the weather is above minimums, you are expected to fly - not to be afraid. Twice on active air defense missions my primary aircraft aborted and my preflight was rushed or almost absent. Once I flew an active air defense mission where Russian aircraft were probing Alaska and there was no hope of getting the aircraft preflight signed off by an inspector and still getting into the air in time to challenge the Russian, so I flew on a Red X without a maintenance preflight. If a pilot were to say "I'm too drunk to fly", he would face disciplinary action for failure to perform his duties. Peer pressure comes from your fellow pilots, and for fear of an adverse comment in your personnel records which would stop promotions and ruin your career. That kind of pressure comes from the top, our Squadron Commanders, who are great pilots themselves and who have faced the same pressures and survived. The more experience you have, the more confidence you have in yourself and the more risks you're willing to take. Being laughed at by your fellow pilots is the worst punishment you can face, and men will take great risks to avoid being laughed at.
The news goes around fast in aviation, like when I got disoriented n couldn't find the runway. Every one called me "naligaw" got lost. Also when a friend's retractable landing gear collapsed while landing, for awhile he was nicknamed Capt. Collapse (followed by his name). Some where thinking since he is used to fly planes with fix landing gears, he forgot to put down the Queen Air's landing gears earlier prior to land and since his putting down of the landing gears was delayed it did not have enough time to lock extracted before it touch down, some don't believe his story that the gears collapsed.
Pre-flight 360 inspection is really important. Many years ago during flight training days, when I got my private pilot's license already, I noticed a worn out nut in the rudder, where it developed a canal around it, I continued flying without logging the defect on the aircraft log book for the mechanics to check. Later I showed it to retired Air force Col. Ligaya of Maintenance and told me to do not be shy to write it on the aircraft maintenance log book so that the aircraft mechanics can act on it and the next time I flew it was changed. Before that, also the old col. asked me "isn't one of your main tire deflated? Have the mechanics inflate it to recommended air pressure, do not be shy to tell them what you see, they are there to do their job and assist you".
Im so jealous haha, glad you share these informations. You're a man to be respected.
Oilfield is the same way...push push push. Something happens blame the worker not the culture and repeat.
As an aircraft mechanic I pre flighted many aircraft many times. When I was done you were go to go! Very very few ground aborts for any preflight item. So missing a preflight included very little risk on the part of the pilot.
If you ST fans think that the "pilot" in the orange flightsuit is familiar, you're right. It's Michael Barrier (Lt. DeSalle in several TOS episodes).
Nice catch! Too bad it wasn’t Roger Perry; he played the F-104 pilot in the episode “Tomorrow is Yesterday”. He even wore the same orange flight suit.
Thank You! I remembered his role in the Star Trek episode with the spores “This Side of Paradise”.
And David Frankham played Larry Marvick, the designer of the Enterprise, in the third season episode "Is There in Truth No Beauty".
Considering that the USAF had an appalling accident rate in the 50s the fact that they even made this film is a sign of progress.
Excellent film!!! This film makes the case for better data for understanding aircraft behavior during all phase of flight...Traditionally all design shortcomings plus a great deal of the gray line events were blamed into the human being at the cockpit...however with the post century series. the armed forces and aircraft manufacturers had learned that their products still required more understanding in order to be used effectively. Modern technology has improved in such a way where these losses could be understood and prevented...This is why newer aircrafts like f22 had such longer and expensive programs...see how many pilots ana aircraft had be spared just because there is a better engineering understanding of the issues!!!!! There is not just more training, but redundant system that tolerate failures that took down several other aircraft before...
Its so easy to look back with great nostalgia to a marvelous aircraft that was nonetheless almost useless. Its the top fuel dragster of fighters.
18:00 the early form of FRAT...Flight Risk Assessment Tool. Commonly used today to use a score to look at all risk factors of a particular flight ( weather, pilot currency, pilot fatique, aircraft condition, runway condition and lenghth available vs length needed, etc.) and then give it a risk score for a go/no-go decision.
This sounds like a case of love for the perfect scenario. Like in all jobs, companies love to point toward perfect scenarios and what to do to get that, but the what to do rarely can or allowed to be used, because it interferes with companie goals, but hey, it sure is reasuring to mention that at least it was thought about.
The F104 was a handful of a bird. The Germans just backed up what the USAF pilots found...the F104 was probably the most unforgiving fighter/interceptors every built. The F100 was also a bit fidgety at landing but the 104 was a real monster if it got away from you.
John and Martha King are still beating this drum today, 'cause it's always some other guy.
In Germany, the expression was if you want your own F-104 just wait and 1 will fall into your front yard.
What is the song at the beginning being played for about 30 seconds. I have heard it before many years ago, and Shazam cannot identify it.
When in doubt blame the pilot. The F-104 killed a lot of good pilots and most of them got blamed for their own deaths.
Well... That is what Boeing did in the case of the 737 crashes. It's the pilot's fault.
Is the actor playing the pilot the same guy that played "Desalle" on the early Star Trek series, Mike Barrier if I found the right guy on IMDB.
A Lockheed video studying why pilots keep getting killed in their product. Nope, no bias here whatsoever.
The USAF took the correct action - they retired the bird early. NATO nations operated this type for decades. Most all of the century series had some sort of unfortunate handling characteristic. The F105 probably had the best manners of the bunch. It certainly had the most utility. The 104 was a twitchy beast, especially at lower speeds (e.g - on approach to land). The aircraft had short wings, a significant anhedral and a T-tail. All that might make for a nimble machine at speed but also adds inherent instability.
Yeah, every pilot has the obligation of flying his aircraft to his maximum potential but the aircraft should have a decent mix of characteristics that can provide both comfortable handling and nimbleness required in action. The F104 had too many compromises. The USAF knew this and themselves only assigned their best and most experienced airmen to fly it.
The F-104 "widowmaker" needed longer wings to fix it's instability problems but Kelly Johnson wouldn't have it. Top speed trumped pilot safety.
Kelly Johnson tried to sell the air force a longer winged Starfighter dubbed the CL-1200 Lancer but no one bought it.
The F-104 instability was largely a myth.
The high-wing loading made the airplane stable at high airspeed and resistant to turbulence and wind gust. For that reason the planes wings were given anhedral since it was determined to be too stable. At excessive AOA the F-104 could experience an uncontrolled pitch-up tendency that could result in a spin. But the pilot would have to be a fool to allow his/her jet to get into that position. A stick shaker and stick pusher was installed added for safety. The same could not be said for the F-101 which was far more dangerous to fly.
@@robertmackay4613 Uh huh well the Germans felt the same about it and it didn't stay in service long in the US.
You ask yourself these questions and answer them honestly. Then you think about what your superiors will do to you when you cancel a flight because of any of these and climb into the aircraft...
Exactly. Pilots in the military are asked to fly way too much at times and at other times they can't get enough time to stay current. If any of these guys wouldn't take the flight for the reasons given they would find themselves subjected to all sorts of ribbing and would end up getting all the worst assignments. I'd like to know if any of those pilots had ever canceled a flight because they had a drink the night before and how they were treated due to that decision.
@@DrogoBaggins987 We always said it was "12 hours between the bottle and the throttle". In Vietnam, ALL of us had something to drink the night before. We closed the bar at midnight because we were almost all flying combat the next morning. So, it wasn't even 12 hours. The recommendation for 24 hours is unrealistic.
Once, in Vietnam, we had a Flying Safety Officer briefing where they said there was no reason to fly into thunderstorms. As the officer said that, we were outside and the usual line of thunderstorms had surged up along the mountains, completely cutting us off from our usual targets. If we didn't fly through thunderstorms we'd never get to our targets.
They once tried to get me to accept the job of Flying Safety Officer. I declined.
T-USAF: Tipsy USAF. It boils down to the problem of drug abuse.
Again, the Air Force's dumbing down of the "crew chief". The USAF has to portray the fighter pilot as the be all, end all. Most of those dopes couldn't check the oil in their cars.
Skunk Works
Can't sell a bird that bites back now, can we?...Lockheed made sure that they put crap on pilots that got killed by what amounted to a very twitchy and temperamental machine.
Must have been hell to fly a plane you couldn't put your trust in.
I didn’t know “Murphy’s Laws” was a thing back then (notice on the bulletin board at the very beginning of this film
Read "A History of Murphy's Law" , available on Amazon, a wonderful history of the birth of the Law !
PeriscopeFilm thank you for the suggestion and thank you very very much for your publishing these restored and/or enhanced videos. Your channel is probably the one I most often watch.
BTW The mnemonic I learned is IMSAFE - Illness, medication, stress, alcohol, fatigue, equipment.
Looks like they hand picked 5 pilot errors.
7:47. Hard to take seriously a guy who moves his head so much when he talks.
Real people, not paid actors...
So just listen to the USAF and LOckheed... The F104 was never the cause of an accident LOL