ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: StevieA on October 17, 2012, 04:56:33 AM
-
Armstrong was Commander, Aldrin was LM Pilot, so why was it Armstrong piloting Eagle to his famous landing rather than Aldrin? A lot has been made of Armstrong's piloting skills, and he obviously trained well for it, including his ejection from the LLRV, whereas I've read little of Aldrin's training to pilot the LM.
-
Because "LM Pilot" was a misnomer in Apollo. It really meant "Flight Engineer" as that's the role they played on both the CSM and LM. Some LM documentation even uses the label "flight engineer" for controls and displays on the right hand side.
But because all the astronauts (with very few exceptions, like Jack Schmitt) were already experienced pilots, they all wanted titles that included the word "pilot". So there was an LM Pilot on every Apollo flight through Apollo 17. Even Apollos 7 and 8, which had no LMs.
Instead of an LM Pilot, ASTP had a "Docking Module Pilot" (Deke Slayton) and the three Skylab ferry flights had "Science Pilots" (Joe Kerwin, Owen Garriott and Edward Gibson).
-
Armstrong was Commander, Aldrin was LM Pilot, so why was it Armstrong piloting Eagle to his famous landing rather than Aldrin? A lot has been made of Armstrong's piloting skills, and he obviously trained well for it, including his ejection from the LLRV, whereas I've read little of Aldrin's training to pilot the LM.
The title Lunar Module Pilot is a bit misleading. He's actually more of a Lunar Module Co-pilot; capable of flying the Lunar Module. IIRC the only LMP who ever flew the LM was Alan Bean on Apollo 12, but it was after liftoff
AIUI this was the continuation of a tradition that began during the Gemini programme. Those astronauts were all test pilots (with egos to match) and none of them liked the idea that they were being given titles that implied their role in the mission was somehow a secondary one, so in Gemini, the titles were Command Pilot and Pilot. Its a bit like the Captain of an aeroplane and the First Officer or Co-Pilot. The Captain takes the "right seat" and flies the plane.
That tradition continued through to the Shuttle Programme, where the Commander did most of the flying and the Pilot was predominantly an operational position more akin to that of a Flight Engineer.
-
in Gemini, the titles were Command Pilot and Pilot.
And for Apollo 1 (which never flew) the titles were similar: Command Pilot (Grissom), Senior Pilot (White) and Pilot (Chaffee).
Its a bit like the Captain of an aeroplane and the First Officer or Co-Pilot. The Captain takes the "right seat" and flies the plane.
I'm pretty sure the captain takes the left seat.
This tradition was followed on Apollo where the Commander took the left seat of the CSM during launch and the left "seat" of the LM (always). The Command Module Pilot (CMP) sat in the middle during launch and took the left seat of the CSM at most other times as he was the one then flying.
About the only exception I can think of was Apollo 11, when Aldrin sat in the center and Collins sat on the right during launch. This may be because their assignments had shuffled around a bit and Aldrin was originally a CMP. The Apollo 8 backup crew, which normally would have become the Apollo 11 prime crew, was Armstrong as CDR, Aldrin as CMP and Haise as LMP. Then Collins came off medical leave and things got shuffled.
-
Welcome to the forum, StevieA. It looks like your initial query has been answered, but if you have any more questions there are a number of very knowledgeable people here that can go on for some time about Apollo. ;)
-
And if Aldrin didn't have the title of pilot, his attempts to agitate to be the first one out would have been even more futile.
-
I'm pretty sure the captain takes the left seat.
In Civilian flying certainly, but very often not in the Military. Depending on the aircraft, many military aircraft with side-by-side seating fly the PIC in the right seat. C-130s usually have the captain in the left seat, but for some missions, e.g. Tac low-level cargo drops, the captain usually flies in the right seat.
This is always the case in helicopters (like Blackhawks, Hueys, Sea Kings, Hughes 300 & 500, Jet rangers etc)... cyclic control (roll/pitch) in the right hand, throttle/collective in the left hand. The reason for this is that helicopters are inherently unstable (even with force trim) so pilots tend not to want to let go of the cyclic when they need to operate switches and buttons on the instrument panel.
-
Thanks! It's always bugged me.
Steve
-
Additionally, in civilian aircraft requiring two pilots, the policy is each takes a leg of the flight, while the pilot not flying takes care of radios and other cockpit duties. The captain, regardless of who's flying, is still the pilot-in-command, responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.
Interestingly, my understanding is that on long trans-Pacific flights, where there's usually a relief pilot on board, the captain is still PIC, even though he or she napping in first class.
-
And if Aldrin didn't have the title of pilot, his attempts to agitate to be the first one out would have been even more futile.
Well....
He did have some precedent to point to. On Gemini, starting with Ed White on Gemini IV, it was always the less senior astronaut who performed the EVA. Even the first Apollo EVA was that of the LMP on Apollo 9, Rusty Schweikert, with CMP Dave Scott assisting from the door of the CM. Of course, I don't know of any EVA prior to Apollo 11 in which everybody in a spacecraft got out, so one could argue that these precedents didn't apply. But the general wisdom is that Armstrong got out first (as did all of the CDRs on the five later landings) because the front door swung in and toward the right (LMP) side. With the CDR always on the left side of the LM, it was much easier for him to get out first and back in last.
-
Interestingly, my understanding is that on long trans-Pacific flights, where there's usually a relief pilot on board, the captain is still PIC, even though he or she napping in first class.
There's also PF (Pilot Flying) and PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Not being a pilot I read about them in connection with the Air France 447 accident over the Atlantic a few years ago. Although the Pilot In Command is PIC for the entire flight, awake or not, PF/PNF can and does change quite a few times, often without the flight crew getting out of their seats.
I guess the PIC rules come from maritime practice, and it does make sense.
-
We use the terms Aircraft Comander (AC), Flying Pilot (FP) and Non-Flying Pilot (NFP). The AC is responsible overall, but if they are the NFP and the FP commits a gross violation, resulting in an incident, then the AC is not automatically held responsible. An investigatotion determines where responsibility lay.
-
I've always wondered about the practice of holding a ship or airplane captain responsible for everything his subordinates do. It was certainly a common theme in the original Star Trek. Having never been in the military (or served on a civilian ship) I have no personal knowledge of or experience with it in the real world.
It probably depends on the context, i.e., military or civilian, the country, etc. Can you really hold a captain completely responsible for every action of a subordinate, even when the captain has no knowledge and the act violates the captain's own orders?
-
I haven't been in the military either, but my conversations with those who have suggests that passing the buck (more American slang) down to subordinates is as common there as it is anywhere else.
-
Passing the buck down doesn't always work.
I live very close to Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego Calilfornia. Several years ago, a F-18 crashed about a half mile from here, destroying two homes and wiping out an entire family except for the husband who was at work. It turns out that the F-18 had flown with known problems against regulations, and an engine failed in flight while operating off an aircraft carrier near the coast. He flew right over North Island Naval Air Station, right on the coast, and headed for the inland Miramar (with residential areas between it and the coast) on orders from his superiors on the ground. Apparently Miramar has better maintenance facilities and it would have been a hassle to transport the plane from North Island.
Anyway, the remaining engine failed as he was approaching Miramar, and he didn't make it. The pilot ejected but his plane crashed in a residential area. I figure he was about 5 seconds flying time from my house, which is closer to the base.
I had always thought the pilot in command of an airplane has the ultimate responsibility and the corresponding authority to override regulations in an emergency. Apparently this doesn't apply to US military pilots, at least junior ones like this one. I had expected a complete whitewash but to my surprise the Marines sacked something like a dozen people including the pilot's immediate superiors, but the pilot himself is apparently still able to fly. Isn't that interesting?
-
I haven't been in the military either, but my conversations with those who have suggests that passing the buck (more American slang) down to subordinates is as common there as it is anywhere else.
My experience in the US Navy submarine service was the exact opposite. Sh!t ran in the appropriate direction. If a subordinate intentionally disobeyed a regulation then he was punished. If it was an inexperienced subordinate making an honest mistake his supervisor was reprimanded for failing to properly supervise him. A supervisor who tried to blame a subordinate for his screw up were considered a dirtbag and quickly dropped in professional reputation.
-
The commanding officer of an American military ship has more authority/responsibility than the pilot of a single seat aircraft. He or she is responsible for safe operation of the ship and the conduct of the crew at sea and ashore. The CO can delegate authority but not responsibility. If a ship runs aground, not only are the navigator and helmsman directly liable, the CO is also because he is required to ensure that the crew is properly trained. If a crewman was improperly trained or supervised, the crewman may escape punishment while their superiors do not.
I know of at least one incident on one of my submarines where a junior Sailor improperly rigged a hatch for sea which resulted in a seawater leak while submerged. He was not completely at fault because he had not been trained properly and used an improperly generated procedure. He was not punished even though it did much damage to the ship.
Ranb
-
If a ship runs aground, not only are the navigator and helmsman directly liable
What navy was this in? I had never heard of a submarine helmsman being held liable for any grounding. They can't even see where they are going or where they are on the chart.
I know of at least one incident on one of my submarines where a junior Sailor improperly rigged a hatch for sea which resulted in a seawater leak while submerged. He was not completely at fault because he had not been trained properly and used an improperly generated procedure. He was not punished even though it did much damage to the ship.
Ranb
Wasn't it second-checked by someone else???
-
I was thinking more of the surface Navy when making the helmsmen comment. I seem to recall that when the USS Greenville hit the Japanese fishing vessel, the entire control room section got called on the carpet; I could be wrong though.
The seawater leak incident involved us (637 class) picking up riders in the Pearl Harbor turning basin then going back out to sea. The E-3 rigged the hatch for surfacing and drained it in accordance with how he was trained. He used the weapons shipping hatch drain valves and the DDS (no DDS on that trip) drain valves to prep the hatch for opening. After the PersTrans he rigged the hatch for dive using the hatch's rig for dive bill which did not include the DDS drain system valves he had opened previously. The CPO who second checked the rig for dive did not know the other valves were opened and did not check them, he only checcked the valves on the rig for dive. The DDS drain line was isolated and the gageglass broke when diving deep as it was not rated for submerged running. It was a comedy of errors that we fixed by reviewing every rig for dive bill on the boat and finding many problem.
-
I was thinking more of the surface Navy when making the helmsmen comment. I seem to recall that when the USS Greenville hit the Japanese fishing vessel, the entire control room section got called on the carpet; I could be wrong though.
Many were reprimanded but not the helmsman.
What was your rate? I started as a QM then got merged into ET.
The seawater leak incident involved us (637 class) picking up riders in the Pearl Harbor turning basin then going back out to sea. The E-3 rigged the hatch for surfacing and drained it in accordance with how he was trained. He used the weapons shipping hatch drain valves and the DDS (no DDS on that trip) drain valves to prep the hatch for opening. After the PersTrans he rigged the hatch for dive using the hatch's rig for dive bill which did not include the DDS drain system valves he had opened previously. The CPO who second checked the rig for dive did not know the other valves were opened and did not check them, he only checcked the valves on the rig for dive. The DDS drain line was isolated and the gageglass broke when diving deep as it was not rated for submerged running. It was a comedy of errors that we fixed by reviewing every rig for dive bill on the boat and finding many problem.
I feel your pain. I served on the Seawolf. When I checked onboard my division had 8 CASREPs that had been active for over a year. By the time I left 3 of those had been cleared and I added about 10 more that were active for over a year when I transferred. When they cancelled the class, they cancelled support for them. Terminal boards didn't match the drawings, everything was labeled wrong, PMS cards called for operating valves that didn't exist and vice versa. Almost every PMS card had a feedback report submitted for it. The Seawolf and the Connecticut were transferred to Washington to basically act as spare parts boats for the Jimmy Carter.
-
I was the LELT on the Wm H. Bates back then. The seawater leak trashed radio, ruined the OX's laptop and even got the RAM in Nucleonics wet. I am at PSNS right now and preparing to fix a pump on the SSN-21. It is still called the Pierwolf and not for nothing. :)
Ranb
-
I was the LELT on the Wm H. Bates back then. The seawater leak trashed radio, ruined the OX's laptop and even got the RAM in Nucleonics wet. I am at PSNS right now and preparing to fix a pump on the SSN-21. It is still called the Pierwolf and not for nothing. :)
Ranb
Ah, back in the day when Nucleonics was in Conerland. When were you on the Billy Bates?
-
I've been in the Australian Navy (RAN) for over 20 years, both as a skimmer and as a birdie. Perhaps it is different because I'm an Officer, but I've seen subordinates held accountable for their actions and I have seen COs cashieried because the system they supervised allowed people to screw up. I don't believe for a second it is a perfect system. For example, there was the case of an aircraft that developed a fault inflight. The checklist actions said "Land as soon as possible". The crew had a good level of experience and discussed the situation. They all agreed it was preferable to land aboard the ship, about 10nm away rather than land at a coalition base 2 or 3nm away which had no support for them whatsoever. They safely recovered to the ship, the defect was rectified and the aircraft was flying the next day.
Senior personnel then tried to have the AC charged because they did not land at the nearest base. A risk adverse culture tried to stifle people getting experience.
Anyway, for the most part, people responsible get held accountable (unless you are in politics).
-
They all agreed it was preferable to land aboard the ship, about 10nm away rather than land at a coalition base 2 or 3nm away which had no support for them whatsoever. They safely recovered to the ship, the defect was rectified and the aircraft was flying the next day.
And yet it could have turned out very differently. This was exactly the choice faced by that F-18 pilot and his commanders when they chose to fly him directly over North Island NAS and land him at Miramar MCAS. They chose wrong and four civilians, two houses and a 40-50 million dollar airplane were all destroyed.
Using Google Earth, I drew a line along the direction of the crash (as established by the ground scar and the pilot's landing point) until it intersected the extension of the main Miramar runway. They did so over a local elementary school. That's where he turned in his unsuccessful attempt to crash in a canyon just beyond the crash site. Had he not turned, he would have crashed about a block from my house.
So I take decisions like these a little personally.
-
Ah, back in the day when Nucleonics was in Conerland. When were you on the Billy Bates?
Let's see, boot camp in 1983, Tautog 84-87 (HI and Puget), ELT school in 1987, Jacksonville 87-89, RCM school in 89 then on to R-5 89-92, Bates 92-95, Cavalla 95-97. Crushed my ankle in 97 falling off of a waterfall at Maakua Gulch, 16 months to recover then to RCT school then shore duty at Bangor, then put on permanent disabled list in 2003.
Stupid me I planned my career 4 years at a time. Fell in love in the PI in 1986, married my honeyco, got divorced, married my Thai gf and am living happily ever after.
Ranb
-
So you were around for the QM/ET/IC merger. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
-
They all agreed it was preferable to land aboard the ship, about 10nm away rather than land at a coalition base 2 or 3nm away which had no support for them whatsoever. They safely recovered to the ship, the defect was rectified and the aircraft was flying the next day.
And yet it could have turned out very differently. This was exactly the choice faced by that F-18 pilot and his commanders when they chose to fly him directly over North Island NAS and land him at Miramar MCAS. They chose wrong and four civilians, two houses and a 40-50 million dollar airplane were all destroyed.
Using Google Earth, I drew a line along the direction of the crash (as established by the ground scar and the pilot's landing point) until it intersected the extension of the main Miramar runway. They did so over a local elementary school. That's where he turned in his unsuccessful attempt to crash in a canyon just beyond the crash site. Had he not turned, he would have crashed about a block from my house.
So I take decisions like these a little personally.
No, it was not. You are generalising without knowing the specifics of the incident. They made a good (note: not right, just good) decision. I didn't mention that we changed the checklist item to read "Land as soon as practicable" not long after the incident.
-
That's right, you didn't give me the specifics of the incident or explain why the standing rule was "land as soon as practicable." So that didn't distinguish it from the 2008 San Diego F-18 crash, which broke many rules -- including "land as soon as practicable".
If you can show me that not landing as soon as practicable, in the context of your fault, could not increase the risk of crashing in a populated area, then your point is entirely valid.
-
It was changed from "Land as soon as possible" to "Land as soon as practicable".
They were overwater, the US base was on a headland to the right or they could continue further out to sea and go back to the boat. They used AVRM and sound judgement.
-
Well, if the choice was to go out to sea rather than over land, then they could not have endangered the civilian population and I cannot disagree with that call. Military aviators voluntarily accept the risks of their jobs; the civilians around them do not.