Bit dated though.........(now the MIG-29N got some extras
"goodies")
RMAF MiG-29N
Capt. Rob Monberg
18 FS SME, Eielson AFB, AK
On 13 August 1997 I had the rare opportunity to fly in the back
seat of a Royal Malaysian Air Force MiG 29N. The following is my
account of the flight with emphasis on the man machine interface.
The intent of this article is to sketch out the main human factors
areas associated with this airplane replacing previously available
technical information with a more human perspective. The hope is
that U.S.A.F. pilots, flight surgeons, and human factors
professionals may be able to glean some of the additional
challenges that the MiG 29 pilot must face.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The MiG 29N two-seat model is designed as a trainer and airborne
emergency procedure simulator. This model is not equipped with
radar, but radar presentations can be simulated from the rear
cockpit to be presented on the front cockpit display. The front
cockpit is equipped with a shroud to facilitate instrument
training. Essentially the two-seat model
functions as an airborne simulator. The Malaysian Air Force
recently contracted a Canadian firm to design and construct a MiG
29N ground based simulator in order to conduct training in a more
economical fashion.
Other than the lack of radar the jet is fully combat capable and is
equipped with the helmet-mounted sight as well as the infrared
tracking system. The MiG 29N was designed to be an air superiority
fighter meant
to be heavily dependent upon ground based intercept controllers
(GCI). The plane has a secondary ground attack role. The MiG 29 is
a very capable fighter with a tremendous amount of thrust and a
very rugged
airframe (the planes were shipped to Malaysia and assembled using
sledgehammers). However, the limited by its small fuel capacity and
very high fuel flows. Additionally, the MiG 29 pilots are unable to
get enough training to expand their proficiency. Ironically, a
similar situation exists in the U.S.A.F. F-16 pilots who are well
trained but struggle to
maintain and expand proficiency in each of the F-16s multiple
roles. The lack of flying training time is offset by the limited
number of roles that the MiG 29 is expected to fill and their
leaderships tendency to minimize risks. All of the Malaysian MiG
29 pilots (with two new exceptions) have prior fighter experience
in the F-5. All pilots underwent basic pilot
training in Malaysia. Most pilots had 500 or more fighter hours
prior to being selected to upgrade to the MiG 29. Initially MiG 29
upgrade training was conducted in Russia. Later pilots were trained
either in India or in Malaysia.
LIFE SUPPORT GEAR AND EJECTION SEAT
I was lucky to be able to fly at all secondary to my near inability
to fit into any of the available G-Suits (the average Malaysian
appears to be slightly
shorter than the average American). I ended up barely fitting into
the largest one available. The Malaysians employ a Russian Style
G-Suit with the same bladder configuration as the current U.S.A.F.
anti - G garment
but with smaller bladders. The Malaysian pilots (like U.S. pilots)
tended to favor loose fitting G-Suits. The helmets appear archaic
but are actually
extremely well designed, light in weight, comfortable with ports
across the front in order to stabilize the head during high-speed
ejection while preventing separation of the helmet from the head.
There is one
shaded visor integral to the helmet while no visor is used at
night. The mask is made of rubber backed leather with a hard
plastic shell. The absence of valsalva ports is a common complaint
among pilots. The mask is attached with unique bayonet clips, which
allow the mask to hang loosely from the helmet but still in front
of the face with the microphone in place. The mask can be quickly
tightened by sliding the clips into place. Overall the mask is very
comfortable to wear with the exception of performing a
valsalva
I did not wear the helmet-mounted sight, but the pilots uniformly
stated that the sight was lightweight and easy to operate after
flipping a switch on the helmet. This helmet gives them a
significant off bore site targeting capability. A mae-west style
life preserver harness is worn, not dissimilar from the U.S. Navys
current fighter life vest. No survival vest or parachute harness is
worn. The parachute harness is integrated into the
seat with two shoulder and two leg restraints which buckle into a
four-way connector on the chest. The strap-in procedure is a
complex one. The survival kit secures to a small D ring on the
right leg of the G - suit. The helmet mounted sight electronics and
helmet oxygen attach to a connector on the left leg strap. There is
an additional connection to the helmet for the radio, which
necessitates threading a wire through the harness. Emergency egress
is facilitated by pulling a red tab on the oxygen connector which
releases the helmet from all of its connections.
Additionally, two shoulder emergency release tabs must be
unfastened and the survival kit disconnected from the G - suit. The
seat is straight with good padding, however the design height
places your eyes just above
the level of the cockpit rails creating the sensation that you are
sitting in a bucket. Visibility is poor and rearward visibility is
non existent with the exception of two rear view mirrors. The
cockpit rails also slope down from aft to forward. This design
gives the appearance of a sloping cloud deck or descent when in
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The
cockpit has ample lateral room but the front to rear room is
somewhat cramped. Placing the ejection handle (located between the
legs) into a vertical position arms the ejection seat. The seats
fire in order, back to front. There is an alternate ejection button
in the front cockpit, which works as a backup should the handle
fail but the canopy must be jettisoned first. The seat has two arm
protectors that fall from the sides of the seat as well as a chest
protector that rises from between the legs. Additionally, leg
restraints secure the legs to the seat upon ejection.
The complete ejection system from seat to survive high-speed
ejection. The seat has also proven itself in the low speed, low
altitude and unusual attitude environment as evidenced during the
MiG 29 crash at the Farnsborough Air Show.
COCKPIT INSTRUMENTS AND AVIONICS
The cockpit instrument layout is not ergonomically well designed.
Some instruments are easily read while others are hard to interpret
and not easily seen. The instruments are grouped by function
withflight instruments on the left and engine instruments on the
right. Flight instruments are heads down with the exception of
the combined AOA / G meter which is located on the left top side of
the dash. Heads up view
of angle of attack and G performance instruments may prevent onset
of vestibular illusions while in acrobatic maneuvers. There is a
heads up display (HUD) with airspeed and heading information. There
is no HUD
repeater for the back seat rather the HUD symbology is displayed in
a multiple function display (MFD, heads down display on the right).
The attitude indicator (ADI) uses the ball for pitch information
while the
plane symbol rotates to give bank information. The ADI aircraft
symbol uses the bottom of the wings instead of the nose for flight
attitude information. This makes it easy to read bank but difficult
to read
pitch. Fuel level is transmitted via moving tapes, which are
extremely easy to read. Navigation is via an after-market global
positioning system (GPS) added to the jets. The GPS has been tied
into the HUD for steering cues. The GPS mounting location on the
right side of the dash diminishes the already limited visibility.
The plane has also been retrofitted with
two aftermarket radios, which have been fitted into the left and
right side consoles. Changing channels is a difficult proposition.
It is only possible to transmit on one radio at a time. A separate
switch must be thrown both radios may continuously receive
transmissions. The intercom is triggered by a switch on the
throttle or may be run in hot mike. There is a back up mode in case
of failure. The two-seat MiG 29 is equipped with a back
seat periscope. The periscope is designed for back seat takeoffs
and landings and is employed when the landing gear are down. The
system is adjustable so that the image presented in front of you
can be matched to peripheral horizon cues. Taxiing, takeoffs and
landings from the backseat are made relatively easy using the color
image presented on the periscope
mirror. This low technology device is simple but effective.
COCKPIT CONTROLS
The throttles are mounted on a straight rail, which is slightly
awkward. The throttle grip also houses the radio switch, nose wheel
steering mode
select (takeoff 6 deg of swing v. taxi mode 36 deg of swing) and
speed brakes. The stick is of classic design with a damping
mechanism. There is some free play at center requiring large
control inputs. Perhaps the most unique feature of stick design is
the stick shaker designed to remind the pilot to limit angle of
attack (AOA). The gun trigger is of classic soviet design requiring
a trigger guard to be flipped down to arm the gun. This is more
awkward than the F-16 hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) for the
Air to Air mode but easier for the Air to Ground mode. The stick
has a red autopilot button on the left and a green auto recovery
switch on the right for the disoriented pilot, and works by
pressing the green panic button. The system recovers the jet to
wings level and places the airplane in a slight climb if energy is
available. This system is known to be reliable
but is not often used. This is most likely due to the necessity of
having to recognize that you are spatially disoriented prior to
pushing the auto recovery button. The autopilot system can be
coupled to the radio altimeter and instrument landing system (ILS)
so that only throttle input is required to remain on glide slope.
The plane has no toe brakes but instead uses a hand brake mounted
on the stick. Feedback is limited
with the exception of a hard to see pressure gauge located near the
bottom of the cockpit in front of the stick.
PHYSIOLOGY AND AEROMEDICAL ISSUES
The airplanes performance is impressive. The plane loads Gs
smoothly, it is difficult to snatch to high G secondary to the
center control stick and
increased throw distances as opposed to the F-16 in which the
snatch to high G is overly easy and where you must work to insure
that the G is blended. The Malaysian pilots use the L-1 grunt
combined with a leg strain (combination of western and former
soviet union methods) and get very limited formal anti G strain
training. The Malaysians are due to get a centrifuge within the
next year. The pilots almost universally complain of neck strain
suffered secondary to pulling Gs. (A handout on neck strain had
been posted by one of the pilots in the pilot lounge. The pilots
work
out as a group focusing on both weight training and aerobic
conditioning.
All physicians in the Malaysian armed services belong to the army
and
receive very limited aeromedical training. There are no dedicated
flight surgeons and the aircrews have very little if any contact
with the base physician. A formal human factors program is
nonexistent. Human factors
training is limited to those topics suggested by the squadron
safety officer.
The Malays work 6 days per week and usually spend the Saturday
workday as a [sic].
LASER EYE SAFETY
The single biggest issue of concern when flying dissimilar air
combat training (DACT) against the Malaysians is the use of their
laser range finder. No formal testing has been published concerning
its eye safety. The Germans recently disconnected their lasers due
to eye safety concerns. The laser fires by default to range the
opponent once the radar reaches certain parameters. The Malaysians
restrict themselves to only
firing the laser behind the three-nine line. This reflects a
fundamental misunderstanding of the way that lasers effect cockpits
and refract energy. The MiG 29 squadron commander agreed to limit
use of the laser after the squadron was briefed on the effects of
laser eye damage. The same briefing prompted the pilots to voice a
number of concerns regarding their own vision. Instructions were
left with the squadron regarding the eye exams that would be
required to definitively rule out laser eye damage. As the
geo-political realities of the world continue to shift there is
every possibility that U.S.A.F. aircrews will find themselves
pitted against MiG 29s in various exercises. The eye safe laser
range should be calculated once the data regarding the laser range
finders physical properties is available.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the MiG 29 is truly an awesome, rugged, well-designed
purpose built airplane. In the hands of a well-trained pilot and
GCI the plane is a formidable foe. As nations outside the former
Soviet Union
continue to buy the airplane they continue to expand its roles.
This poses many challenges, as the airplane does not appear to be
designed to adapt to a multi-role capability. The airplanes design
makes it apparent that the
designers gave great thought to pilot and airframe survivability.
The airplane passes its western rivals in these aspects, however
takes a back seat in terms of adaptability and ergonomics / task
management.
Society of USAF Flight Surgeons.
