Typhoon and VC10 divert to Chile

[Deleted]

2 Typhoons and a VC10 divert from the Falklands to Chile, link below. Not sure this has ever happened before, anybody know of a similar incident? Sounds like something went wrong, Met, ambitious Auth or just mother nature. Good one for the log book though!




http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas[/URL]

[Magic Mushroom]

Here's a link that works. (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas).

Diverted,

I may be mistaken, however I have a suspicion that the title of the article provides a clue as to the reason they diverted! :rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

PS...Are you RAF Police?:ok:

[Mr C Hinecap]

Not sure this has ever happened before

Probably not - the Typhoon is a relatively recent addition to the FI :}

[FlapJackMuncher]

Part if that story mentions a non-stop flight from UK to the Falklands by 4 typhoons.
Was this just to prove that we can still Black Buck? :cool:

[Specaircrew]

It's SOP to divert to your nominated diversion airfield if you can't land at your destination, it's the same in the Falkland Islands as anywhere else. MPA is one of those airfields where the changeable Wx can easily catch you out, having your own Tanker gives you options but you've all got to land somewhere before the fuel runs out!

[TEEEJ]

From the following Argentine news link.

'Apparently the planes were en route to Chile for an aeronautical expo.'

'Air Force confirms British planes were authorized to enter Argentine airspace when flying from Malvinas to Chile'

Buenos Aires Herald (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/35415)

TJ

[Clockwork Mouse]

They were apparently from the British Real Air Force, as opposed, presumably, to the FAA or AAC.

[FE Hoppy]

Still not got to grips with low viz then.

There are cheap brazilian civvy jets that can fly to 3A limits on HUD or Autoland to 3B limits. The equipment and servicing both for the ILS and aircraft cost pennies compared to some other military ventures.

[DADDY-OH!]

Clockwork

I think you're wrong to presume. 'Real' is Spanish for 'Royal'.

[soddim]

FE Hoppy makes a very valid point - why have the RAF continued to operate 'all weather' fighters that need 600m or so vis to land?

Before the pedants strike, I know, 'all weather' has always applied to day and night capability but surely it is time that it applied as all weather.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Perhaps it is, Dad. However, Air and Force are not spanish words, are they.

[Jumping_Jack]

I was always told that the lack of 'All weather' capability was an Aircrew limitation and nothing to do with the aircraft.....have I been misinformed!!?

[BEagle]

Well, I'd say that was a very sensible and measured report from Argentina.

What did people expect? "Los hijos de putas invaded our beloved country"?

The weather at Base Aerea Gringo, Islas Malvinas, is notoriously unpredictable and, at this time of year, is particularly dog$hit. So a diversion is not terribly surprising, if the weather-guesser porked-up his morning session with his beetles and fir cones and failed to forecast the likelihood of fog.

As for the bolleaux about Cat III operation, I think that anyone who is familiar with the Islas will know all about the terrain problems which rule out such installations. Whether the training cost would be worth the effort and expense for the few days per year when Cat III would actually be necessary even in the UK is a matter of doubt.

[trex450]

of course if the weather was so unpredictable in the Falklands Eagle then this diversion would have been one of many over the years would it not? Funnily enough it isn't, perhaps the aircraft concerned should have been recalled when the weather started closing in.

[Jumping_Jack]

Two easist places to forecast:

Cyprus......Sunny
FI.....'Changeable'

:)

[FE Hoppy]

Having spent 5 years on 216 I'm familiar with the "terrain" and there is nothing to prevent a Cat 3 installation.

[Juan Tugoh]

I think that BEagle has probably got to the heart of the issue, the costs involved in generating a CAT III capability and maintaining it for the few days a year when it may be needed are simply not warranted. It is not a matter of just putting in an uprated ground installation, the aircraft themselves need to have the capability and reliabilty and technical history to carry out the approach to CAT III, the crews have to be qualified, practiced and current, and the required ground procedures need to be adopted. The costs and risks are just not worth it for a military operation in peacetime.

[cessnapete]

Same on the Tanker /trooping fleet! Still 200ft/500metres and no no A/L.

In BA we operated the same a/c to 100metres RVR/0 DH
Quite a simple operation, Tech content on Conversion course, a few Sim details, a few sectors under supervision and away you go. Worked every time. Even on the VC10 we got down to Cat111.

What about CatII ? 100ft/300metres every modern a/c can get that, even the TriStar. Just a crew training exercise. Not an A/L, just a sim detail or two and a coupled App to manual landing.

[BEagle]

Technical issues associated with adding a Cat III capability to existing ME aircraft are considerable, as would be the associated training burden. 'A few' simulator exercises would add to the total training cost and maintaining the associated pilot recency would be far from straightforward.

Whilst the VC10 might have flown to Cat III limits with ba, current regulatory requirements are considerably more demanding. I don't know whether there's been much improvement in recent years, but the reliability of an auto-coupled approach in an RAF VC10 wasn't particularly good even 7 years ago. Random disconnects at GS intercept were infuriatingly common and autothrottle speed maintenance wasn't particularly accurate.

Cat II limits offer little more than Cat I; the number of days when the cloudbase is between 100 and 200 ft a.a.l. being pretty few. Whereas Cat III, for those who need such a capability on a daily basis, offers true 'no DH' operation. At a cost - which is probably acceptable if your airline revenue stream requires it and you operate a fleet of modern aircraft.

Some years ago, the northern parallel road was relocated at Brize at considerable expense, the intention being to prepare for LVPs for the TriStar. After the work had been completed, it was discovered that the terrain even at Brize didn't allow for anything better than a Cat I ILS installation on RW26, the almost fatal crash of a TriStar on RW08 led to auto-coupled approaches even to Cat I limits being banned on RW08 - most people who have a lot of experience of flying at Brize will be familiar with the undulating glideslope on RW08!

With regard to MPA, terrain relief on the approach to the RW28 is rather less benign than the terrain relief at Brize. Whether it would even be possible to flatten the landscape sufficiently to accommodate a Cat III ILS I don't know - but the cost of the occasional rare diversion will undoubtedly be far less.

But why bother unless the Typhoon also has a 0 ft DH autoland capability?

[t43562]

Are VSTOL jets harder to land in bad weather than conventional jets or easier? e.g would a 'B' JSF have been able to do it (ignoring the tanker for a moment)?

[Tagron]

I don't think BA ever operated VC10s to Cat3. Management hoped to get Cat3 approval and were constantly encouraging the line crews to carry out practice autolands for verification purposes. But the line crews had a very jaundiced view of the system because of its unreliability, just as BEagle describes in RAF service, and eventually the scheme was abandoned.

Looking to the future, GPS approaches using LAAS might be a better bet than ILS in difficult terrain, always assuming of course that the system can be made to function as hoped.

[FE Hoppy]

I don't see any push to make RNP AR approaches with lower than CAT 1 minimums so it will be a while before ILS or MLS will be bettered.

My original point was about comparative cost. The point about the chicks needing the same capability is a good one as I don't know what kind of Nav kit they have as standard but for the AT fleet you have 3* with 3C capability and your own sim. The only thing missing is the will. I'll bet the C17s have low vis capability too.

[Double Zero]

Wasn't there a similar diversion involving a Vulcan & Shrike ?!

I'd imagine VSTOL aircraft are 'easier' to land in bad vis' if one has the skills in the first place, but doing it discreetly without active sensors - on the aircraft or platform - may be another matter ?

Probably different with modern systems...

[ORAC]

I don't see any push to make RNP AR approaches with lower than CAT 1 minimums so it will be a while before ILS or MLS will be bettered.

The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Approach_and_Landing_System)

[brit bus driver]

Sorry BEags but I suspect you have never operated to Cat III limits. The required recency for AWOPS is an approach, go around and a landing in the sim, plus an RTO for the captain. Additionally, you must have completed an autoland in the aircraft in the preceding 6 months - this can be in CAVOK conditions if need be. Hardly an arduous training burden.

So here's my first point; there is a difference between AWOPS and autolands, but the RAF seems (or chooses) not to recognise this. The 26 ILS at Brize is (or certainly was) 'suitable for auto-coupled approaches to the threshold', so there's your recency tick. And it's less to do with cloudbase than RVRs - as I'm sure you're aware that there are no cloudbase limits for commencing an approach.

The 'almost fatal crash' refers to 706? Absolutely cock-all to do with the 08 ILS; more to do with trying to autoland from below 1500R, thereby not attaining the A/L Armed criteria. FMA awareness (or lack of) caused it. The 08 glideslope was fine after the initial capture where it had something of a dip and I seem to remember there being no restriction when I first joined the fleet, but that may be old age getting the better of me.

I just hope they sort it out for FSTA; if not it'll be like MT taking the radios out of vehicles way back when. Sadly, I can still see aircraft ending up in Prestwick because Birmingham, Stansted and Manch are all Cat II.

[BEagle]

bbd, you're correct in your statement that I've never landed in Cat III conditions. But in 20-ish years, I probably had to divert for weather.....twice?

I recall the politics of the early days with the TriStar and the frustration expressed by the crews due to the hierarchy's attitude towards autolands back then....:uhoh:

But I'm sure that the ban on auto-coupled approaches to RW08 followed the 706 incident - and that it was reviewed some years later, but the ban remained due to the impossibility of rectifying the RW08 glideslope profile?

[mr fish]

did the argie's supply "escort"?? one would imagine their pilots chomping at the bit for a formation piccy.

and of course vise versa!!

[27mm]

Bring back Stanley, with its 4000ft tin strip and 4 cables!

[kick the tires]

.... and wonky centreline!

[essdee]

Stanley is still there of course, though no longer with cables, iirc. Mind you, does Typhoon have a hook? The F3s did practice approaches to Stanley on a regular basis, though I am not aware of anyone actually landing - or even doing a touch and go - there. But it would have been used if recovery to MPA - or a mainland diversion - was out of the question. But if MPA is fogged in, Stanley is unlikely to have been much if any better. Also, these ac would seem to have been en route from Brazil, so likelihood is they didn't even attempt a landing at MPA. Quote from the link to Post #2: "According to Chile’s El Mercurio visibility in MPA because of a thick fog was down to a hundred metres. The three aircraft apparently were travelling south from Brazil and entered Chilean air space close to 18:00 hours."

[TEEEJ]

Essdee wrote

Mind you, does Typhoon have a hook?

Yes.

TJ

[Capt Pit Bull]

Cat II limits offer little more than Cat I; the number of days when the cloudbase is between 100 and 200 ft a.a.l. being pretty few.

However, this is more about foggy RVR then the cloudbase. On a **** day the RVR is more likely to sneak up to 300M than to 550. I spent several years operating CAT 2 aircraft and I have to say we used it in anger quite regularly. In my experience if you can get the RVR to be allowed to start an approach you usually get in. Very gratifying knowing the Cat 1 aircraft were stil droning around the hold (or sitting on the ground at their departure point).

ok, this was airliner ops around Europe, not operating into the FI about which I know nothing. I probably flew a dozen or so 'live' cat 2 approaches a year.

Whereas, in my subsequent Cat 3 experience, I don't think I flew many approachs where the RVR would have precluded Cat 2, and I don't recall ever actually landing without getting the lights well before touchdown.

So for my money, Cat 2 is a really useful addition to capability and its Cat 3 that provides relatively little extra. Very subjective of course.

pb

[BEagle]

The last 2 posts are very interesting.

The US once operated PARs to a 100ft DH, if I recall correctly. Perhaps it still does? Is there any basic reason why suitably qualified aircrew and ATCOs couldn't do so at places such as MPA?

Of course, many see PAR as being very 'last century' - but given the infrequency of flights at most RAF bases, surely a high-quality PAR system (if such a thing still exists) might go some way to facilitating safe ops in conditions of low cloudbase and RVR?

[LOAgent]

PARs are disappearing rapidly in the US. More often than not only available at training bases now also. They definitely don't do them down to 100ft. A good thing in my book as they are not as good at them over here as the RAF Talkdown folks. This probably stems from the infrequent use of PAR as an approach in the US. It therefore follows that if controllers were given enough training and did them enough they could quite effectively talk people down to 100ft.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Just found this thread and thought I'd chuck in a couple of reminiscences:

1. When the F4’s first arrived at Stanley the tin strip (AM2 matting) was 6,100 ft long with 5 cables running:

Bak-13 – -RHAG –---- BAK-13 -----RHAG –- Bak-13.

The centre cable was known colloquially in ATC as the “Oh ****-me” cable because it was only ever likely to used in such extremis.

However, when one the of the BAK-13’s cable’s failed (due to an ill-advised ‘demo’ landing to a Big-Wig in diabolically poor wx conditions) and effectively sliced the back-end off one the F4s they were ‘withdrawn from service’ as a face-saving measure and we were forced to operate with just the 2 RHAGs which took 3 times longer to rewind and re-set, much to the chagrin of the last-to-land C-130 tanker.

2. Talking down to 100 ft: Never done officially of course, but Lightnings landing on Leuchars RW 09, which only had a 3º GP and 320 ft DH (if memory serves – which it probably doesn’t) and the haar rolling up the airfield sometimes needed a little assistance! I well remember the exchange:

“Heading 089, one and a half miles from touchdown, approaching decision height, on centreline, on glidepath, heading good, one mile, passing decision height,advisory information follows...” (pause for effect)

“KEEP TALKING!!!!!!!!!!” (about 6 octaves above Middle 'C')

“On centreline, on glidepath, touch right 2º, heading 091, on centreline, on glidepath, heading good, half a mile, on centreline, on glidepath, over radar touchdown – NOW; radar serviced terminated......Contact Twr stud 1.

“XXXX, clear. No 1’s flamed out”

And no, he never did say ‘Thanks’!

Happy days (well not at Leuchars!) and wonderful job satisfaction.

[Tourist]

Incidentally, if the story re the Typhoons and the VC10 flying to Chile is true as it was recounted to me, kudos to the VC10 crew and authoriser.

Not many around these days with the balls....

[jindabyne]

Double-zero

You couldn't resist and changed your mind!!

[Krueger Flap]

Tourist:

Also some big balls were required in the Eng community due to the state of the VC10 at the time! I was there that afternoon, watching it go dark as the fog rolled in, wondering when I was going to get my jets back...

[henry crun]

jindabyne: Look at the date of his post.

[Boslandew]

As someone whose only experience of single-seater fixed-wing was in a Chipmunk in basic training, could someone verify the non-stop deployment of Typhoons from UK to the Falklands. The quoted 18 hours sounds an unbelievable amount of time to sit in a seat with no chance of stretching your legs let alone meeting more urgent needs. It far exceeds any other single-pilot flight-time I've ever heard of, never mind the concentration required to take on fuel after say, 16/17 hrs in the air.

[Boslandew]

lj101

Many thanks. I suspected it must be but the link at the beginning did say non-stop. Teach me to trust a journalist!!

[Dan Winterland]

BEagle: "Cat II limits offer little more than Cat I; the number of days when the cloudbase is between 100 and 200 ft a.a.l. being pretty few."

Of course it's more about the RVR. A Cat I installation typically has a RVR requirement of 550m, CAT II typically reduces this to 350m. Sometimes this can be enough. The aircraft I fly for a day job is Cat IIIb capable, but we only train and operate it to Cat II as the airfields in our network rarely get below 350m. This saves a huge anount of maintenance and consequent costs.

[jindabyne]

henry

Thanks for pointing that out - stupid boy:ok:

[TEEEJ]

Boslandew,

The Canary Islands were also used.

Great teamwork getting Typhoons to Falklands

Senior RAF officers have paid tribute to squadrons across Britain following the successful deployment of four Eurofighter Typhoons to the Falkland Islands.
Following one of the largest peacetime logistical missions of its kind in the Service’s history, codenamed Operation Typhoon Tempest Trail, four of the latest jets touched down in the South Atlantic after travelling 9,000 miles across the globe.

The aircraft, from 11 Squadron RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, replace the Tornado F3 fighters from RAF Leuchars, in Fife, which have completed 17 years’ service protecting UK interests on the other side of the world.
The touchdown at Mount Pleasant airbase marked the completion of months of planning and hard work.

“The extent of the challenge should not be underestimated,” said Squadron Leader Pete Morgan, an air-to-air refuelling specialist working for 2 Group at Air Command – the controlling authority for the operation.

“Not only was there a real requirement to deploy the Typhoons to replace the shortly-to-be-retired Tornado F3s, but the UK was also keen to demonstrate its continued ability to force project air power over strategic distances.”
Typhoon Tempest Trail involved 10 support aircraft from four squadrons flying 280 hours backed by 95 personnel, in addition to the fighters and their aircrews.

In a two-stage operation the aircraft were trailed by tankers to Ascension Island, using the Canary Islands as a staging post. From Ascension, they were trailed again to the Falkland Islands without any outside assistance.
Sqn Ldr Morgan said: “As a result, a complicated air-to-air refuelling plan was required with the Ascension to Falkland Islands leg being by far the most challenging.

“The Typhoons were accompanied by a TriStar aircraft throughout, whereas the other air-to-air assets provided fuel at various stages before returning to Ascension; in all, each Typhoon was required to refuel seven times.

“The Falkland Islands-based VC10 aircraft was on hand to provide a final top-up of fuel if required and to enable the Typhoons to divert to the South American mainland had the weather deteriorated unexpectedly during the nine-and-a-half hour transit.”

In addition, Hercules and Nimrod aircraft provided Search and Rescue cover for the long sea transits, and were equipped with survival equipment and spare life rafts that could be dropped to any survivors in the water in the event of an incident that necessitated the Typhoons ditching.

Originally posted on RAF website. (Currently being updated)

From

EF Typhoon News - Page 71 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?124670-EF-Typhoon-News/page71)

[Boslandew]

TEEEJ

Many thanks, its good to hear the full story. Gives you an idea of just how complex such deployments are. Even 8/9 hrs sitting in one place is an epic - the crews must have been prised out of the aircraft on arrival.

[k3k3]

In addition, Hercules and Nimrod aircraft provided Search and Rescue cover for the long sea transits, and were equipped with survival equipment and spare life rafts that could be dropped to any survivors in the water in the event of an incident that necessitated the Typhoons ditching.

Oh really!

[syncro_single]

"aircraft, from 11 Squadron "

Thats not how I remembered it, on that working weekend

[Top West 50]

Although Cat 1, the Mount Pleasant ILS was excellent and I think the feeling was that the Tristar could autoland from it. I don't suppose it was ever tried, of course!

[Roger D'Erassoff]

k3k3

In addition, Hercules and Nimrod aircraft provided Search and Rescue cover for the long sea transits, and were equipped with survival equipment and spare life rafts that could be dropped to any survivors in the water in the event of an incident that necessitated the Typhoons ditching.

Oh really!

Yes, really!

[Dan Winterland]

Yes, Really!

Lindholme Gear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindholme_Gear)