COJONES NEEDED FOR CAS

[sisemen]

Apparently the CAS refuses to sign off authorisation for the VC10 destined for Cosford to land at Cosford.

Two points:

How come it now takes high priced help to authorise what used to be done at squadron level?

Can anybody find a spare pair of cojones to replace the ones that the CAS has obviously misplaced?

[TBM-Legend]

In this crazy PC world the CAS will be authorising the "guest list" at dining-in nights.

The days when commanders had delegations are over methinks much to the demise of leadership qualities..

[500N]

Was any reason given ?

[Bob Viking]

All joking aside and I am not taking the proverbial but can you really land a VC10 at Cosford? It was bad enough landing a Jag there but I wouldn't fancy being onboard when someone tried it in an aircraft of that size.
Besides your average multi engine pilot doesn't land until he's wasted the first 2000'. That doesn't leave much runway at a place like that.
Despite the serious first question I couldn't resist the dig at the end. I'm sorry. I'll try harder to play nicer next time.
BV

[sisemen]

but can you really land a VC10 at Cosford?

A British Airways crew managed it quite easily when they took one of their VC10s there. That airframe was scrapped because it was taking up space and it was a civvy jet and there was no problem because Cosford would be getting one of the RAF ones once they became time-expired.

I guess that Wessex and Chinook pilots are excused élan, flair and a sense of adventure during training and any residual amounts are screened out once you are selected for higher things.

[WASALOADIE]

BA landed a VC10 there some years ago. I understand the runway length is within the RAF VC10 capability.

Seems to me, that the RAF Hierarchy are covering their 6's a bit too much, typical of the worries of litigious society and micro management from above. This sort of decision wouldn't have got as far as the CAS in days gone by, it would have been dealt with at group level but maybe AOC group didn't wish to make the decision and passed it up the chain.

Its a shame that a stalwart of the RAF cannot be displayed at the RAF Museum because of someone who needs to grow a pair of Cojones.

[500N]

A runway is a flat piece of tarmac 1186 metres long.

If the CAS has concerns, why doesn't he get the crew to
try landing it a couple of times where they are currently
within that distance to prove they can do it ?

Or are they only wanting to do one take off and landing ?

[sisemen]

One landing only - it ain't going anywhere after that.

The trouble is it may already be too late. The airframe is probably at Bruntingthorpe now and being converted into razor blades.

[thing]

Same thing happened with the R1 Grimrod a couple of years ago. It would have been no problem getting it in at Cosford but the powers that be decided it would have to go to Kemble, get taken to bits and then driven up to Cosford...

[esscee]

Maybe time for a new CAS.

[Tiger_mate]

The VC10 -XR808 or 'Bob' that was destined for Cosford, flies into Bruntingthorpe tomorrow (Monday 29 July).

I am afraid that this thread is too little, too late and given that the RAFM spent an awful lot of money bring ashore the DO17, it may be some time if at all that the Ten gets moved to Cosford.

[sisemen]

I sincerely hope that the PSO is having a read of this so that first thing tomorrow he can knock on the door...

"ahem, boss, you probably need to have a look at a thread on PPRuNe. It's not good"

or maybe CAS himself is a secret lurker with a handle such as "SteelyChinookDriver" and contributes to threads about why knitting can be dangerous.

[alfred_the_great]

He's probably been reading the threads about airworthyness and realised that unless an independent MAA sign off on the airframe it's not going anywhere. Welcome to the future of the RAF.

And I'm not being snarky.

[sisemen]

Alfred - as the first defender of CAS I hereby "out" you as the man himself :E

[Ogre]

Well I remember them getting the Vulcan in there with no bother (apart from the fact they were alledegly told to "get a move on there's a train coming and we don't want you to hit it on the approach"

Mind you they ruined the show a bit by slipping off the taxiway.....

[alfred_the_great]

Of course I am, of course I am.

:ok:

[A and C]

I am so glad that the current managnent of the RAF were not in charge in 1940............... I would be writing this in German now if they had been.

Far too much CYA and not enough backbone to make a decision based on anything except zero risk to carreer.

[dervish]

There must be something pretty basic wrong for this to be elevated to CAS. Surely someone from Cosford could simply say what the given reason was?

[JW411]

He's also getting a pasting on the XR808 thread in the "Aviation History and nostalgia" section.

[BEagle]

Has anyone bothered to show CAS the landing performance calculations?

Would he even understand them, given that the last aeroplane he flew was probably a Jet Provost 35 years ago?

Approach at VAT-5, land it on the right spot, full reverse and max braking, then shut down on the RW.

Not that much more difficult than landing on RW26 at St.Athan and stopping before the E turn off, which is about 1080m. Which even I could manage when delivering VC10K2s to Scrapheap Challenge.

When I was first at Brize 30 years ago, it was normal SOP to land with passengers in 1340m, to make the first turn off on RW26 - and that wasn't with particularly heavy braking.

I really hope that it isn't too late for this pretty simple task to be re-assessed...:sad:

The Germans are clearly made of stronger stuff than us - here is a clip of the last Interflug Illyushin 62 landing on 860m of grass:

3EP2fgosJ0A

[Bastardeux]

The guys on 101 squadron did quite a lot of practice landings at Brize for it, but it (apparently) only made it with 300 ft spare, so decided to chin it off!

[skua]

Perhaps, given CAS's background, the way forward is a Wokka on each corner, as an underslung load:D

[Chugalug2]

ATG:_
He's probably been reading the threads about airworthyness and realised that unless an independent MAA sign off on the airframe it's not going anywhere. Welcome to the future of the RAF.

If there were one message from the threads that you mention, it would be that the CAS, and the rest of the RAF High Command for that matter, do indeed need the appendages mentioned by the OP. Nothing in that campaign would stand in the way of a straight forward matter of airmanship such as this is, or even a full blown operational sortie against a determined and well equipped enemy. All this matter needs is leadership. All the scandal of UK Military Airworthiness needs is leadership. We are I'm afraid, in violent agreement!

[TomJoad]

Sisemen, what was the reason for refusing, do you know?

[sisemen]

No idea. I picked the story up from the history & nostalgia thread and thought it deserved a look by the people that matter in the hopes that either the decision can be changed in time or that CAS is embarrassed enough to put his knitting away and show some proper leadership.

[Evalu8ter]

One perhaps should ask how this decision reached CAS (if it even has)? I'd imagine that everyone from Sqn Cdr, Stn Cdr, Force Cdr and AOC Gp has probably wrung their hands of it - leaving CAS as the 'last resort'. Put yourself in his shoes; if the Truckie 'expert' DH chain has refused to authorise it why should a non-expert SH pilot agree to it? The DH chain is built upon using SQEP in key positions - if they've said 'too much risk' then why should he overrule his 'experts'?

[wilnot]

I had assumed that CAS had made the decision wearing his other hat as CinC Air Command (despite there being a 2* AOC 2 Gp and a 3* D Com Ops below him in the chain of command). However it seems that on Air Safety matters there is a completely separate chain, which runs from Stn Cdr (as Delivery Duty Holder:rolleyes:) to the Operational Duty Holder (who dat?) and then directly to CAS as 'Senior Duty Holder'!!! The mind boggles. :ugh:

[BEagle]

The DH chain is built upon using SQEP in key positions...

You win today's wanque-word prize!

CAS - JFDI!!!

[Lingo Dan]

Why not wait until > 20 kts of wind from the right direction is forecast? That would surely reduce the risk.

However, I also was a helicopter pilot and haven't flown an aeroplane since the JP - other than a Chipmunk!

[betty swallox]

I love the comments on here. 500N, why doesn't he have them practice!! Do you seriously think that he wouldn't have thought of that??!!
Jeez

I'm amazed that the niaivety on PPRuNe!! It's great. Like the most senior RAF officer wouldn't have thought if all that's been written on here.
Haha!!

[Jabba_TG12]

Well, there you go. Its not just me thinking it, that the paucity of true leadership in public service has reached the highest echelons of the military... its not just the police, the politicos or the NHS, its across the board.

The rot started during Options For Change and has only got worse since.

I dont suppose these guys are all Common Purpose Graduates as well are they? :E

[500N]

betty

All the discussion up to that point was on the concern the runway
was too short.

If that was his concern, my comment was not to practice
but to show it could be done.

[ex-fast-jets]

I watched 10s land at Belize, and turn off at the mid-point access to the parking area. What was that - about 3000'??

I know they had pax and freight onboard - I assume they also had diversion fuel to get them to the Land Of Better Hotels And Much Better Rates.

So I assume they were not at minimum weight.

As mentioned previously, a bit of wind down the strip, and light weight...........

Shame.

It is a lovely aircraft, and has served the RAF well.

It does deserve its place in the RAF Museum.

[Oldsarbouy]

I would put money on 808 being kept at Bruntingthorpe and used as a fast taxi down the runway aircraft on the open days and also used for corporate events as was 471. PM me for details of VC10 limited edition Malt Whisky, still some left!!

[TomJoad]

I love the comments on here. 500N, why doesn't he have them practice!! Do you seriously think that he wouldn't have thought of that??!!
Jeez

I'm amazed that the niaivety on PPRuNe!! It's great. Like the most senior RAF officer wouldn't have thought if all that's been written on here.
Haha!!

It worse than that Betty, you got punters on here castigating a dude for making a decision without any knowledge of what decision he made, whether he made it or why!:D:D:D Truly laughable - but hey it is a rumour network.

As for CAS making a policy decision on the basis of reading PPrune - that's the same foolishness that expects the Daily Mail to write a technically correct air incident report - please :}


Look there's a witch.

[teeteringhead]

A VC10 did a low approach and overshoot at Cosford a couple of weeks ago.

I guess the crew report would have been part of the decision-making process. :(

And CAS only took over on Wednesday! Give him a break. And whilst the decision went to him, (CYA by those below), I bet it was a rock solid "Ooh no sir, unless you say so", from about Group Captain upwards.

And as the Pres of the B of I for the Mull Chinook - when he was a wg cdr - I guess he has his own views on Airworthiness and Senior Officers. :ok:

I think he's a good bloke.

[TheWizard]

Maybe time for a new CAS.

After 3 days?

Blimey, some people have no patience!! :ugh:

[TomJoad]

A VC10 did a low approach and overshoot at Cosford a couple of weeks ago.

I guess the crew report would have been part of the decision-making process. :(

And CAS only took over on Wednesday! Give him a break. And whilst the decision went to him, (CYA by those below), I bet it was a rock solid "Ooh no sir, unless you say so", from about Group Captain upwards.

And as the Pres of the B of I for the Mull Chinook - when he was a wg cdr - I guess he has his own views on Airworthiness and Senior Officers. :ok:

I think he's a good bloke.

No,,,, so contrary to the bollocks written on here by some, he actually came to the decision informed with information from SMEs (one for Beagle to crow about) and using his own good judgement - heaven forfend! Wonder if that's why he got to be CAS.:D

[Runaway Gun]

If it only had 300ft to spare, then imagine the consequences of a failure of a thrust reverser, spoilers or brakes. In a VC-10 that old the risk also has to be weighed for the crew.

[Cows getting bigger]

I would suggest the new CAS has far bigger cojones than many of the posters here. Any of the naysayers ever flown with/for him on SH?

[Al R]

I know nothing about CAC's testes (not a sentence I thought I'd ever one day be writing, 30 years ago as an AC) so I can't comment on the meat of this. But as an LAC I recall looking at the previously long stored VC10s flown into Abingdon by some French contractors (?) on a wing, a prayer.. and an outrageous insurance premium?

Edit. Far longer runway, I know.

[CharlieJuliet]

Surely the ODM can be used to decide whether this is possible, or not. In the other world we use RLW (Regulated Landing Weights - aka masses), and so long as we can get below the RLW for the runway we intend to land on we can land - otherwise we can't and need to burn off or dump. RLW tables are provided that take into account mass, configuration, temperature and wind. No idea what the '10 ODM says, but if there's no mass that can stop in the distance required then careful considerations must be made as there are quite large contingencies built into the normal operating masses, and so the regulator could authorise a landing with reduced safety factors. In the other world this would be operating outside the regulations that require a destination landing distance available at a destination of 1.67 * the actual distance required.
Unless a properly conduceted performance trial was carried out I would not place any credence on 300 ft remaining!!!

[betty swallox]

...what TomJoad said in post 35!

[Tankertrashnav]

No knowledge of VC10s but you could get a Victor into Catterick (c 3300'/1000m). Interesting tale here.

The final flight of XA939 - to Catterick for fire practice - Tony Cunnane's Afterthoughts (http://tonycunnane.co.uk/final-flights-1.html)

I'm guessing the present CAS would have vetoed that one as well!

[gr4techie]

Just put a big pile of cardboard boxes at the end of the runway. Then some volleyball nets from the fire section. Then give it a boot full of nose wheel steering at 100kts and turn it off the runway on one set of wheels. If that fails then get the ski jump from the old Ark Royal so the VC10 jumps over the railway line and into the hangar where they teach airframe repair. Skid to a stop in a cloud of dust and casually brush yourself off as nothing happened. What could possibly go wrong?

[sisemen]

And CAS only took over on Wednesday!

Maybe it was his woosy predecessor then?

[Robert Cooper]

OMG. Thank goodness I retired in 1983. Don't believe this thread!!!

Bob C

[dervish]

Quote:
And CAS only took over on Wednesday!


Maybe it was his woosy predecessor then?


That would certainly explain things. Leave a hand grenade and hide the pin. On the face of it, no love lost there. :E

[just another jocky]

To me, many of the comments on this thread highlight just how this site has sunk over the last few years.

"We don't know what happened, indeed we admit we don't know anything really but that wont stop us publicly lambasting a very decent VSO anyway."

Sad guys, very sad. :mad:

[pontifex]

TTN

And into Hal Far. That was even more fun, streaming the brake chute over the sea with the runway beginning at the cliff edge. However it didn't have the satisfaction of halting all traffic on the Q1 whilst a couple of "dry runs" were done before the main event at Catterick.

[TomJoad]

To me, many of the comments on this thread highlight just how this site has sunk over the last few years.

"We don't know what happened, indeed we admit we don't know anything really but that wont stop us publicly lambasting a very decent VSO anyway."

Sad guys, very sad. :mad:


Indeed jocky, could not agree more - typified by the reply below when asked "why he had taken the decision"

No idea. I picked the story up from the history & nostalgia thread and thought it deserved a look by the people that matter in the hopes that either the decision can be changed in time or that CAS is embarrassed enough to put his knitting away and show some proper leadership.

But not knowing why is clearly not reason enough to mouth off at someone who cannot wrap themselves in the same anonymity as their detractor. But you are right this type of comment/thread is appearing all too frequently now on PPrune - most likely from the angry mob poster who has never seen a days Service in his life or if he had was one of the disgruntled. I suspect that the current CAS has shown more leadership by the time he gets out of bed than these misanthropes have in their entire lives.

[sisemen]

To me, many of the comments on this thread highlight just how this site has sunk over the last few years

Could be that over the past 20 years or so many of the VSOs became compliant, scared of their own shadow, political yes men who didn't stand up for their men or their Service when it mattered.

This particular CAS may well be the smartest, bravest CAS that the RAF has ever had - it remains to be seen whether he has the cojones to make brave decisions or allows himself to be sunk by a mountain of bureaucracy and dictated to by the mandarins of Whitehall.

most likely from the angry mob poster who has never seen a days Service in his life

When I left I outranked Pulford and I wasn't disgruntled with my service :=

Edited: Coincidentally, from a link on another post on this forum...

MoD spends £325m sprucing up its offices: Huge sum spent while soldiers live in dilapidated homes | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380592/MoD-spends-325m-sprucing-offices-Huge-sum-spent-soldiers-live-dilapidated-homes.html)
Defence chiefs are forking out huge amounts of taxpayers' money on lavish offices with marble and stone floors, a fully-equipped gym, restaurant and coffee bars so civil servants work in comfort.

Yet troops must endure ageing barracks with leaking roofs, broken boilers, faulty wiring, cracked windows and damp.

Wasn't Pulford AMP while all this was going on?

[TomJoad]

When I left I outranked Pulford and I wasn't disgruntled with my service :=





Then act like it.:=

[Splash1983]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Now that the services have and use Safety management Systems of course CAS has to take a more measured view than in the past. Yes BA did land a VC10 at Cosford, but how long ago was that and at what risk? Assessment of risk to life, was probably not born then as even a glimmer of a concept and sadly it has taken the loss of many lives to change the attitudes to Flight and now Air Safety.

In the 30+ years of my flying career the number of times we gave it a go rather than properly looked at the risk were many. And yes very early on I had a swim directly as a result of poor planning and the bad attitude to safe flying and adherence to regulations prevelant in part at the time. We've moved on rapidly in the last 5-10 years and as a result flying is safer, but at times the process can appear boring, rule bound and the result of the fun police at one end of the spectrum but and equally can allow spectaculary good results when managed properly on operations. The two have rightly different levels of acceptable risk - Cosford v Bastion no contest.

On other threads we have seen complaints about poor airworthiness managment and a lack of safety consideration - here, because probably, CAS has made the right decision he's suddenly seen as lacking leadership (and no I haven't seen the evidence).

And before I'm asked, no I've never ever been in the RAF and no I don't know CAS. Just an ex Dark Blue aviator who has been around the safety world for the right and wrong reasons for a while.

[Cows getting bigger]

A few words attributable to the new CAS in a previous existence:

In considering the position of the crew the board said, "although it is likely that Flight Lieutenant Tapper made an Error of Judgment in the conduct of the attempted climb over the Mull of Kintyre, it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence" (para 67(c)). The board concluded that "there were no human failings with respect to Flight Lieutenant Cook".

I personally think the man will be good for the RAF.

[Vick Van Guard]

Weather he was right or wrong, or indeed if he was even consulted, it's all immaterial now.

XR808 touched down for the last time at Brunters this morning. :(

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

gr4technie,

I nearly spat my tea over the key board! Well said sir. As for the Nimrod landing easily at COS, the crew will have been using different performance data than was used at ISK, then!

Duncs:ok:

[Easy Street]

One perhaps should ask how this decision reached CAS (if it even has)? I'd imagine that everyone from Sqn Cdr, Stn Cdr, Force Cdr and AOC Gp has probably wrung their hands of it - leaving CAS as the 'last resort'. Put yourself in his shoes; if the Truckie 'expert' DH chain has refused to authorise it why should a non-expert SH pilot agree to it?

The Sqn Cdr and Force Cdr cannot wring their hands of this decision, because they are not duty holders. Yes, they can advise the respective duty holders, but ultimately there are only 3 steps on the duty holder chain and for 2 Gp the top two of those are occupied by SH pilots. I'm not up on the technical ins-and-outs of this case, but it strikes me as a good illustration of the pressure building on the 2* AOCs as a consequence of consolidation of the command structure, coupled with implementation of the Duty Holder construct.

As we consolidate our command structure, the 2* areas are getting increasingly broad. In the specific case of 2 Gp, its AOC seems to have become permanently double-hatted as COS Ops. This, in turn, seems to have fomented a view in their Airship's manning office that AOC 2 Gp need not be a truckie (previous incumbent: Tonka WSO, current incumbent: Wokka pilot). [Idle question: is there such a thing as a 2* truckie, or do all the clever ones take PA or bugger off at their first exit option? :E]

Compare this to a previous era in which we had a 2* group for strike/attack, another for air defence, another for maritime patrol, another for transport, and so on. Those 2* AOCs were instinctive masters of their brief and were in a perfect position to issue Air Staff Orders (and, when required, issue exceptions to those orders!). Now, our three 2* groups are broad by any previous standards; 22 Group is pretty clearly today's version of Training Command and 1 Group does a good impression of a 1980s Strike Command [please note: I am not talking numbers of platforms or personnel here, just breadth of roles]. This is right and proper within the context of a smaller Service, but for me it follows that the business of the former 'Group' level of command should have been pushed further down to 1*.

Unfortunately 2 things have conspired to stop this. The first is the implementation of the Duty Holder construct; assignment of ODH responsibility to the 2* AOCs has given them a strong incentive to hold on to as many levers of power as possible (because, if they are going to hold risks as a Duty Holder, they need at least to have some relevant levers available). The second thing has been the wish (from the very top) to preserve the historic significance of the "Station Commander" and "AOC" roles during the implementation of CSR and Haddon-Cave. The two historic roles have been well-protected (in the stn cdrs' case, by assignment of the DDH responsibility, even though this can be illogical - how can there be two DDHs each for Typhoon and Tornado?). The recent creation of 1* Force Commanders does not change all that much; stn cdrs remain responsible directly to their AOCs for a number of items, including airworthiness, which makes it difficult for AOCs to meaningfully delegate any regulatory or supervisory responsibility to the 1* Force Commanders.

How can we un-bung the regulatory morass that sees seemingly tactical business escalated to CAS through a series of non-specialist officers? I see a ready-made solution in re-titling 1 Group as Strike Command, 2 Group as Transport Command, and 22 Group as Training Command, all with 2* AOC-in-Cs (keep calling them ODHs as well to keep the MAA happy). Then, one could sneakily relabel the Tornado Force as 1 Group, the Typhoon Force as 11 Group, the ISTAR Force as 18 Group, etc, all with 1* AOCs. These 1* would be the sole DDHs for their platforms and write their Group orders with the ability to hold their own risks. They would also be specialists, and would have the rank and clout to rule on matters such as landing a VC10 at Cosford (which, it seems, stn cdrs no longer have). Meanwhile the stn cdrs could go back to the business of running stations, commanding people, and dare I say going flying, rather than managing their burgeoning safety and risk-management fiefdoms.

[sisemen]

I woke up this morning with the intention of canning this thread as I felt that, not only had its purpose been served and events overtaken the raison d'etre but that, perhaps, the present CAS had been unfairly targetted.

However, given the post above and its clear thinking I think I'll leave it up for a while.

[Party Animal]

Easy Street - excellent post and very worthy of further discussion. As to a 2* truckie, can anyone name one who made it to a command position of influence? Just asking out of interest as a non-truckie myself.

[teeteringhead]

Easy Street :D:D:D

[Roland Pulfrew]

Slight topic drift, but

Idle question: is there such a thing as a 2* truckie

As to a 2* truckie, can anyone name one who made it to a command position of influence?

I can think of 2; a former OC 99 and a former OC 216, both of whom are currently 2*s at Air Cmd. I wouldn't lay odds on either of them being allowed to be AOC 2 Gp in the future though; seems that AOC slots are now as rare as rocking horse.... and they aren't FJ or SH mates.

Edited to add: Easy Street - brilliant suggestion, sensible, logical and viable - which of course means it will never be made into policy. :D:D

[Evalu8ter]

Easy Street;
Absolutely. So, either AOC 2 Gp has received advice from his experts not to do it or he feels that the residual, post mitigation, risk is simply not worth it. Interesting point re Truckie VSOs - I do wonder if the bright ones leave to get seniority in airlines or if Torpy's alleged comment 'only FJ pilots have the mental agility to proceed beyond 2*' (oh the irony....) stopped the career charges of worthy individuals?

[dervish]

Easy Street

A well thought out post.

One thing I cannot get my head around is this concept:


stn cdrs remain responsible directly to their AOCs for a number of items, including airworthiness,

In what sense are they "responsible" if they have no control over those who manage airworthiness in e.g. DE&S?

[ACW599]

>In what sense are they "responsible" if they have no control over those who manage airworthiness in e.g. DE&S?<

Or in PFI situations such as DHFS?

[TomJoad]

Is it not that they are responsible for the continued management of the airworthiness of the aircraft. In that respect and in so far as it falls under their influence they are to ensure that the integrity of the airworthiness certification is not compromised through action or lack of action in the areas of operation or maintenance. With respect to maintenance 1st and 2nd line engineering staff (no idea what current term is) have no principal input to management of airworthiness in that they follow approve maintenance procedures, standards and practices as approved by the IPT. For example a eng o when authorising say a Red Line entry is not in reality making a airworthiness decision in so far as the certification of the aircraft is concerned.

[NutLoose]

This had been planned for years, aircraft if i remember rightly change places on Majors to allow it to happen... Press releases have been put out that she would be retired to the RAF Museum on numerous occasions..
I am sorry this just makes the RAF look like a second rate bunch of cocking idiots, how else can one look at it, to plan years ago the maintenance of the fleet draw down aimed at this specific day, someone surely must have came to the decision that she could indeed land there..
At the 24th hour to say no it cannot get in makes it look like the right hand does not know what the left is doing... Farcical comes to mind
I wonder if this will be the thing the CAS is remembered for? rather like the AVM that flipped the BF109 and turned Black 6 into Black 9.


..

[Thud105]

Wasn't the VC-10 at Brooklands flown in?

[Tiger_mate]

Wasn't the VC-10 at Brooklands flown in?

A40-AB’s final flight was from Muscat to Brooklands via Heathrow on 6th July 1987.

The 26 years since the VC10 flew into Brooklands have seen major changes and sadly loss of life, and subsequent mitigation has been the driving factor in the deletion of any 'can-do' attitude. Whoever flew the trial sortie a few weeks ago may have been the real decision maker over this matter, although this has not been previously mentioned on either thread. For sure, trees were cut in the Cosford RW06 undershoot as recently as a few days ago. I guess this falls into the folder of: 'Any doubt - no doubt' whatever the fallout, and in any event, the cab is now at Bruntingthorpe, so case closed.

East Street: Awesome contribution, could almost have been an official response. Can we have Ops - Admin and Eng wings as well?

[Flying Lawyer]

In fairness to teeteringhead, he pointed out (post 36): A VC10 did a low approach and overshoot at Cosford a couple of weeks ago.
I guess the crew report would have been part of the decision-making process.