The 'West Raynham Incident' took place on 8 Feb 56. 8 Hunters got airborne in low cloud and mist which was expected to improve. It didn't - it worsened. They arrived back at 20000ft over West Raynham to find low cloud and fog. Despite the fact that 2 other a/c had already diverted to Waterbeach, the 8 Hunters set off at 2000ft to Marham in pairs at 30 sec intervals. Marham's weather also deteriorated and the GCA controllers were unprepared for 8 a/c with critical fuel states all planning to arrive within 4 minutes of each other; of the first pair 1 lost sight of his leader but landed successfully more by luck than judgement, the leader flew 3 timed circuits at below 500ft, landed successfully but flamed out taxying in. The others weren't quite so lucky, 4 climbed up and ejected as their fuel ran out, 1 crashed into a field and was killed, the 8th flew a 150ft circuit but force landed when his engine flamed out on final.
Whenever someone 'commits' to a single aerodrome, they should consider what would happen if that aerodrome became unavailable or that multiple diversions might be required. Despite what airline beancounters may want, intending to land at the planned destination without enough fuel to divert anywhere else seems the height of folly to me. But then I'm old-fashioned about such things!
Worringly, a new ba skipper recently told me "Our landing fuel policies will kill people one of these days".
If beancounters think that paying to carry extra fuel is expensive, let them consider the cost of an accident.....
Last edited by BEagle; 13th May 2005 at 16:08.