Originally Posted by
November4
8 Dec 1988 109 was tasked to recover RM pax from Gardermoen when a Hercules went u/s. Gardermoen - Leuchars - Brize no problem except over, Birmingham a bang was heard from the wheel well. Apparently one of the main wheels had exploded and the debris had taken out the fuel lines to 2 of the engines as well as the auto pilot and hydraulic system. The crew managed to recover to Brize and the 50 or so RM and crew evacuated the aicraft via the enmergency slides. We later heard that this was the closest to losing a VC10 that the RAF had come.
I was the co-pilot up front on that. It was an interesting half hour or so!
We didn't lose the autopilot, if memory serves me right, but we did lose the LH hydraulics (requiring manual gear lowering) and perhaps more seriously we lost all 15,000lbs of fuel from the port wing, leaving us a bit tight for fuel on approach at BZN.
matkat and others:
For those who are speculating upon the decision making process that led to the aeroplane getting airborne with a faulty tyre, allow me to explain:
The tyre problem was spotted during the turnaround and the GE wanted to change it as we had a spare in the boot.
The Flt Lt Captain and MEng FE weren't keen on the delay that this would incur. Myself and the nav both thought that we should change it and said so.
Capt and FE went down to have a look at it and came back up to the flight deck to say that the GE now agreed that it was fit for one flight home and that he had signed the tech log (F700) to this extent. The nav and I accepted this as the truth on the basis that if all three of them were in agreement then we were happy to go with their decision.
At the subsequent BoI it transpired that the captain and FE had bullied the GE into signing it off and had then lied to myself and the nav about it, saying that the GE was happy when he in fact was not.
I gave the BoI a 100% correct statement of my understanding of the events and I believe that the nav and GE did the same. I made it clear that the GE had had his doubts but that we'd been told by the captain and FE that he was in agreement that it was OK to go. I'm not sure what the captain and FE told the board as I was not there when they gave evidence and they did not want to talk to me afterwards because they felt that I had failed to "back them up" - and that suggests to me that they were feeling uncomfortable with their actions and possibly with what they'd told the BoI. For my part, I felt that it was important to be honest with the board as the fact needed to come out, and if that upset the captain and FE then so be it.
The board came to the conclusion that the captain and FE had put unfair pressure upon the GE, had lied to myself and the nav and had been unprofessional. They were both punished for their actions. The nav, the GE and I were all reminded that it was our responsibility to be more assertive in the face of such pressure and to stand our ground - other than that there was no sanction against mhyself and the nav but I can't recall what happened with the GE.
I was annoyed with myself for not being more assertive but as a relatively junior co-pilot I was less confident than I should have been with regard to my knowledge of what was and was not right. The nav was also relatively new to type and we both made the "mistake" of trusting more experienced crew members who were, in fact, telling us lies. When not in possession of the full facts it's hard to make the right decision. I do not now, and never have, place any blame upon the GE - only the captain and FE for telling lies to us and myself and the nav for not being assertive enough.
I have never taken anyone's word at face value since then - I always check!
If anyone wants to discuss it further, I'm available by PM.