Victor Airborne (Merged) [Archive]

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 12:51

Well, I was there and I saw what happened and, as an airline pilot, I would have said the interests of the organisers would be best served by coming clean with the CAA. It was a great day and it would a terrible shame if these events were to stop happening. That said, the organisers are extremely lucky they did not end up something far far worse on their hands.

This is a very large aircraft we are talking about, not a Cessna 150. They pointed out earlier in the day that the runway at Bruntingthorpe is approx 2 miles long which although long, is not THAT long. This wasn't simply a case of stopping after V1. The thing was airborne before it landed and then braked. How the hell they managed to stop the thing is beyond me and I would have said that whoever was at the controls will have some tricky questions to answer.

I hope lessons are learnt from this and that these days keep on happening because as a spectacle, and as an aviation enthusiast, they need to. That sort of thing, however, should never happen again.

Snapshot

4th May 2009, 13:02

Andrew,
I posted a thread on Mil forum yesterday within about 30 mins of it happening!
I had a call from a mate who told me what had happened!

I made a call to an operator there yesterday to confirm and he did!

I posted two questions:
They asked about the implications of this incident concerning the future
of the fast taxi runs that so many enthusiasts and professionals spend countless
hours to keep the aircraft going and thus uphold our aviation heritage!!

The issue as far as I was concerned was about my questions!
NOT whether or not the Victor had actually got airborne? It had!

I asked them to aviation professionals on this forum! I was and still
am interested in their opinion?

The first two posts were speculating that I could have confused it with a JP!
Its nose wheel had apparently lifted during its run!!

I waited for any sensible reply, there was none!

I considered other threads I had read on here recently and
decided that I didn't want to be associated (as thread starter)
with what could turn into a pathetic slanging match!

The poor Victor 'Captain' has enough to think about, I didn't
want to add to that!
I pulled it! No conspiracy!
AB

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 13:02

Cheers Snapshot, appreciated. One or two have been running a day long crusade on YouTube to supress footage and comments and its pretty pathetic, be better if they just owned up to the CAA and deal with it than trying to run their own suppression policy.

Thanks for updating the story, the main thing is everyone is unhurt seems it could have been very different.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 13:34

Rather that the organisers be given an interval to discover what happened and why before contacting the relevant authorities, free from possibly ill-informed speculation.

I sincerely hope that that is the case. Trying to hush this up will do nothing for their credibility when the CAA inevitably find out.

Yellow Sun

4th May 2009, 13:38

It isn't the CAA who will stop high speed ground run demonstrations (for that is what they are - let's drop the euphemism "taxi") it's the the insurers. If they perceive additional risk then the premiums will rise or they may even decline cover altogether.

What makes this incident so potentially dangerous is that you can do all the takeoff calculations in the world and calculate the maximum speed to which you can accelerate and stop in the available runway distance, but once you get airborne all bets are off. The options then available are to try and land in an incorrect configuration in the remaining runway available with no clear indication that it is sufficient, or to carry on and fly a circuit and land. Neither option is appealing and if anything the former carries the more significant risk.

YS

BEagle

4th May 2009, 13:51

What on earth is there to be gained by this heavy-handed suppression of photographic proof that the 'flight' occurred?

Publish and be damned, I say!!

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 13:52

well there are a series of three pics online right now which say it all.....

They aren't mine but publicly available so unless that's a problem I am happy to post the link.

BEagle

4th May 2009, 14:11

Why shouldn't you post the link?

PPRuNe Pop

4th May 2009, 14:13

I agree with BEags there is little point in hiding it now. We would not have done so anyway when I first saw it. People are free to post so long as it stays in the boundaries of PPRuNe rules.

However, the poster has a free choice to keep it or remove it and he chose the latter - as you can see it made little or no difference.

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 14:13

because they have now been deleted !

Good job I saved them.......PM me if you want a peek.

PPRuNe Pop

4th May 2009, 14:16

There is no point in not posting Andrew, the damage if any is done. Its news and its aviation.

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 14:20

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll130/andrewmcharlton/3497448921_84096fc2c4.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/%3Ca%20href=)

>

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll130/andrewmcharlton/3498266856_81567907b2.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/%3Ca%20href=)">

For the record they aren't my pics, they were posted on flickr earlier and were in the public domain.

D120A

4th May 2009, 14:23

I think that might be the moment you find yourself hoping that nice big brake chute doesn't candle.

hurn

4th May 2009, 14:30

I wonder if there'll be any 'Victor to the Sky' club badges available? :E

bubblesuk

4th May 2009, 14:32

Well done Hurn!!! you are only the 89084247209847 person to have used the "Victor To The Sky" line.:ok::)

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 14:32

Only if you give us money every month for ever as we can't get a major sponsor to pay for the nappies the crew will need (and maybe a few farmers new by).

hurn

4th May 2009, 14:37

Well done Hurn!!! you are only the 89084247209847 person to have used the "Victor To The Sky" line.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif:)Well if all those people would just pledge a pound...... :p

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 14:57

I see what you're saying Yellow Sun but I guess in this instance it becomes a CAA issue the second that thing got airborne.

Everything else in your post is bang on. You can imagine my suprise seeing it not only get airborne but then landing again. It goes against every facet of operating large jets, which is why it's so serious, and why the outcome could have so very much worse. Attempting to cover it up doesn't help!

The line that this was an 'accident', not a big deal and simply a taxi run gone a bit wrong just doesn't wash. I've my suspicions as to how this happened but as it's nothing more than 'informed' speculation i'll keep it to my self.

To re-iterate, I really hope this doesn't put paid to days like this. The rest of it (particularly the Lightning) was awesome. Don't let one cock-up ruin it for everyone!

Croqueteer

4th May 2009, 15:43

:eek:Coldplayer, I think you're speaking from the wrong end. Many moons ago as I was about to go home (or to the bar) when the engineers asked me to do a fast taxi on a Viscount and lift the nose wheel to check a reported shimmy. I was flapless but with only a min quantity of fuel, and as I raised the nose wheel she got airborne. I was not strapped in, and had an engineer in the right seat, all the options flashed through my mind, but I checked the feel of the controls, throttled back and landed with plenty of runway (Aberdeen) in hand, therefore no fuss and no paperwork. I was surprised at how easily she got airborne nowhere near the normal rotate, so I think the Victor flight was accidental.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 15:50

Yes, but with respect, a Viscount is not a heavy 4 engined jet and you simply don't/can't do that in a jet.

To do so is to push your luck beyond its design limits.

Shaft109

4th May 2009, 15:56

OK I was there and saw the final few seconds, as my view was blocked by the tail of the Hunter. I saw the left main gear touchdown with blue smoke then slew just onto the grass.

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 16:02

More to the point had the a/c been pre-flighted (even though it wasn't mean't to fly) to check that all controls and surfaces were properly responsive and working?

Hot Charlie

4th May 2009, 16:03

I'm curious about the fuel state as it was as close as possible to come to stopping in the remaining distance - could it have done a circuit?

I know this is a little speculation but do fast taxi operators take this into account?

I should hope not, as I'd have thought they shouldn't be putting the aircraft in the position to get airborne in the first place.

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 16:05

So you'd happily line her up and tank it down the drag without knowing things work as intended?

Given that at those speeds all surfaces would be aerodynamically effective I assume you'd want them all pointing in the right directions.

Hot Charlie

4th May 2009, 16:07

Sorry Andrew - replying to the post above yours (I can't reply to a post in less than a minute:ok: - we posted almost simultaneously).

As for yours, I'd hope they had.:)

hurn

4th May 2009, 16:13

You can imagine my suprise seeing it not only get airborne but then landing again. It goes against every facet of operating large jets, which is why it's so serious,So from a crew safety point of view you're saying they should have gone around and then landed if possible?

If that had happened wouldn't they be in worse trouble with the CAA as they would have potentially been flying over a built up area of houses rather than staying within the confines of the airfield, or would it be treated the same?

Shaft109

4th May 2009, 16:17

Didn't this happen with a test of the first F-16?

Also I'd like the pilot to pick me 6 numbers for next week.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 16:25

So from a crew safety point of view you're saying they should have gone around and then landed?

If that had happened wouldn't they be in worse trouble with the CAA as they would have potentially been flying over a built up area of houses rather than staying within the confines of the airfield, or would it be treated the same?

Speculating in public is not what I intended to do so I won't. However, in response to the above point, no that's not what i'm saying.

What i'm saying is that the aircraft should NEVER have got anywhere the speed at which it could lift off the ground. There should (and i'm not saying there wasn't as I don't know) have been a full brief so that everyone on board was aware of the exact sequence of events and under no illusions as to exactly what speed the reject (or should I say 'end of the fast taxi') would be initiated. What is for certain is that, in my humble opinion and experience, it should not have been doing much more than 80kts when this happened.

What I will say with absolute certainity is that under NO circumstances should this thing have been taken into the air as a solution to what happened. It is not airworthy, end of story. Any speculation as to that being the correct course of action should stop!

I am 100% certain that the CAA will be involved and there will be a conclusion to come from that. Speculating as to what that may be will help no one. I suspect that the attempt to supress video, pictures and comment was for the very reasons mentioned earlier. I find it hard to believe the organisers haven't gone to the CAA themselves.

Again, I say that I really do hope that this 'incident' does not put the tin lid on these days. This aside, it was fantastic and well organised.

Croqueteer

4th May 2009, 16:48

:ok:I don't think I've mis-identified your speaking orifice, there is not a lot of difference between a Viscount and an empty Victor which will get airborne well below Vr regardless of calculations. I've also flown 4-jets for many years, I don't think you can be a pilot.

Croqueteer

4th May 2009, 16:50

:hmm: The above comment of course is to Coldplayer.

spekesoftly

4th May 2009, 16:53

Speculating in public is not what I intended to do so I won't. It's not my place to say.

but then you do just that !

The cock up occured when this exercise was pushed too far.

HZ123

4th May 2009, 16:58

At least it makes interesting reading and is a change from much of the daily doses of dross. Well done to all involved.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 17:08

Croqueteer,

Whatever. I'm not contributing to this to convince you of whether or not i'm a pilot. If you are seriously suggesting that it is sensible to get an aircraft that size into the air with no option but to land it back on the same runway, and that that is ok, then fill your boots. I just can't be bothered arguing about it. When I say this was not an 'accident', I agree with what you've said. I don't believe the stated intention was to become airborne.

spekesoftly,

I don't think that is speculation. I would have said that was perfectly clear to anyone that was there. The speculation would come as to why it was pushed so far...

spekesoftly

4th May 2009, 17:12

You are adamant that it was a cock-up, and have totally ruled out any technical malfunction ? Sounds like speculation to me.

PPRuNe Pop

4th May 2009, 17:12

Don't go speculating folks. The pictures tell all and in that context the aircraft got airborne and its not for us to decide what action will be taken - if any. So please cool it.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 17:20

Noted Pop.

Just to say that it was a 'fast taxi run'. An aircraft which is not airworthy became airborne. In my eyes that is a cock up and as I was there, and saw it close to the limit of control, the pictures above don't paint anything like the full picture. The second one gives you a clue, in that it is entirely over the grass.

There may well have been a technical fault and at no point have I ruled one out. How the hell could I?! That said, there are very few technical faults on an aircraft that would result in it becoming inadvertantly airborne, particularly on an aircraft where that option is not an option.

Croqueteer

4th May 2009, 17:28

:8 Coldplay, My point is, it is acceptable to lift to nose wheel on a fast taxi, and if the a/c is empty of load and fuel, it will get airborne when you don't think it possible. I think it relevant to say you can't possibly be a pilot, also, "can't be bothered to argue" usually means you have no case. wait till we hear what the crew has to say.

ATSA1

4th May 2009, 17:31

I have been watching this thread all day....

It would seem to me that something amiss DID occur at Bruntingthorpe yesterday, and that Somebody didn't want it getting out into the public domain!

Well it has, hasn't it?

So it's natural that people will speculate about all the whys and wherefores, especially in a forum such as this....

After all, what is RUMOUR, if it isn't SPECULATION?

Shaft109

4th May 2009, 17:39

Again I was present and can note (not speculatively) that the left main gear practically touched down on the grass, before the she swerved over back towards the centerline.

That the pilot got an a/c stopped in time without a brake chute is amazing.

It was a hell of a lot closer call than the pics show.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 17:41

Croqueteer,

no, 'can't be bothered to argue' means just that.

I can only assume you're talking about something you didn't see, have not seen footage of and are, therefore, talking from a position of ignorance on this particular incident. If you had seen it, given your experience, I suspect you might well be coming at this from a different angle.

My point is, it is acceptable to lift to nose wheel on a fast taxi, and if the a/c is empty of load and fuel, it will get airborne when you don't think it possible.

Again, noted. My point is that in an aircraft such as this, under conditions such as this (i.e the damn thing is not airworthy), then that is no excuse. I've ferried empty jet aircraft with very little fuel on board and yes, they do come off the runway with considerable ease but surely one is to expect that.

Croqueteer

4th May 2009, 18:05

:ouch:I accept the relevant point that I did not see the event.

Shaft109

4th May 2009, 18:19

Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Day. 3.5.09 084 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57189808@N00/3498640032/)
Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Day. 3.5.09 084a on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57189808@N00/3498639970/)
Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Day. 3.5.09 085 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57189808@N00/3498639884/)
Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Day. 3.5.09 086 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57189808@N00/3498639828/)

Abbeville

4th May 2009, 18:23

Is it a trick of light but do both ailerons seem to be deflected up?

A

SFCC

4th May 2009, 18:33

Frankly I'm astounded it took so long for this to happen .
There is another four engined aeroplane kicking around that will almost certainly be doing this soon.:ugh:

bubblesuk

4th May 2009, 18:41

Care to elaborate on that Mr SFCC?

SFCC

4th May 2009, 18:46

Not really no

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 18:52

Croqueteer,

Cool. I'm not looking to argue with you. Please be assured I am what I say I am.

The last photo that shaft has posted gives a better indication of exactly why I think this warrants more than just a passing glance.

hurn

4th May 2009, 19:49

Those pictures are really something; it must have been quite a sight.
Thanks for posting.

Amos Keeto

4th May 2009, 19:58

...which begs the question as to why weren't the control surfaces 'locked' to prevent this happening?

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 20:09

Fair question.

You would need directional control firstly (i.e rudder), but more so any element of a x-wind requires working flying controls so as to prevent the into-wind wing from lifting during the takeoff run. The aircraft wants to turn into the direction the wind is coming from, which has to be countered with rudder and you would need to use into-wind aileron to prevent the wing from lifting.

Hope that helps. :ok:

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:11

Forgive my stupidity here but the aircraft wants to turn towards the wind????

forget

4th May 2009, 20:17

.... problem is as I see it, the CAA will now probably (over-)react and ban all such fast runs to prevent it from ocurring again.

This ex-military aircraft would never have been of any interest to the CAA. Even with fast taxi runs down a runway why should the CAA be involved?

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:19

On the basis they regulate civil airspace and for however briefly the Victor was in that I should think they might have something to say about it. I'm guessing the rap sheet could be extensive if anyone put their mind to it.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 20:22

Andrew,

Exactly that. During a x-wind takeoff you are effectively taking off with crossed controls to prevent the into wind wing lifting. If you watch a x-wind landing on youtube, during the flair you will see the pilot kick the drift off with the rudder and simultaneously apply into wind aileron, again crossed controls, exactly the same as during the takeoff. That is why on x-wind landing, you'll often find the into wind wheel touches down first.

I just had a look on youtube to try and find an example of it but it's all landings, not many x-wind takeoffs. This is the best I can find. You'll see that the whole through the takeoff there is left rudder input...

YouTube - C-17 Globemaster III Short Crosswind takeoff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02_0piR13qo)

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:29

Crossed wires me thinks. I understand that but without any control input it will drift with the wind. I always enjoyed x-wind landings but I learned at HUY and IIRC the layout was two out of three old WWII runways still in op so didn't get much chane to practice.

SFCC

4th May 2009, 20:31

andrewmcharlton just revealed his knowledge of aviation.:}

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:32

SFCC reveals his knowledge of correct English language syntax.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 20:36

I'm not the best at trying to explain this sort of thing but it is down to an aircrafts tendancy to 'weather-vane'. For example, a cross-wind like yesterdays was blowing right to left across the runway. By blowing against the fin of the aircraft, it causes the tail to move downwind around the pivot point (the gear) which in turn causes the nose of the aircraft to turn into wind (i.e to the right). In that example you would apply left rudder to keep the nose straight, and right aileron to prevent the into-wind wing from being lifted by the wind.

A quick search on google threw these up if it explains it any better:

Section 13.5

Takeoff [Ch. 13 of See How It Flies] (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/takeoff.html#sec-crosswind-takeoff)

and section 8.11

Yaw-Wise Torque Budget [Ch. 8 of See How It Flies] (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/yaw.html#sec-weathervane-taxi)

Hope that explains it :ok:

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:39

It was my misinterpretation of the syntax not the concept.

Fly-by-Wife

4th May 2009, 20:43

Andrew, regarding the aircraft weathervaning into wind and drifting with the wind, these are two very different things.

On the ground the aircraft cannot drift, just weathercock into wind, while in the air the aircraft drifts with the wind.

The reason for weathercocking into wind is quite simple - the wind blows on the side of the aircraft, but the tail presents a much greater surface than the nose, so there is a far greater moment acting behind the main wheels (the pivot point), which means that there is a tendency to turn into wind - unless counteracted by nose-wheel steering or rudder input (whichever has authority for the phase of take-off or landing).

Hope this is clear

FBW

andrewmcharlton

4th May 2009, 20:45

Indeed, I misread the remark and was talking about wind drift not weather vaning. Unfortunately one misread remark and aerodynamics lessons and sarcasm instantly issued.

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 20:50

Well, you never know, someone might find it useful.

Anyway, back to the original point. The above information when combined with any unforeseen circumstance such as a tyre burst or an engine failure is why you couldn't do these runs with locked controls.

VULCANCHASER

4th May 2009, 21:06

I fail to understand why the announcement at the event requested any photographs or video should not be posted. I can only presume it was a badly thought out "KNEE JERK" reaction to an event that should never have happened.

There is rumoured to be a meeting at Bruntingthorpe which the CAA are due to attend tomorrow, I wonder what the hot topic will be?

Let's hope the responsible unflyable heritage jets are allowed to carry on with their impressive work!

Matt Jones

4th May 2009, 21:10

I thought you guys were indulging in too many conspiracy theories until I posted about the incident on the TVOC forum. I was amazed I couldn't find it already but realised why soon enough. My post, with links to pictures, was hastily removed and I gather others have been too. I got it off a car forum I frequent so the genie's out of the bottle anyway. :rolleyes:

Fast Erect

4th May 2009, 21:36

Cut their fahooking wings off....that should do the trick.
I never could just see the point in trundling the damned things up and down runways anyway. They once were aeroplanes but they sure as hell aren't now.:yuk:

Agaricus bisporus

4th May 2009, 21:46

Forgive the directness of the simile, but

Surely this is the aviation equivalent of promising a girl you'll "stop before we get there", promising you don't need a condom because you "know what you're doing", nonetheless slip in anyway, and then lose self control before you can pull out? Fortunately it was only happenstance prevented a permanent and ineraseable conclusion...

Utterly inexcusable. Utterly indefensible. Utterly shameful. Totally avoidable. Stupid.

Bloody dangerous.

End of.

And to those who I've pissed off, No, this is not aeromodelling or reggie spotting, this is full-on bloody dangerous full-scale jet aviation, and if people are going to treat it with such a lack of care and Professionalism as is evident here than measures need to be taken.

If I behaved like that at my base on a ground-run in a (no C of A) 150 seat passenger jet I'd be grounded for life, and be lucky to escape prison for much the same afterwards I daresay, and rightly so. What's the difference?

coldplayer

4th May 2009, 21:53

I'm afraid to say that you've most likely hit the nail on the head.

There are a couple of questions i'd be very interested to know the answers to and hopefully answers to those questions will come out in the fullness of time. Starters for ten: what were the qualifications and currency of BOTH people in the pilots seats? Do they fly jet aircraft regularly? Do they have valid flying licences of any sort and inclusive in that, do they have medicals? Were any performance calculations done? Was there a proper brief and any discussion of what happens in the event of the 'pilot' becoming incapacitated? I would suggest that this is the sort of thing the CAA will be asking.

If I behaved like that in my (no C of A) 150 seat passenger jet I'd be grounded for life, and probably in prison for much the same afterwards, and rightly so. What's the difference?

Ain't that the truth! The point which seems to eluding some is that a Victor is not a Jet Provost. As is pointed out very succinctly above, it is grown up, full scale, dangerous jet aviation in a very large and heavy aircraft. You don't just 'hop' them down a runway to provide a spectacle, nor do you ever get them into the situation that this one found itself in on Sunday.

Dan Winterland

5th May 2009, 00:32

I find the whole thing amazingly irresponsible. Sure, taxy the things around, fast run them down the runway. But getting them to a speed where they can get airborne? having seen the photos, I'm very thankful the incident didn't end in a fireball. I don't know who was at the controls or if he was once properly qualified on the Victor. What he did was just stupid. If I were at the controls, I would have felt very uncomfortable going much above 80 knots bearing in mind the Victor's stopping performance. And without the brakechute!

The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.

And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.

Ref the ailerons: The ailerons were uprigged by about ten degrees as part of a fatigue management program sometime in the early eighties. This had the effect of moving the centre of pressure forward thus changing the stress points on the wing. To counter this, the elevator was downrigged a few degrees. This had the effect of increasing the low speed buffet speeds and making the handling noticeably worse. But extended the life of the aircraft from about 115 to 125 FI (IIRC).

As for the yaw effects close to the ground. The rudder has a massive secondary roll effect on a swept wing aircraft. Far more so than on a straight wing aircraft - and the on the Victor, it was more pronounced than any other swept wing aircraft I have flown. Use of the rudder required prompt roll inputs to keep the wings level. This was particularly important in the Victor K2 where in the landing attitude with full flap and the oleos compressed, the refuelling pods were only 30 inches of the ground. This is why it had a relatively low crosswind limit of 25 knots.

Winco

5th May 2009, 07:45

Unfortunately, it strongly appears that this was a totally avoidable incident, and there is only one person to blame.

What I don't understand is why the guy in (presumably) the right hand seat wasn't pushing the stick well forward during the whole run, thus allowing the pilot to concentrate on the throttles, ASI monitoring, Ts and Ps etc. etc.

The forecast was a significant wind with strong gusts and I would have expected any pilot worth his salt to have done the most basic of calculations to see what the rotate speed was. I wonder if this was even done at all?

I sincerely hope this does not impact on the boys and girls at Bruntingthorpe and that the CAA take a sympathetic view to what was
(I hope) just a momentary lack of concentration. The crowd at Bruntingthorpe are a great bunch, and it would be sad and wrong to see their efforts and hard work go down the pan and be wasted because of this.

Agaricus bisporus
I don't disagree with you too much in what you say. You are factually correct and there can be little defence of what happened.

However, maybe we can use it as a timely reminder to us all that aircraft, especially old, 4 jet-engined, ex V Bombers bite 'Big Time' when you get them wrong, and need treating with a great deal of care but also a huge amount of respect. Thank goodness it wasn't worse!

The Winco

Nopax,thanx

5th May 2009, 08:23

Re locking of controls - that was what caused a Caribou crash a few years back. There could be enough lift to get airborne and then no way to get back down. Does the Victor have lift dumpers? You could have those permanently out so as to prevent the wing getting enough lift in the first place?

D120A

5th May 2009, 08:34

I wonder when the Victor's ASI was last calibrated? Aiming to lift a nosewheel with an under-reading ASI would have all the makings for an embarrassing day, and even with the nosewheel firmly on the ground would make a nonsense of the V1 (i.e. V stop) calculation.

coldplayer

5th May 2009, 09:34

However there was a fair amount of skill demonstrated

Well, I would have said that from the second this thing became airborne it was barely under control. As such I would have said the fact that this didn't end up in a smoking wreck was pure luck.

I cannot understand why all the aircraft doing fast taxi runs appear to be configured for takeoff. Isn't this asking for trouble?

That on the other hand is a very good point. I think the word you're looking for is 'stupid'. A quick search on google reveals some quite unbelieveable boasts with regards to this aircraft and past 'fast taxi's'.

TheChitterneFlyer

5th May 2009, 11:01

Whilst it's a fine thing to preserve these lovely old aeroplanes for the pleasure of the general public, let's not forget that these 'old ladies' aren't subject to any 'formal' engineering maintenence procedures and will allways be 'an accident waiting to happen'. Old tyres and old brake units certainly don't contribute to any wise descision to carry out a fast taxi; or, to be more precise, a planned take-off abort! Regarding the ASI calibration, D120A has an extremely valid point.

It's my guess that these aeroplanes are configured for take-off for only one reason alone... which is to prevent the aural Take-Off Warning Horn/Config Warning Systems from sounding in the cockpit/flight station! Or, if these systems have been dissabled, then it can only be an ego trip (or lack of common sense) being displayed by those who are conducting the Take-Off Abort.

I have no idea who sits at the controls of these aeroplanes; I would surmise/hope that they're either retired aircrew who have experience on type, or, current airline personnell. Furthermore, I would expect those people to be fully briefed in what they are about to undertake; which will include the maximum speed that they will allow the aeroplane to accelerate to. Let's be clear about this, Bruntingthorpe is a licenced aerodrome; therefore, an aeroplane can be taxied by a licenced ground engineer; however, a take-off run must only be conducted by qualified aircrew... whether or not the intention is to remain on the ground! Given that the general public are within the vacinity, it's my hope that a licenced pilot is sat in the left hand seat! For an aeroplane such as the Comet, I'd also hope that a licenced Flight Engineer is also present.

Let's keep it safe

TCF

forget

5th May 2009, 11:13

Why did it fly? It was going too fast. Why? Perhaps, an uncalibrated ASI.

Maybe a simple safeguard to prevent a replay would be to carry a GPS Groundspeed for the right hander, factored against the current winds/gusts and accurate from the airfield anemometer. Knock 10 Knots off the unstick speed and you’ll be sure to stay on the ground.

A downwind run might help - and it may be an idea not to use take-off flap. :hmm:

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 11:21

I agree coldplayer!

Its no good people saying "but fast taxi's are Ok, nobody's actually taken off!" cos now they have, and from all the accounts, it could have ended far worse......
Just imagine if it had crashed, evn if no member of the public was injured....would XH558 be allowed to display in future? It would have put back aircraft preservation decades....Its no good saying " but thats a what if?"...it very nearly was!

I'm sorry if i sound like a killjoy, but if we are going to have old aircraft displaying, lets do it properly! at least XH558 has all the relevant paperwork and is having its annual service as we speak...

When was the last time XM715 was fully legal? would you jump in a car that hadnt been MOT'd for 15 years, and drive it down the M4 at 80 mph?

No, nor me!

Unless some crystal clear guidelines are formulated and adhered to, then this sort of joyriding has to stop, before we have a disaster on our hands...

LookingNorth

5th May 2009, 11:37

Wowee what a load of sanctimonious claptrap there is on this thread! Thousands of safe ground-bound fast taxi runs have been carried out at Brunters and other venues. One mistake and out come the holier than thou kneejerk ban-it-all-brigade. Pilot was high houred ex-Victor - and horrified at what happened. Every run is done per original checklists by aircrew with time on type. Personally I disagree with takeoff config being used and don't see why flaps need to be down for instance, and it looked like power was held too long on this particular run. Lessons will be learnt. Nobody's ever been hurt at a taxi run day, canhardly say same for motor sport, drag racing, airshows, football, etc. etc. etc. Give the people invovled some credit and stop acting like newspaper journos bleating about 'this xxxx must stop'. :ugh:

forget

5th May 2009, 11:43

bleating about 'this xxxx must stop'.

Calm down disgusted of Kettering! Very few are saying this. The majority are 'aeroplane people' who want to see it continue ------- properly. :)

andrewmcharlton

5th May 2009, 11:43

One mistake is all it takes to kill people.

Plenty of accidents occured in all areas of engineering "just once" with dire consequences and usually it turns out that years of "it's always been fine" attitude is the cause.

Comparison to other sports is irrelevant. They have their own rules and regulations and are littered with their own disasters from which people generally learn a lesson. Perhaps the crew and organisers can do likewise with some humility rather than a knee jerk request for suppresion of info (however well meant) or playing it down. Having seen the full picture sequence this seems to be so close to killing those on board as well as endagering life, limb and property it can't be played down.

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 11:44

Looks like we will have to agree to differ then!

It shouldn't have happened, but it did.....and luck seems to have played an inordinately large element in the safe conclusion...

If you want to watch an unlicenced aircraft go and do a cartwheel and explode in a fireball, be my guest, but you won't get any sympathy from me!

BEagle

5th May 2009, 11:44

I've never been a fan of 'fast taxy runs'.....

A few seconds up to about 80KIAS in aircraft such as V-bombers, perhaps. But old tyres, brake units and unreliable drag bags make even that something of a risk.

Many years ago, there was the incident of 'Roadrunner One'. A Vulcan needed a check for nosewheel shimmy at Waddington. The engineers reckoned they'd fixed it, so asked for a pilot to check it. An eager young co-piglet who'd just completed his ICC LHS course volunteered, cornered a passing AEO and off they went. "Tower, Roadrunner One, taxy?" was met by confusion as there were no scheduled Vulcan movements - and hence there was no Duty Pilot in the tower.....

First run went OK, no shimmy, so stand on the anchors and turn round to taxy back.

"I think we'll do another quick check", said our hero, "just to be sure."

So the aircraft is now aiming downwind, with brakes which are already quite warm..... The shimmy check went fine; then as the aircraft began to decelerate, the brakes decided that enough was enough - and 'Roadrunner One' trundled off the end of the RW towards the A15. Fortunately it soon bogged down.

Not a flight, so not authorised. A well-intentioned idea which went wrong - and that was in a fully serviceable aircraft. Much scratching of heads by the squadron Wheels - who decided that 'a little chat' was all that was needed.

When I was on the VC10 some years later, any 'test' was specifically briefed and authorised. Any unusual engineering request would be handed firmly to an Full Air Test Pilot - of which there were only 2 of us per squadron.

140KIAS or even 125KIAS is simply asking for trouble.

Again, the old VC10 course used to have 'trip one' which was a full pre-flight, start up, taxy, fast run down the runway, taxy back - with all checks etc. One day they did this and ended up with smoking brakes.

"So, on trip one, we learn what happens if we abort above V1, do we?", I later asked the non-QFI 'instructor'.........

twinboom

5th May 2009, 12:11

Beags! You are so right. Must have been about the same era when the SOAF Hunter Sqn. lost its then only serviceable T-Bird to a fast-taxi "brake-test" fire. Sadly not such an amusing anecdote as both the Airwork employee in the RHS and the seconded RAF pilot (v.experienced ex-FR10 mate) lost their lives. It was (just) before my time but I've always remembered the story when asked by enginees "can you just do an airborne check / taxi-check for us......."

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 12:24

Don'y shoot the messenger boy, SD! if somebody is daft enough to post something like that on the net, then thats his (or her) problem!

Coldplayer didnt identify the post, just saying it was freely available..would you have pulled it if someone had posted it on here?

Dan Winterland

5th May 2009, 12:37

Quote: "It's my guess that these aeroplanes are configured for take-off for only one reason alone... which is to prevent the aural Take-Off Warning Horn/Config Warning Systems from sounding in the cockpit/flight station!"

In a Victor? It was designed in 1948 and first flew in 1952. Such things hadn't even been thought of then. And it had brakes from a Ford Prefect - which makes this sort of thing even less sensible.

PPRuNe Pop

5th May 2009, 12:53

Let me make something a little clearer to avoid mis-understandings.

It is important in situations like this one not to name names if it is not already in the public domain. That is a strict PPRuNe rule.

It can lead to litigation and we guard against it.

I have been around the block looking at other sites and it is an aviation first (I think - maybe not!) but I suspect it will get more publicity yet.

The story is there to be posted but just take care in the words you choose. I certainly don't subscribe to the 'fact' that it "climbed to 120 feet." Not from the pics I have seen anyway.

PPP

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 13:07

no it looks more like 20-30 ft...

point taken though, i thought we had all been careful not to identify anyone, just quote from their blogs....

Fly-by-Wife

5th May 2009, 13:33

i thought we had all been careful not to identify anyone, just quote from their blogs

ATSA1, I think the problem is that if you quote verbatim from an online source, that text (or part thereof) when googled can reveal the source very easily.

And if the source contains personal information, then...

FBW

GobonaStick

5th May 2009, 13:33

There is another four engined aeroplane kicking around that will almost certainly be doing this soon

SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at Coventry?

coldplayer

5th May 2009, 13:42

And if the source contains personal information, then...

...don't post it on a public forum in the first place, alongside the sort of stuff that was mentioned. Just a thought.

Anyway, I was a bit naiive and I was wrong so I apologise to SD and Pop.

Wrist slapped.

Winco

5th May 2009, 13:50

LookingNorth

If what you say is correct, and the pilot was a high-houred ex Victor pilot, then that makes it even worse, because frankly, he should have known better!

I don't want to stop these events at all. On the contrary, I think they are important, especially for the younger generation, but your comment that all fast taxi runs are undertaken by type-qualified type, using original checklists suggests that either the pilot mis-read the operating manual when it came to calculating V1 and rotate speeds, and/or the ASIs were reading incorrectly or whatever. Either way, whatever he did or didn't do, he got it wrong I would suggest.

But I reiterate though, that we should all use it as a reminder to check emergency SOPs for these aircraft and ensure that those who are in the cockpits of them at times like this, know what to do when it all goes wrong and gets bent out of shape!

And may I finally just say that, whilst it is my understanding that these aircraft don't require a serviceable ASI (or anything else for that matter) to do taxi runs, it would make a great deal of sence to ensure that an ASI is fitted, is calibrated and is serviceable before any more high speed taxi runs. I'm sure that the first thing on the take-off role in the FRCs was a check of the ASI reading together!

PPRuNe Pop

5th May 2009, 14:04

And may I finally just say that, whilst it is my understanding that these aircraft don't require a serviceable ASI

In which case the runway should be marked in such a way that power off and stopping distance should both be distinctly discernible.

As this instance shows, you cannot afford to take chances. One marker will ensure the power is cut and the other that a safe distance to stop is available.

Toshirozero

5th May 2009, 14:19

SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at

That or the Concorde in Toulouse, kept operational in support of the Paris accident investigation.

The brits drained all of the hydraulics when it was parked up in Filton instead of putting it into long term storage, effectively shagging the systems as they'll have corroded - the rest scattered about are ornamental, with exception of the one in Toulouse which is nominally airworthy, or could achieve airworthy status
The tech manuals are still on the EADS system, which considering there are none operating, seems a strange lapse of memory
Don't underestimate how much the French would like to stick one to the Brits..sour grapes run deep and all that...Zut lors

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 14:28

But i don't think that the French would attempt a high speed run and just take off anyway!

BTW, the ex AF Concorde at Le Bourget is still semi-functional, the nose still goes up and down! I don't know about the rest of the systems though... I am going to see it next month, I will try and find out!

bubblesuk

5th May 2009, 14:35

just make sure you ask instead of pushing buttons, think the world can survive without any more marathin threads.:}

ATSA1

5th May 2009, 14:38

lol...I am very much one of the "look but don't touch!" brigade....

coldplayer

5th May 2009, 15:36

I sincerely hope the CAA are sensible about it, knuckles are wrapped (and not much more) where appropriate and the days carry on as before albeit under the sort of regulation that has made commerical aviation in the UK so safe. Is there any word as to the outcome of a rumoured meeting between the CAA and Bruntingthorpe today?

Just a quick note to LookingNorth,

There is a concept in aviation regarding error-chains, or holes in the swiss-cheese as it's widely known. The point, of course, being that just one altered course of action would prevent the holes from lining up and an accident occuring. The various holes could be anything from the weather, to SOP's, to a technical fault, to a mis-interpreted radio call and so on. In this instance, there were so many damn holes in the swiss cheese it would be like looking down a tunnel. The ONLY reason this didn't end in a serious accident was pure luck. No one is suggesting anything about stopping these days and ruining what, in my opinion, is a very important part of this country's heritage...just that they are conducted with a bit more professionalism.

DucatiST4

5th May 2009, 16:32

I'd be supprised if the CAA are interested in what happened. If the aircraft went down the runway and the crew had no intention of taking off then if the aircraft happened to get into the air thats not a flight according to them.
At least thats the card my pal played when he crashed his plane (turned out it had no permit). He got away with it as well.

EastMids

5th May 2009, 16:43

I'd be supprised if the CAA are interested in what happened. If the aircraft went down the runway and the crew had no intention of taking off then if the aircraft happened to get into the air thats not a flight according to them.

Its a vehicle designed to fly, its operated by civilians (rather than falling under military oversight), and it did fly. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that there may have been a breach of the air navigation order - in fact, possibly breaches of many sections of it.

Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.

A

VULCANCHASER

5th May 2009, 16:51

As EASTMIDS said;
Its a vehicle designed to fly, its operated by civilians (rather than falling under military oversight), and it did fly. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that there may have been a breach of the air navigation order - in fact, possibly breaches of many sections of it.

Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.

I wholly agree, the CAA should be respected and their judgement relating to this incident will be most interesting. Let's hope it will not see the end of these "ABORTED TAKE OFF RUNS"!

forget

5th May 2009, 16:53

Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.

I agree. We have to think that this was, absolutely, a one off, never to be repeated.

bubblesuk

5th May 2009, 16:55

The C.A.A. has no jurisdiction on fast taxi/ aborted take offs, however once all wheels leave the ground then they do have jurisdiction and become very interested.

coldplayer

5th May 2009, 18:15

forget,

The problem is that this isn't a one off. I'm not getting into this again but some very precursory searching around the net can find references to this aircraft having been pushed to 140kts on one of these 'fast taxi's' before. Another mentions how the nosewheel was lifted at 125kts in 2005 and there is a comment on a Youtube video from someone claiming to be the 'pilot' (and I suspect he was just that) claiming that he got it airborne in 2006, albeit only by a couple of feet. Now far be it from me to suggest that this might, just might, be what was going on on Sunday.

There is an issue here without question. If I were to take a PA28, for example, that had had no formal maintenance, that I wasn't licenced to fly, that I didn't have a medical to fly and that I hadn't flown for over 20 years and got it airborne at a public event 'by accident' I would expect the CAA to have something to say about it. That would be the case irrespective of the fact that it might be on private grounds and the aircraft may not be on the civil register. Now consider doing it in a 40+ tonne jet......

EastMids makes a very valid point about the CAA, don't be so quick to criticise them. To be absolutely honest, i'm not all that sure it's the CAA that people need to be worrying about.

DucatiST4

5th May 2009, 19:06

Its the insurance companies who will be most interested.

Yellow Sun

5th May 2009, 19:12

DucatiST4,

Its the insurance companies who will be most interested.

Funnily enough that's what I said in Post#14 (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/372553-victor-airborne.html) on page 1 of this thread.

YS

ChristiaanJ

5th May 2009, 20:47

Just to knock the Concorde speculation on the head straight away...
...the Concorde in Toulouse, kept operational in support of the Paris accident investigation.That ended a couple of years ago. The aircraft is now just another museum exhibit, open to the public.
... the one in Toulouse which is nominally airworthy, or could achieve airworthy status...Sadly, no. Once the care-and-maintenance program ended, very little was even done to maintain the aircraft presentable ...there is already corrosion visible in several places. And the smell of damp in the cockpit is quite noticeable. (I was on the aircraft only a few months ago.)
BTW, the ex AF Concorde at Le Bourget is still semi-functional, the nose still goes up and down! I don't know about the rest of the systems though... I am going to see it next month, I will try and find out!Semi-functional is the right word. Some of the hydraulics and electrical systems have been kept functional, so the nose and the intake ramps can still be moved, the cockpit lights can still be turned on, some of the alarms can still be tested (makes a nice "son-et lumières") and you can still listen to the radio.
The hydraulics are run off the green ground test auxiliary pump. The blue system has not been under pressure for the last five years, the flying controls have never moved in all that time, and of course engines, fuel system and a lot of other systems are no longer functional either.
So yes, "semi-functional" is all.
(I personally know the people keeping her 'alive'. Sorry to disappoint you.)

End of that particular story.

CJ

forget

5th May 2009, 20:58

coldplayer .......... searching around the net can find references to this aircraft having been pushed to 140kts on one of these 'fast taxi's' before. Another mentions how the nosewheel was lifted at 125kts in 2005.

Pub talk in my opinion. :rolleyes: The Victor K2 had a 125,000 pound difference between empty and max take-off. The Bruntingthorpe aircraft (with Mil stuff removed minus, fuel on board plus) will probably weigh less than operational empty.

Now try the speeds above - and with take-off flap selected. I'd say you'd fly.

And, by all accounts, it's never done so - until now.

coldplayer

5th May 2009, 21:28

I can't help but feel I’m repeating myself a bit so I won't say much more on the subject after this.

Firstly, the 'pub talk' you refer to came from a posting the guy 'flying' the aircraft on Sunday put on a public forum.

Secondly, all this talk about weights etc. is missing the point entirely. The aircraft should NEVER have been anywhere near that speed. Everyone else displaying on Sunday managed not to cock it up so why not the Victor? I would suggest that the various posts picked up from across the web point to the fact that the chap at the controls has, by his own admission, a history of pushing the limits of a 'fast taxi' as far as they will go and has had the thing in the air before, however briefly. I'm not suggesting he intended to get airborne and of course everybody screws up and gets things wrong, but to intentionally and repeatedly accelerate a jet of that age, size and condition to near rotate speed (which by its very definition has to be greater than or equal to V1) to then reject the takeoff is, to quote Agaricus bisporus,

Utterly inexcusable. Utterly indefensible. Utterly shameful. Totally avoidable. Stupid.

Bloody dangerous.

End of.

I suggested in Post#38 (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/372553-victor-airborne-2.html#post4904520) that a sensible speed to bin it at would be not much more than 80kts. Now take a look at this quote from Dan Winterland if you haven't already read it:

I find the whole thing amazingly irresponsible. Sure, taxy the things around, fast run them down the runway. But getting them to a speed where they can get airborne? having seen the photos, I'm very thankful the incident didn't end in a fireball. I don't know who was at the controls or if he was once properly qualified on the Victor. What he did was just stupid. If I were at the controls, I would have felt very uncomfortable going much above 80 knots bearing in mind the Victor's stopping performance. And without the brakechute!

The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.

And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.

Dan, from what I’ve read of his contributions to this site, is a very experienced pilot (and ex-Victor to boot) has said exactly the same thing, as has BEagle. If you don't believe me then these guys, with experience of this aircraft, know what they're talking about.

All it has done is put in jeopardy a lot of hard work from dedicated enthusiasts, not only at Brunt but elsewhere in the country, and threaten the future of a day which was well run and enjoyable. The salient point is that these speeds on a 'fast taxi' run do nothing to add to the experience of those that were there. Many had already turned away a good couple of seconds before it lifted off assuming it was already slowing down.

All of that said, however, the obvious caveat to all of this is a possible technical fault. If that were the case that would, in itself, then raise issues with even greater possible consequences.

TheChitterneFlyer

5th May 2009, 21:41

Quote... "The C.A.A. has no jurisdiction on fast taxi/ aborted take offs, however once all wheels leave the ground then they do have jurisdiction and become very interested".

Given that this is a publicly attended event I would think that the CAA would be very interested! Just considder the worse case tabloid news scenario; 'Retired thirty year old RAF bomber kills dozens of eager spectators'. It didn't neccessarily have to fly to do that... just depart the runway due to ineffective brakes/steering.

Please... I'm not a killjoy; just someone who wants to see this sort of thing carried out professionally and to a safe standard. It just beggars belief that someone actually sanctions these planned Take-Off Aborts as a matter of routine! Trust me, there's nothing routine about a 'Take-Off Abort'. Even in the simulator they get cocked-up by experienced (current) crewmembers.

Tankertrashnav

5th May 2009, 22:44

I'm not a pilot (60 hours on Cessnas excluded) but as an ex-Victor nav I'd like to contribute to this thread without commenting on any actions that may or may not have been taken on this occasion.

I wonder if anyone remembers the K2 accident at Marham around 1975 when an a/c on takeoff suffered a bird strike just at decision speed (we didnt use the terms V1/V2 on Victors as I recall). By the time the captain had registered the fact the K2, accelerating as they did, was way past decision, and the "book" answer would have been to have continued the take-off, done a heavyweight circuit, and landed. Not knowing what damage the a/c might have incurred he opted instead to abort. He cut the throttles, braked and streamed the shute but in spite of his best efforts they went into the overshoot, the undercarriage collapsed and the a/c caught fire and ended up Cat 5. All the crew escaped unhurt.

The point here is that although the captain's instincts were to stay on the ground after a bird strike, he was in fact held in part to blame for the loss of the aircraft, as he had aborted take-off after decision speed had been passed. I think there was a lot of sympathy for his decision, certainly his crew thought he did the right thing, and I dont think the rap on the knuckles he received was a very sharp one. The guy here seems to have made a very good job of landing back on after this inadvertent takeoff, and whatever else happens in the aftermath that should be born in mind.

As I said I only ever sat in the back of these things facing aft, so can't and wont get involved in the technicalities, but I thought there were a few similarities here which might be of interest to readers even though the situations are not the same

saracenman

6th May 2009, 00:13

I've been reading this thread with interest from the start - some excellent contributions from some very experienced and knowledgeable people

whilst I wasn't at Brunty on Sunday, I have seen some pictures and spoken to several people who were there - all in all it seems to have been an incredible incident

I think that there's very little point in trying to second guess what the outcome of this will be, whether the CAA are involved or not (although frankly I cannot see that they won't be!), whether anyone will get punished for anything etc etc - none of us know the precise details of what happened

what IS abundantly clear however is that the Victor WAS going fast enough to takeoff, because it did! we all know that the aircraft is not legally allowed to fly; whether it was capable of doing so is immaterial - it happened!

I'm the last person to enjoy anything being over-regulated, but ultimately this was 100% wrong and potentially very dangerous - it doesn't take a genius to work out just how much worse it could have been. however much I LOVE these preserved aircraft and what these very dedicated and skilled volunteers do, preservation of human life MUST remain paramount at all times.

if that means that the CAA, or whatever official body/bodies become involved, levy more stringent rules and regulations upon such activities, then I would be the first to applaud them, safe in the knowledge that it was done purely from a "public safety" perspective

I now that we all like to sneer at 'elf n safety' issues, but if it were my family standing on a crowd line at a public event such as this, I would EXPECT all activities to be legal and above board, but most of all SAFE! well, as safe as it is sensible to expect anyway!

bodies such as the CAA exist purely for this purpose, and thank goodness they do!

sm

MichaelJP59

6th May 2009, 00:47

I attend a lot of airshows, have visited many aviation museums, saw the Vulcan fly last year, and I really can't see the point of these fast taxis. Without seeing the thing get airborne and fly, seeing something like a Lightning or a V-bomber drive past on the ground at whatever speed is just frustrating and not worth the risk. Would prefer it to be static and keep the memories.

VictorPilot

6th May 2009, 01:21

I have been following this thread with very keen interest for obvious reasons. I value the intelligent and thoughtful questions from many (which will be answered), accept the comment from others with professional knowledge (most of which are relevant), but despair at the ill-informed comment of the majority. All will be revealed when some technical loops have been closed. In the mean time, I suggest you collect the pictures of a remarkable event when a 48 year old Victor showed what a fine and advanced airframe Handley Page had designed; one which "flew" even better than a Vulcan when the chips were down. I would like copies of the pictures too!!

GreenKnight121

6th May 2009, 01:22

Just a little note regards CAA involvement here:

PICTURES: Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=326067&PrinterFriendly=true)

Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo

By David Kaminski-Morrow ([email protected])
UK air accident specialists are not intending to investigate an unusual incident at an air show during which a Handley Page Victor (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/handley%20page%20victor.html) bomber unexpectedly became airborne during a high-speed taxi demonstration.

The incident occurred during the Cold War Jets Open Day at the Bruntingthorpe airfield, south of Leicester, the scene of the recent restoration to flight of an Avro Vulcan (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/avro%20vulcan.html).

Bruntingthorpe's Victor, XM715, had been participating in the 3 May event when it became briefly airborne, apparently reaching a height - based on photographic evidence - of at least 20-30ft.

Circumstances of the incident are unclear. There are no confirmed details of the speed of the aircraft, the crew complement, or meteorological conditions, nor has it been confirmed whether the aircraft sustained any damage.

But while the Air Accidents Investigation Branch says it is "aware" of the incident, it is not conducting an inquiry. The Civil Aviation Authority has so far been unable to comment further, pending clarification of the incident, but says the aircraft is not on the civil register.

Bruntingthorpe's Cold War Jets event involves fast taxiing of several vintage aircraft including the de Havilland Comet (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/dh.88%20comet.html), English Electric (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/english%20electric.html) Lightning and Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer.

coldplayer

6th May 2009, 07:49

Given some of the responses since my last post, and in the interests of fairplay, i'd just like to re-iterate and expand briefly on a point I made earlier;

All of that said, however, the obvious caveat to all of this is a possible technical fault.

If this were the case, and it somehow contributed to this incident, then I apologise to the chap involved for some of what I have written. The various triggers that would prompt the decision of whether or not to continue or stop a take-off are laid down in minute detail in every pre-takeoff brief. Given that the option to 'continute' doesn't even exist in this situation then more attention should be paid to any possibility of a tech glitch. I would also still question what has been written on other forums by him with regards to the speed this thing has previously been pushed to allied with the fact that, by his own admission, it has been airborne before. I understand how the temptation to do this sort of thing could be overhwelming but that is why, in my opinion, professionalism and safety is so important in aviation.

You have to understand that I, and a few others that have contributed, are looking at this from just that standpoint. I know that if I ever did anything like that at work the best I could expect would be suspension and a very serious Bo****ing followed no doubt by re-training and a very black mark against my name and career prospects. The worst and most likely outcome, however, is as Agaricus bisporus has said, that you find yourself in front of a judge.

Admittedly the passengers do make a huge difference but this was still a public event.

All of that said, I hope this one gets chalked upto experience. I love jets from that era, 2 of the 3 V bombers in particular (guess which ones) and would hate so see this sort of thing over-regulated or even worse, stopped altogether. In the future, however, maybe just dial it down a bit!!

forget

6th May 2009, 08:11

coldplayer, I can't help but feel I’m repeating myself a bit so I won't say much more on the subject after this. Firstly, the 'pub talk' you refer to came from a posting the guy 'flying' the aircraft on Sunday put on a public forum.

I know it came from a public forum. The 'pub talk' was metaphorical. You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't believe the aircraft has ever been to 140kts on a fast taxi, and certainly not 125kts with the nosewheel raised. At its very light weights it would have flown, and people would certainly have photographed it. Where are they?

As I said, I believe this was a one-off and, as I predicted on day two, the CAA has no interest in it.

coldplayer

6th May 2009, 08:15

At its very light weights it would have flown

Well no, not neccesarily.

Nige321

6th May 2009, 09:03

nacluv

6th May 2009, 09:12

He is indeed!

On a different note, what will happen if "the authorities" do not do anything in response to this incident? What I am trying to say is that would this eventuality effectively give licence for fast taxi's to include an airborne part to the demonstration? Whole new can of worms opened in that case...

forget

6th May 2009, 09:15

give licence for fast taxi's to include an airborne part to the demonstration?

Absolutely not. What's the point - and it would be bloody dangerous! Common sense still rules - really.

PS. Cracked it. :ok:

From another forum.

Look at the clouds, very flat based clouds in rows. I'm not a cloud expert but doesn't that formation suggest rising warm air, which causes the clouds to go through their cycle/saturation point faster and forming those shapes?

So more lift that day?

dakkg651

6th May 2009, 10:01

Every pilot who has more than a few hours will have experienced the sudden variation in the Earth's gravitational field. This can manifest itself unexpectedly, usually when you think you have just greased that landing when, suddenly, the aircraft balloons off the ground again resulting in an unseemly second arrival. This phenomenon is normally blamed on a sudden gust of wind. These areas of reduced gravity are also present on the Moon and were first investigated by NASA during the early Apollo missions because of there potentially disastrous effects on the first moon landing. These areas were christened 'Mascons' and found to be either permanent or temporary. Permanent mascons are due to laval flow deposits while temporary mascons can appear and dissapear very quickly due to the crust/mantle interface.
It was obviously the sudden formation of a temporary mascon that caused the Victor to become airborne well below it's normal flying speed and in no way is the pilot to blame for the incident.

(Victor Pilot. I will send you a PM with the address to which I would like the cheque sent).

Sir Niall Dementia

6th May 2009, 14:03

Forget;

I think you will find that the CAA will take enormous interest in this incident. I love aircraft of the Victor era, I grew up watching them, I would like to continue watching them. Like Coldplayer I believe that the heavy hand of regulation will ruin our pleasure unless these runs are carried out with the utmost care and circumspection.

Why on earth David Kaminski thinks the AAIB should be involved is beyond me. There was no accident therefore no need for the AAIB. However this aircraft got airborne with no form of airworthiness certificate or permission to test fly. The CAA will, despite many comments to the contrary do everything in their power to help get an aircraft in the air, they just insist on the highest standards from both the aircraft and the operator.

A few years ago I was involved in an attempt to gain a CAA permit for a Harrier. One of the biggest problems was the finance. The CAA insisted on knowing that we could afford to keep the aircraft in the air without cutting corners in any way. We also had to provide the fullpaper trail for every part used on the aircraft or held in stock, not so easy with a retired Navy SHAR.

Sadly I think that Sunday's incident has let down the teams of restorers across the country, I cannot for the life of me understand why any problem would cause a pilot to get airborne below V1 (or go/no go in Victor speak) and if that excuse is offered then I would expect the CAA to be all over them like a rash. What the hell were they doing at that speed? The aircraft I fly for a living is a modern jet, a rejected take-off from V1 is something which we brief for on every take off and is not taken lightly. Did the pilot of this aircraft get carried away with the fact he was performing for a crowd and put the crew and machine in a situation which needed high skills to get out of rather than good judgement to avoid it in the first place?

The CAA may be quiet at the moment, I'd bet a lot of next months pay that they are in fact arming themselves with every detail before paying a visit to Bruntingthorpe, and that visit will be when they are ready. Victor Pilot if it was you at the controls I'd remember to put some digestives in your nav bag when you go for interview. The Authority never provide biccies.

PPRuNe Pop

6th May 2009, 14:05

Don't go speculating folks. The pictures tell all and in that context the aircraft got airborne and its not for us to decide what action will be taken - if any. So please cool it.

I said this somewhat earlier and the "if any" was quite deliberate.

It is now even more doubtful that any action will be taken, so say the CAA who, according to Flight magazine, "are aware of the incident" but "the aircraft is not on the civil register" and is, therefore not of concern in this instance.

Now a poster suggests that "all will be revealed when a the technical loops have been closed." It seems to me that he knows rather more than ANYONE on this thread - so far.

I have no desire to curtail the thread or to close it but please stop jumping to conclusions that have no basis in fact.

Anyway, I wish I could add it to my list of old aircraft what I have flewed. Fascinating stuff!

Edit: SND posted as I was about to. I would like to correct him on one point. The CAA do at times provide bikkies, sometimes with chocolate on! Even 'bad' boys have had them.

HalloweenJack

6th May 2009, 15:29

UK air accident specialists are not intending to investigate an unusual incident at an air show during which a Handley Page Victor (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/handley%20page%20victor.html) bomber unexpectedly became airborne during a high-speed taxi demonstration.

PICTURES: Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/05/326067/pictures-victor-bomber-accidentally-becomes-airborne-during-taxi.html)

how do you `accidentally` take off??

Will Fraser

6th May 2009, 15:34

The same way some pilots taxi through Vr?

PPRuNe Towers

6th May 2009, 15:38

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/372553-victor-airborne.html

captplaystation

6th May 2009, 15:38

The question is, did it jump or was it pushed ?:hmm: :rolleyes:
Maybe just wanted to write in the log-book, conducted last flight EVER of type H.P. Victor :D

rmac

6th May 2009, 17:49

Someone in an earlier post used the "sexual control" analogy as a possible explanation for the short flight (I guess like one of the three great lie's........)

I would imagine that fast taxi of a beautiful old aircraft is like a visit to a lap dancing club (allegedly), looks good, costs a bundle, but you never get to seal the deal.......:}

coldplayer

6th May 2009, 18:15

...and that if temptation gets the better of you, you are running a great risk of catching something nasty. That or you'll get caught upto no good and get thrown out!

I like this anology!!

andrewmcharlton

6th May 2009, 18:17

and if anyone says they saw you do something naughty......deny everything.:ok:

Lancasterman

6th May 2009, 18:23

Nice set here.. clearly you can see the wind gust catch them..
YouTube - ??-22?3 ??? ?? ??? ????? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnSJ1oDF4jE)

BEagle

6th May 2009, 18:41

In the Tin Triangle, 'Decision Speed' was the lowest of VSTOP, VROTATE or 145KIAS. This was calculated from the Operating Data Manual for every take-off and reviewed during taxy once the actual met conditions were known*. For any significant failure requiring the take-off to be aborted below Decision Speed, you closed the throttles, extended the airbrakes and streamed the chute. You then waited until the pre-computed 'NMBS + TBC' speed before applying maximum continuous braking - totally unlike the playstation generations' little 737s of today. Above Decision Speed, you were committed to getting airborne.

NMBS was the 'normal maximum braking speed' which, with the Tail Brake Chute streamed, would allow the aircraft to be stopped within the RW ASDA distance available without serious brake damage. It was the same speed as 'EMBS' or 'emergency maximum braking speed', without the TBC - this would still allow the aircraft to be stopped safely, but would certainly damage or destroy the brakes.

A copy of all these calculations was entered in the 'Short Flight Plan', a copy of which was lodged with the Station Operations Staff.

I assume that similar Standard Operating Procedures applied to the Victor?

The relevance of all this?

Well, basically that thundering down the RW in a technically non-airworthy V-bomber is fraught with risk if the speed is allowed to increase to 145KIAS (as has been alleged).

People want to see the jet set off at max chat down the RW - but there is absolutely no point in accelerating to high speeds. No-one will be able to see, in any case.

*Had the fatal Air France Concorde crew bothered with such a check, they would certainly have realised that, given the tailwind and the fact that they'd burned nothing like their sssumed taxy fuel, their Regulated Take Off Weight was well below their planned Actual Take Off Weight - and hence to start the take-off roll alone was an illegal act as the aircraft was well outside scheduled performance limits. But this never really came out in the French Accident Report........:rolleyes:

blue up

6th May 2009, 19:21

Slightly to the left of topic....but...

When my light aircraft got damaged during construction (tin of paint fell off shelf. Prop smashed) the insurance company said that since it didn't posess a Permit from the PFA or CAA that it was not an aircraft. They paid out (believe it or not) as a "flat-pack furniture, damaged in storage".
My point is, since the Victor was an EX mil aircraft and had never flown nor was intended to be flown under the auspices of the CAA, was it technically NOT an aircraft? If the CAA can persue over unintentional flying of vehicles then the Dukes Of Hazard are in trouble.
I know it is quite probably a load of balls but do you see where I was going with this?

8000+ hours on 757/767s

Themightyimp07

6th May 2009, 19:38

There is another four engined aeroplane kicking around that will almost certainly be doing this soon
SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at Coventry?
He could also be refering to the Lanc at East Kirkby,I believe the owners want her to fly again.

ChristiaanJ

6th May 2009, 19:41

sp6

6th May 2009, 19:43

Off topic a bit, but this got me reading up on the Victor crescent wing. Compared to a B-47, the Victor had almost the same weight, wingspan parasitic drag and induced drag, but carried 50% greater wing area - giving greater payload and a 50,000ft ceiling.

Why then (apart from ease of engine maintenance) are all modern airliners similar in laylout to a B-47? Podded engines, swept back tapering wings?
Crescent winged, engines in the wing root Airbuses would carry more, at greater height for the same fuel economy.......

Even if you couldn't fit a hi bypass turbofan in the wing root, a podded engined crescent wing would still be more efficient and lighter than a Boeing B47/52/707/747 etc..........

taxydual

6th May 2009, 19:54

Hmm, many of the points raised are taken (Flaps, Cross winds, Speeds etc). But, at the end of the day, didn't 'someone' ease back on the stick.............................:ok::ok::ok:

XV277

6th May 2009, 19:59

blue up,
Yes, I can see where you are going (or coming from).

The same applies to caravans being blown off a motorway bridge, semis being blown over, awnings, advertising signs, shed tin roofs and badly-tied-down light aircraft becoming airborne in a storm.... None of them are any business of the CAA either.

Personally, I hope the CAA will declare itself 'incompetent' in the matter, but ask CWJ and the other people doing fast taxis to damn well get their SOPs in order!

Alternatively, if I was to take an unregistered aircraft up for a spin, would the CAA be interested?

It may not be an aircraft whilst on the ground (as not registered) but when it becomes wingborne, it surely is?

Anyway, if the CAA aren't interested, I'm sure the relevant H&S authority will be.

NutLoose

6th May 2009, 20:17

We were discussing this very thing today

we were discussing if it was actually in the CAA's remit as it being a none flyer ground based and all, we decided it wasn't all the way up to it becoming airborne which threw up some interesting thoughts as how could the CAA legislate on anything to do with fast taxying for anything else, after all they are no longer registered as aircraft, and if it never gets airborne then it is not in their sphere of influence, it's more in the Dept of Transports as its a ground based vehicle.

If they say well it flew, does that mean everytime you see a rally car airborne over a hillock that the CAA should become involved?? or an F1 Car as that has wings both front and rear....... odd situation is it not?

andrewmcharlton

6th May 2009, 20:20

we decided it wasn't all the way up to it becoming airborne

Pardon? Meanwhile back on earth........

bubblesuk

6th May 2009, 20:42

It is correct that the C.A.A. have no remit when it comes to the fast taxi runs, but as soon as one becomes airborne then they do become and are involved I dont know what the outcome or whats going on but i do know they are involved.

Cypherus

6th May 2009, 20:51

Watched this lot from the outset, interesting the way some prefer the hysterical approach while others take the more consider one.

While the incident was unfortunate the debate will rage on I am sure until the CAA give a statement on the matter, I for one doubt they will see it as anything other than Pilot, err! ‘Driver’ error and recommend that said personnel read up on the flight notes for the Victor with particular interest being paid to ground handling.

Mild rebuff maybe but we must all understand that the Victor in a light state is a sporty piece of tackle and taken as they do close too Vr will simply lift off if not handled with care, that the aircraft is banned from intentional flight by virtue of not having a C of A does not mean it is incapable, something the owners are I know well aware given the amount of maintenance they lavish upon the beast and right now I am also certain that they are very concerned as too the future of their charge.

Speculate if you must, but It is my understanding that this event is the first to be recorded, but I suspect not the first time a short hop has resulted or almost occurred due too wind conditions with this airframe and others, only the owners really know what happened and why, maybe we should all wait until they let us know the details if they feel they are able too.

Victor Owner

6th May 2009, 20:59

May I as the owner of the 'Other Victor'; XL231 at Elvington put some things in writing before things become 'tit for tat' against the type in general and any future demonstration runs.
Firstly we operate our aircraft within a safety envelope and any high-speed operations are carried out by a former K2 multi-thousand hour Captain, who is also a civilian flight safety consultant. The other crew members are usually ALL ex-Victor men. A tail braking parachute is always used (Not the case with the other A/C in question).
XL231 is maintained to FULL serviceability at great expense and regular pitot/static tests are carried out. The flight instrumentation is also regularly tested and a full radio fit is installed. All crew wear full RAF flying kit and the groundcrew mostly are ex-RAF tradesmen.
It is of concern to us that this 'flight' took place at Bruntingthorpe and I can only gawp in wonderment that they were not killed, A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...
I firmly believe that a K2 with full fwd stick pressure and fwd trim will stay on the deck if you want it to particularly if the C of G is correct. Quite what happened at Bruntingthorpe isn't totally clear as yet. In addition to the above the rear mounted airbrakes were not used (according to the photographs) which is concerning, there are no limits on their usage.
All in all I think a disasater was narrowly avoided and the 'pilot' very fortunate to pull it off. I'm not in the habit of naming names but he was a K2 captain & a former 55 Sqn commander.

Michael Birbeck

6th May 2009, 21:35

If the answer to this question is posted elsewhere please forgive me.

Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan (besides cost and operating finance issues)?

I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibitions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.

javelin

6th May 2009, 21:37

I think it is a marvellous testament to the hundreds of enthusiasts who look after these old aeroplanes .

So................. it gets airborne ?

That Gadge will remember that for ever, well as long as his licence lasts in any case :ouch:

Long Live Britannia !

bubblesuk

6th May 2009, 21:43

If the answer to this question is posted elsewhere please forgive me.

Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan?

I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibtions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.

To put it simply no

The Victors had used up all thier fatigue life and to get one in the air would require buckets of cash, possibly a re-spar. then theres the engine support etc,etc.

As for the Lightnings the reasons they are not allowed to fly are very good ones.

Michael Birbeck

6th May 2009, 22:08

Wharever the rights and wrongs of this event it will be remembered, a bit like Howard Hughes lifting the Spruce Goose off for her brief flight :sad:.

norodnik

6th May 2009, 22:12

"As for the Lightnings the reasons they are not allowed to fly are very good ones. "

Just like the Policeman who wouldn't get on the Bike or the countless other pathetic "Zero Risk" attitudes that pervade our society.

Average age of the mission controllers sending people to the moon was around 26 years old. Could you imagine a 26 year old doing that today. Most have no sense of adventure, no imagination and won't attempt anything new or remotely risky as they have long ago been warned off. (My Physio told me today that new students are now encouraged NOT to touch patients and indeed are now not taught how to. They are encouraged to listen and give the patient stretching excercises and send them on their way!)

The Nanny states is/has killed this country and the sooner we get back to a bit of trial and error the better off we'll all be.

As for the Victor lifting off. What a great sight to see. Lets have more of it assuming we all realise that going to an airshow may be bad for one's health (along with Smoking, Child Birth, Swine Flu, swimming near Sellafield and eating Farley's rusks!)

Michael Birbeck

6th May 2009, 22:17

"As for the Lightnings the reasons they are not allowed to fly are very good ones. "

I am happy to say that the Lightning flies in SA and congratulations to the professional team that nake this happen. :ok:

bubblesuk

6th May 2009, 22:19

Feel free to do any thing you like as long as the risk is to yourself only. The problem with aeroplanes is that when things go wrong people who did not choose to take a risk tend to get hurt, it dosnt bear thinking about what the results would have been had the Victor not made it safely down, i suggest you read Andy's (320psi) thread regarding why Lightnings wont fly in the uk.

I also witnessed the Victor fly and it wasnt a great sight to see, i didnt see a wonderfull aircraft returning to the sky i saw a something going very wrong and a very lucky escape for a number of people.

Shaft109

6th May 2009, 22:25

norodnik - I was there and when you see the eventual posting of the videos you'll agree that short of muddy wheels, skidmarks on the grass and in various pants this was nothing short of a miracle recovery.

As an aside I remember seeing an old film of the Victor doing landings complete with jaunty muzac. a gem that stick in my head was

"with her advanced wings and high tail the victor can practically land itself - here demonstrated with the pilot with his hands off the controls......"

I think Teasin' Tina has a soul and had had enough of XH558 hogging all the glory. So she said Bollox to this fast run nonsense and flew anyway:E

Something just jumped into my head regd. the gust that probably pushed it over Vmu - when she eventually got back on the deck - completely p1ssed BTW -she was past the trees that helped drop the relative windspeed at that point, and reduced weathercocking force too.

Tankertrashnav

6th May 2009, 23:08

Victor owner - talk about getting your retaliation in first! As far as I am aware all of the stuff you say about your own aircraft (ex RAF aircrew, full flying kit etc) apply at Bruntingthorpe, with the exception of the brake parachute. I also know the pilot involved and I think you have sailed pretty close to the wind in the matter of not naming names on these threads, you've cut the possible names down to single figures at any rate - still you are a probationer so perhaps we should make allowances.

I would just like to say that I have flown with him, and would be happy to do so again - we dont yet fully understand why the aircraft got airborne - what is incontrovertible is that he got it back down in one piece with an unharmed crew, and that counts for a lot in my book.

A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...

I dont quite see what that has got to do with this case. The aircraft in question as I recall was attempting a practice assymetric landing and the accident was caused by a gross imbalance of power when full throttle was applied on the two "live" engines at touchdown. Entirely irrelevant here.

In addition to the above the rear mounted airbrakes were not used (according to the photographs) which is concerning, there are no limits on their usage.

I think its a fair estimate that the photos were taken within a few seconds of the aircraft becoming airborne - would you have had them out that quickly?

More generally I have been pretty disgusted by the amount of backstabbing and unfounded criticism on this thread. It might be as well if a few contributors had just waited for the full story to emerge before getting the knives out.

XV277

6th May 2009, 23:18

A question for those involved with these types of thing (Not specifically the Victor).

How much NDT/Investigation of the structure of the aircraft is carried out in the maintenance program? How much corrosion investigation?

I've heard un-informed comment that 'if he ran out of runway, he could have taken her round again' - not something I'd want to see on an aircraft that hadn't flown for 15 years and had spent most (all?) of that time sitting outside!

TheChitterneFlyer

6th May 2009, 23:31

Quote:
A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...

I dont quite see what that has got to do with this case. The aircraft in question as I recall was attempting a practice assymetric landing and the accident was caused by a gross imbalance of power when full throttle was applied on the two "live" engines at touchdown. Entirely irrelevant here.

I think what 'Victor Owner' was trying to say was simply that had the wingtip struck the ground that the outcome might well have been very similar to the Wyton incident; which I remember only too well!

saracenman

6th May 2009, 23:35

regarding any potential 'Victor to the Sky' - as Bubbles says - NO!

the ONLY reason that Vulcan 558 (not any Vulcan but that one in particular) was able to return to flight, was due to the foresight of David Walton who bought her from the RAF - along with over 600 tons of spares, including eight zero-time (effectively brand new) engines.

a strict servicing/care/maintenance shedule was carried out, with all relevant paperwork, just in case the CAA ever said "yes" without those quantities of spares and the stringent regime for the airframe and spares, there wouldn't have been a hope in hell's chance of 558 flying again.

no such stock of spares exist for the Victors - the chaps at Brunty and Elvington do a remarkable job with what little they have at their disposal. :ok:

even if a 558-story were to exist in the case of Victor, and spares were available off the shelf, the airframe construction is wholly different to the mighty Avro's. whereas the Vulcan is built in the more traditional manner, with ribs and stringers etc with a skin riveted on top, the Victor uses what was very advanced construction in its day - lots of honeycomb structures and bonded surfaces etc.

the actual engineering task involved with any 're-lifing' of a Victor airframe would be many times the complexity and cost of the same with 558

also, as Bubbles says, the Victor's FI (fatigue index) is well and truly spent. prior to GW1, and i forget the precise figures, the Victor K2 fleet had their FI extended beyond what had originally been determined as officially 'knackered' to cater for the extra tanking demands on the UK tanker fleet - not all current VC10 Ks were in service at that time. effectively, whilst 558 originally retired from the RAF with very little FI left, the Victors ended up surpassing their projected life span by some margin.

personally, i'd LOVE to see a Victor up and about in the same way as 558 - but it just ain't ever gonna happen sadly :(

we do have second best, with the EXCELLENT work done at Brunty and Elvington - long may it continue!

sm

coldair

7th May 2009, 04:43

Great photo to be found here ;

Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Open Day 3rd May - Page 10 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1402483)

Just scroll down a bit.

coldplayer

7th May 2009, 04:45

Something just jumped into my head regd. the gust that probably pushed it over Vmu - when she eventually got back on the deck - completely p1ssed BTW -she was past the trees that helped drop the relative windspeed at that point, and reduced weathercocking force too

May I just point out that all this talk about a strong x-wind is a red herring. It was windy, but not that windy. May I also point out that if the wind WAS outside the x-wind limits of an aircraft the size of a Victor, then we all witnessed 2 light aircraft take off within minutes of this cock-up illegally being, by definition, way outside their x-wind limits.

Which is it to be? It can't be both....

BOAC73

7th May 2009, 07:29

....were they not enlisted as chaps who could offer a certain amount of "Derring Do"
Also, how do we know that the recovery was NOT the act of a skilled Pilot, but just pure luck?
Far to many drama queens posting here heh Coldplayer?
B73

Michael Birbeck

7th May 2009, 07:58

Saracenman

Thanks for the detailed update. Reading this it is clear that we are most unlikley to see the Victor in the air again but all power (but not too much though :O) to the two teams keeping their aircraft running and at least rolling.

F14

7th May 2009, 10:59

Same thing happened with Southend's Vulcan many years ago.

Light fuel load, highspeed taxi run followed by aerodynamic braking.

Unfortunately the Vulcan got airborne. Then sank back on damaging some wheels!

Not sure if there are any pics, but I remember a TV crew was there :eek:

bubblesuk

7th May 2009, 14:21

also, as Bubbles says, the Victor's FI (fatigue index) is well and truly spent. prior to GW1, and i forget the precise figures, the Victor K2 fleet had their FI extended beyond what had originally been determined as officially 'knackered' to cater for the extra tanking demands on the UK tanker fleet - not all current VC10 Ks were in service at that time. effectively, whilst 558 originally retired from the RAF with very little FI left, the Victors ended up surpassing their projected life span by some margin.

Off the top of my head i believe the figure was 125fi or there abouts.

Oh and trust you to mention VC10s:8

Amos Keeto

7th May 2009, 15:17

Has anyone suggested that Cosford might amend the history of their Victor XH672, which was the last of the type to fly 'officially' :hmm: Here is their record of the last flight:

30 Nov 93 Flown from Marham to RAF Shawbury, Salop by the ‘Victor Disposal Flight’ - the last ever flight by a Victor (although two privately preserved examples are maintained in taxiable condition at Bruntingthorpe and Elvington) The 3,700 foot Cosford runway was too short, with no over-runs available, to safely land a Mk.2 Victor. Pilots for the last flight, call sign again ‘Spartan 1’ were Sqn Ldr. Steve Jenkins and F/Lt. Tony Inglebrecht, who both kept their hands on the controls so that they could both claim to have made the last Victor landing. Also on board was former Handley Page test pilot Johnny Allam, who carried out test and development flights on most Victor variants-this was his first and only Victor passenger flight. Delivery flight made minus the underwing fuel tanks. Total flying hours 8196.
94 Dismantled and moved by road to RAF Cosford, Salop by February 1994 to join the Aerospace Museum there, where it remains on outside display

JW411

7th May 2009, 16:05

I could have sworn that the Victor was inside the new Cold War building last time I visited.

andyy

7th May 2009, 16:27

Got this from another web site discussing the same incident. How true it is, I don't know but it appears to be a statement from someone with significant insider knowledge:

"the victor was being commanded by an ex pilot of that type but the throttle man was just a helper under instruction from the pilot when instructed to shut down the throttles he only reduced it a bit the pilot then told him all the way at witch point he panicked and went to full power instead the rest is history."

Mad (Flt) Scientist

7th May 2009, 16:38

People want to see the jet set off at max chat down the RW - but there is absolutely no point in accelerating to high speeds. No-one will be able to see, in any case.

The only point I can see in achieving a high speed is to be able to raise the nose, which undoubtedly makes for a more interesting spectacle and a more compelling still photo (since an aircraft taxiing at speed doesn't look much different with changing speed until the nose lifts).

The problem, of course, is that the same high speed required to be able to lift the nose introduces two additional risks of (a) inadvertent flight as seen here (which lifting the nose obviously exacerbates) or (b) runway overrun (whether or not the a/c gets airborne).

I can certainly conceive of a situation - as seems to be the case here, based on the actual event - where minimum Vr and Vmu for an aircraft are dangerously close, such that rotation virtually automatically brings the risk of liftoff. Es[ecially if the cg is relatively aft - and with no explicit flight release, how do you reallu know where the cg is, I wonder?

It certainly seems to me that the benefit in going over, say, 70-80 knots is outweighed by the risk to the airframe and those on board incurred by doing so.

norodnik

7th May 2009, 20:55

out of pure idle interest.... had the pilot considered it unsafe to put the Victor back down (due to over-running etc), would the aircraft have been able to do a circuit ? Do the fast taxi runs include enough fuel for the just in case scenario ? Would the pilot have had sufficient skills to complete the task assuming the aircraft held together and all the necessary moving parts did what they were supposed to?

Chances of sucess ?? on a scale of 1 -10 with 1 being C&B.

Alber Ratman

7th May 2009, 21:21

Victor Owner, you state that your aircraft is maintained to FULL Servicability. When was the last time it had a service to Primary, Minor or Major Maintenance levels as it would have required to be classed as servicable?? At Marham would have been the last time.:ooh:

The ANO is specific on aircraft without a C of A or permit.

BEagle

8th May 2009, 04:25

May I also point out that if the wind WAS outside the x-wind limits of an aircraft the size of a Victor, then we all witnessed 2 light aircraft take off within minutes of this cock-up illegally being, by definition, way outside their x-wind limits.

Not so. A swept wing aircraft will often have a lower crosswind limit than a straight wing aeroplane.

Raising the nosewheel 'to make a more compelling still photo' is just asking for trouble.

The Victor is not, and never has been, on the civil register. So all this tosh about the ANO is wholly irrelevant.

And if the 'throttle man' really did react as described, that smacks of a wholly inadequate briefing before the run.

TheChitterneFlyer

8th May 2009, 05:04

I think this subject has been 'done to death'... we all agree that we want to keep these old ladies in a 'pseudo' flying condition; so, let's revisit our philosophies and come to terms with what we ought not to, or might have to, change, in order to keep the 'Status Quo'... and then get on with it!

chevvron

8th May 2009, 10:11

Considering the Victor was our first supersonic bomber (it only required the nose to be dropped below level flight at high M no/high level according to a Farnborough test pilot) and the type successfully 'attacked' the USA in the late 50s, every effort should be made to keep it in the best possible condition; pity it could never be made flyable though.

MichaelJP59

8th May 2009, 10:48

I think this subject has been 'done to death'...

Probably not 'done to death' until (a) we see video of the incident, and (b) get a proper report from the flight deck. Then loads more discussion can and will ensue:)

Whiskey Papa

8th May 2009, 14:52

There's some high definition photos here, scroll down about threequarters. Also look at last photo at very bottom :-)

Sunny Brunty! 3-5-09 more pics added 6-5-09 (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9298)

WP

Tankertrashnav

8th May 2009, 15:55

Considering the Victor was our first supersonic bomber (it only required the nose to be dropped below level flight at high M no/high level

Quite right Chevron. There's an interesting account of a K1A going supersonic (just) over Paris on Tony Cunnane's excellent website here Paris supersonic (http://www.tonycunnane.co.uk/supersonic.html)

VictorPilot

8th May 2009, 18:53

It is encouraging to see the large number of thoughtful and intelligent posts here, but disquieting to see the larger number of posts that show a complete misunderstanding of the operation of a Victor, and the care that has to be taken when showing such an aircraft off to an enthusiastic, critical and professional audience. A couple of posts from people who should know better are particularly unwelcome. A lot of Red Herrings have been thrown up, but essentially, only 3 people know the sequence of events: pre-day events, pre-flight inspections, K2 technical considerations, met assessments, pre-flight checks, briefings, and the run itself. There are now so many sites discussing this incident, that they are losing the plot. All will be revealed when it is right to do so. There are certainly lessons to be learnt. For those with an investigative mind, look at all the pictures again, the clues are there. Are there any videos to see?

andrewmcharlton

8th May 2009, 19:03

As an enthusiast who is interested I would like to know what happened and I'm sure those with a professional interest would like to know.

If there isn't a criminal investigation or a regulatory investigation that could be prejudiced, I'm guessing you could spill the beans and stop all the myth and mystery?

coldplayer

8th May 2009, 19:37

VictorPilot,

Why all the cloak and dagger stuff? Can't you just knock it on the head and tell everyone what happened? It's obvious as to who you are...

If you can't do that yet, maybe you could put to bed the speculation as to whether or not the CAA are involved in what's going on?

I'm also intrigued by what you mean by this,

For those with an investigative mind, look at all the pictures again, the clues are there.

The obvious clue is that you're airborne. Joke. I did notice something as you lined up that looked unusual to me but assumed it was a 'Victorism'. Are you suggesting that there was actually a technical issue that contributed to this?

BEagle

8th May 2009, 19:50

For those with an investigative mind, look at all the pictures again, the clues are there.

Well, considering the amount of smoke coming out of the engines even after the aeroplane was airborne.....

By the way, Bob, that was some pretty nifty work recovering from the inadvertent take-off. Well done, on that score at least.....:ok:

coldplayer

8th May 2009, 19:55

Well, considering the amount of smoke coming out of the engines even after the aeroplane was airborne.....

That is exactly what I noticed. Looked like a lot of smoke coming from the region of the No 3 engine before the run started. Of course that may have just been the perspective I had. Or of course, entirely normal for the aircraft.

norodnik

8th May 2009, 19:56

You don't need an investigative mind to figure out the pictures.

The Victor is going full chaff down the runway (see the exhaust and heat haze), and then takes off. There is nothing at all abnormal here apart from the fact it was unexpected from the viewers perspective and not advisable from an airworthiness point of view.

Whether the pilot fancied re-writing history or there were some other factors at play I guess we'll have to wait and see.

BEagle

8th May 2009, 20:05

My conjecture being that there was a significant level of thrust being produced by the engines even after the aircraft was airborne.

The smoke seen earlier has no bearing on the issue; all V-bombers smoked like crazy!

coldplayer

8th May 2009, 20:16

Sorry BEagle. I din't make my point very clear. I thought the smoke on the ground unusual but put it down to being normal for the Victor. I was, however, suprised that it continued with the aircraft into the air, for just the reason you've noted.

Still, no doubt it has nothing to do with anything!

Captain Airclues

8th May 2009, 20:18

The are many videos on youtube of previous Victor taxi runs. On all of these that I have seen, the ram air inlets on the upper fuselage in front of the fin are extended. However, on the run when the aircraft got airborne the inlets are retracted. Is there any significance in this?

This video shows the ram air inlets;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONj4DPYhkcA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONj4DPYhkcA&feature=related)

Dave

forget

8th May 2009, 21:05

Considering it 'rotated', flew and landed - the elevators look a shade 'inactive'. :confused:

suninmyeyes

9th May 2009, 10:25

OK it shouldn't have happened. And I'm very relieved there was no accident.

Having said that, personally I'm delighted it happened!

That a venerable old beast like that with no permit to fly should have hopped into the air accidentally just seems to cock a snook at regulations and authority. It's like it's got a heart that just wanted to prove it could still do it, a caged bird showing there's some spirit left or a desire not to be forgotten in the wake of the Vulcan's return to the skies. Few kids these days have ever heard of a Victor. Although it will never fly again the hop has raised interest and awareness of a great part of British aviation heritage. May the photos of its little escape from the surly bonds of earth continue to appear everywhere and I hope it attracts a few more interested visitors and donations to Bruntingthorpe.

Incidentally does anyone know when it last flew officially?

Ah well, back to my overregulated life on the Boeing. Mustn't forget to wear the tabard for the walkround to keep Health and Safety happy.

Kieron Kirk

9th May 2009, 10:32

Incidentally does anyone know when it last flew officially?

19th November 1993.

Ciarain.

Alber Ratman

9th May 2009, 18:30

That a venerable old beast like that with no permit to fly should have hopped into the air accidentally just seems to cock a snook at regulations and authority.

That is a very immature comment.

It's like it's got a heart that just wanted to prove it could still do it, a caged bird showing there's some spirit left or a desire not to be forgotten in the wake of the Vulcan's return to the skies.

No, its a machine that somebody did something that they should not have done, regardless of historical sentiment.

Few kids these days have ever heard of a Victor. Although it will never fly again the hop has raised interest and awareness of a great part of British aviation heritage.

There are lots of aircraft used by the RAF since 1945 that fit the same profile. Get over it.

May the photos of its little escape from the surly bonds of earth continue to appear everywhere and I hope it attracts a few more interested visitors and donations to Bruntingthorpe.

It possibly will, however I doubt it. A lot of forums mention about the price and such events might not get the insurance cover to do them, because of this incident.

PPRuNe Pop

9th May 2009, 21:10

Just so that you know!

We will always delete any post that contains part or all of a PM sent to that person or vice versa.

It is very rude, and at the very least dis-courteous, to publish PM content.

I have already deleted two posts for that very reason. DON'T do it!

BEagle

9th May 2009, 21:29

Well, I had a perfectly amiable PM from the chap in question, the content of which will remain confidential.

The full facts WILL be made public; those spotters and MSFS geeks who think they know everything are just plain WRONG!

Be patient - and stop guessing.

And don't bother PM'ing - even if you offered me £1000000, I wouldn't divulge anything I've been told. After all, there is a code.

Tankertrashnav

9th May 2009, 22:24

Well, I had a perfectly amiable PM from the chap in question, the content of which will remain confidential.

Well said BEagle, so did I and mine will remain confidential too

Feathers McGraw

10th May 2009, 00:00

Really you lot, do calm down and stop chucking your dummies at each other! :=

Whatever happened (and yes, it wasn't good that it did), the result was no one hurt and little kit damaged.

When the full information becomes available, the small community involved with displaying Victors will learn something and the risk of a second occurrence will reduce considerably.

I take my hats off to those that keep the memory of these elderly aeroplanes alive, I look forward to seeing them whizzing about in the future! :ok:

Now, back to following the Henshaw Challenge.....

Dan Winterland

10th May 2009, 02:57

Quote: "The are many videos on youtube of previous Victor taxi runs. On all of these that I have seen, the ram air inlets on the upper fuselage in front of the fin are extended. However, on the run when the aircraft got airborne the inlets are retracted. Is there any significance in this?"

No. The scoops are the Ram Air Turbines feeds which on the Victor purely generate emergency elctrical power. They were normall left out for the takeoff and landing as a belt, braces and piece of string backup in the case of a complete generator failure and being able to bring the AAPP (HP speak for APU) on line.

The Victor was essentially all electric, the hydraullics being powered by electric motors rather than Engine Driven Pumps, and the flying controls were electro-hydraullic units. The Mk1 had an enourmous bank of batteries to cater for the complete electric failure scenario, the Mk2 design used the RATs. Unlikely? Well, the theory was that if you had the nuclear weapon you had just dropped detonate behind you, the shockwave would flame out all four engines. The RATs would allow you to keep flying until you got the engines re-lit, the AAPP only being usable below 25,000'.

Tiger_mate

10th May 2009, 07:31

those spotters and MSFS geeks who think they know everything are just plain WRONG!

Whats an MSFS geek?

AvroLincoln

10th May 2009, 07:51

Microsoft Flight Simulator, I suppose.

PFR

10th May 2009, 11:31

Dan,
Very interesting - thanks:)

andrewmcharlton

10th May 2009, 17:25

I got a PM too but until someone can say something in the public domain, just gotta wait.

andrewmcharlton

13th May 2009, 09:11

VictorPilot, can you enlighten us yet?

VictorPilot

13th May 2009, 16:39

I do not know when the CAA will respond to the report, or indeed if they will at all. Do not worry, I have it all written up and am very keen to get it out to stop all the conjecture. However, I think this thread will have a few more pages yet!!

Stratofreighter

14th May 2009, 13:33

Anyone seen
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Handley-Page-Victor/1525010/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Handley-Page-Victor/1525010/M/) yet ? Added to Airliners.net only yesterday.
The best photo I have seen so far ! :ok:

VictorPilot

14th May 2009, 13:39

Looks more like a flying display than a moment of being s... scared!!! It all looked very different from the inside!!! :eek:

Stratofreighter

14th May 2009, 13:46

Looks more like a flying display than a moment of being s... scared!!! It all looked very different from the inside!!! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gifWell, you asked whether anyone had pictures or videos available... :E

MichaelJP59

14th May 2009, 14:05

Anyone seen
Photos: Handley Page Victor K2 (HP80) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Handley-Page-Victor/1525010/M/) yet ? Added to Airliners.net only yesterday.
The best photo I have seen so far !

Nice pic - there appears to be someone lying on the grass completely blown away by the whole event:)

Sam1191

14th May 2009, 18:37

Always preferred the Victor to the Vulcan, looks great in the air!

Now if only a Concorde would be brought back to taxying conditions so another accident could happen :E

Tankertrashnav

14th May 2009, 23:10

Always preferred the Victor to the Vulcan, looks great in the air!

Heartily concur, but you could start a whole new thread on that subject and I suspect it would run and run. Ex WAAF officer I know actually prefers tin triangles, but she does wear very thick lenses in her specs so I suspect its not her fault. I think the B1 as originally turned out without any external protruberences (not even windscreen wipers initially) and in anti flash white was the most elegant of the whole series, but they were all very pretty.

John Farley

15th May 2009, 09:31

The eye of the beholder is a wondrous thing.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

15th May 2009, 10:34

Mr Farley, Sir; indeed.

Sam1191. An interesting reminder that HP retained those neat rows of vortex generators on their MK2 long after AVR had made them redundant on their MK 2. :}

XV277

15th May 2009, 11:48

Nice pic - there appears to be someone lying on the grass completely blown away by the whole event:)

Must have been a brown trouser moment for him as well!!

DucatiPilot

15th May 2009, 12:23

From a model forum I frequent:

"Teasin Tina" - Britmodeller.com (http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31066&pid=333837&st=0&#entry333837)

Really wish I'd been there...

Iain

VictorPilot

15th May 2009, 17:05

I have made a considerable input on another site where that picture was published, and then somewhat arm chair analysed. In the interests of keeping things straight, this is what I said:

"For all you hawk eyed people, here is how the pictures show the truth.

Firstly, the bod lying down was on the other side of the runway taking pics - not sure if he threw himself down or was going for a low picture angle! But I believe he was an officially authorised photographer.

There is no question of the crew getting into the aircraft planning to get airborne, exactly the opposite. The pictures showing the power being on when it was in the initial climb are spot on. Full take-off power was not being used, only cruise power, and thank heavens the throttles were not closed on the ground or any sooner than they were. As it was, the aircraft was still accelerating furiously, and that gave the Victor flying speed as it was becoming airborne, not rearing up on the thrust vector alone.

Visibility from the cockpit is very restricted apart from straight ahead. As I pushed the nose down, I went from seeing only blue sky, to a panoramic view of the runway and a lot of grass. The wind had lifted the stbd wing, and taken the aircraft well to the left of the runway. At that point I thought we had had it - just to tent peg into the ground, and for a fraction of a second I considered going for full power, a climb and circuit. But then I felt the aircraft was "flying", it responded to my inputs, and the runway was reachable and long enough. My priority then was to keep the speed up - no airbrakes, maintain control, and complete a landing albeit initially on the grass.

I have snapshot visions of things, and most of my reaction was totally instinctive, but I would love to see a video to give my memory a "real time" dimension.

Didnt she look great in the air - 15 years since she last flew, and would you believe it - 28 years since I did my last operational trip in her!! How I wish we could do it all properly for real!! "Fred's Sheds" may have built hand crafted aircraft, and BAe may have "spoilt" them in the K2 conversions, but the Victor was the longest serving V Bomber, and is still the Rolls Royce in my mind. From cockpit comfort, to sophisticated aerodynamics that gave it a performance well ahead of the Tin whatsit thing....were the mega-millions well spent? Could we raise the money to keep her flying on the experience gained from the Triangle?

Bob

Vox Populi

15th May 2009, 18:30

Interesting reading Bob.

Just to clarify, for those that have video of the event (not me) are you happy for it to be published on the web? Or are you asking for a private viewing?

I only ask as someone who had to leave Bruntingthorpe minutes before the 'flight' and I too would love to see it in real time.

However she became airborne, it is clear that your instincts and handling skills served you well in the few seconds you had to take control, and protect the lives of the crew (and the airframe) well done.

BEagle

15th May 2009, 18:51

I was quite sympathetic until I read that rather weird post...

....thank heavens the throttles were not closed on the ground....

Why? They certainly should have been.

What have you learned from this incident - and how would you do things differently, should you ever be asked to do so again?

andrewmcharlton

15th May 2009, 19:17

I am impressed at the safe recovery of the aircraft and the crew but still baffled how it could have been allowed to happen.

culloden

15th May 2009, 21:39

"Flying is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity, or neglect"

ChristiaanJ

15th May 2009, 21:55

culloden,
Tell that to this duck...

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee201/sitigeltfel/duck-crash-landing.jpg

(from another thread).

CJ

VictorPilot

15th May 2009, 23:12

Wait for the full report. I have no objections to the video going public - I want to see it myself!

Stratofreighter

16th May 2009, 09:24

Indeed on youtube some videos were added that same evening following "the event", i.e. the Victor actually shown airborne, but apparently the posters were strongly urged by some people to remove their footage... :=

Perhaps now the word is out that the pilot himself would like to see the footage the cameramen may appear again from their hiding place ? :}

VictorPilot

17th May 2009, 08:51

My thoughts, after reading a lot of sites, was that the moderators lifted them out in the light of the request from the Commentator at the time. Subsequently, when it emerged that one of the photographers had sent his pics to Flight, it was a free for all!

andrewmcharlton

17th May 2009, 10:57

A few muppets have clips appearing on Youtube with comical cuts and home editing, I assume it's meant to be amusing but just a tad crap.

If there is no criminal investigation, which I am assuming there isn't, why can't we just have the whole story?

Rather than focusing on the "heroic" landing (well done for it by the way) perhaps VictorPilor can tell us how it was ever allowed to happen in the first place?

Sl4yer

17th May 2009, 22:03

Isn't it reasonably obvious from the pics and comments posted so far?!!!

andrewmcharlton

17th May 2009, 22:06

I was referring to the checks, calculations and procedures (or lack of perhaps).

Matt Jones

18th May 2009, 07:00

Sam1191

18th May 2009, 09:47

Has this link to some pics been pisted already?

Picasa Web Albums - Mark - victorflight (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/davisonrrccc/Victorflight?authkey=Gv1sRgCMX0ptrrk7CCzwE&feat=email#)#

Wow! hadn't seen those! I thought it just got off the ground for a few metres...clearly wrong! Good thing the brakes worked.

So if there wasn't enough runway left (by the looks of things, it almost seems that way), what implications would a quick circuit have? Is the plane capable of controlled flight or are certain controls locked/restrained for taxying purposes?

noisy

18th May 2009, 12:52

I hope the guys at Bruntingthorpe will take some lessons from this. I wonder if anyone really knows how much that aircraft weighs at any given time? This appears to have been a case of luck more than judgment.

As for going round the circuit, I wouldn't want to do it in an aircraft that hadn't flown for over fifteen years.

PPRuNe Pop

18th May 2009, 14:26

Some mini sniping is beginning to show folks. That should be avoided. We don't know the facts and it is up to VP to tell us if he is of a mind to - nothing to say he should of course!

Some of us, but no means all, are in a position to make reasonable judgments but I would not be willing to make mine known. Each aircraft has its own characteristics and only pilots who know how to fly them can make such comments.

DucatiST4

18th May 2009, 17:25

The various authorities say that an aircraft operating at high speed on the ground should be configured for take off just incase it does decide to go flying.

Shaft109

18th May 2009, 18:34

That last picture link - if you click forwards fast enough it appears almost to be in real time video

P6 Driver

18th May 2009, 19:06

Very glad to see the pilot giving his version of events - it makes for a fascinating first hand account of a dramatic event. Very disappointed to see there are so many shy people all of a sudden in the web with regard to video coverage, however, especially as the pilot concerned has expressed his desire to see it in the public arena.

I was more than impressed with the recovery skills obviously demonstrated - once a pilot, always a pilot I suppose.

P6D

Yellow Sun

18th May 2009, 20:26

The various authorities say that an aircraft operating at high speed on the ground should be configured for take off just incase it does decide to go flying.

What "Authorities" are those, would you care to enlighten us please? A few references would be useful as well.

YS

DucatiST4

18th May 2009, 20:56

Okay maybe not an "authority" as such but the following comes from the AAIB's web site:

"Pilots should also exercise caution when carrying out unfamiliar procedures, and when operating close to take-off speed, they should
be prepared for the consequences should the aircraft become subsequently airborne. To that effect, fast taxi tests should be made with the aircraft fully configured for flight, including the canopy fully and properly secured."

Can't find my CAA link right now.

coldplayer

18th May 2009, 21:14

It might just be worth pointing out that there is quite a difference between a 'test' and a 'run' and clearly you can only configure an aircraft for flight that is fit to do so. The other point, of course, is that this particular aircraft should have been nowhere near 'takeoff' speed.

A reality check for some of the more pie in sky posts on this thread perhaps in that it doesn't have a 'soul' nor is it a 'homesick angel reaching for the stars'. It is a collection of metal and various fluids maintained and controlled by one or more humans. It only does what it did because of their actions.

It's been over two weeks now. No video and no proper explanation. What gives?

VictorPilot

19th May 2009, 10:36

Moderator. I thought I had "copy and pasted" a note of mine from another site to this site. However, I cannot now find it! Is it allowed to copy a reply on one site to another? Bob

BarbiesBoyfriend

19th May 2009, 11:14

You know, Victor pilot, if we lived in Texas there might be a chance to fly that Victor properly.

In the UK, land of it's birth, .................no chance.:mad:

PPRuNe Pop

19th May 2009, 12:00

Bob, if YOU cut and paste under your PPRuNe username OK.........we cannot do so.

Thanks,

PPP

Yellow Sun

19th May 2009, 13:15

Moderator. I thought I had "copy and pasted" a note of mine from another site to this site. However, I cannot now find it! Is it allowed to copy a reply on one site to another? Bob

Do you mean Post#219 on this thread?

YS

staplefordheli

19th May 2009, 13:24

Victor aircraft | take- off | Bruntingthorpe airfield | Lutterworth | this is leicestershire (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Probe-launched-10-second-Victor-flight/article-1003711-detail/article.html)

Already in the press

XH558 went nose up on one occassion i was there on a coldwar jet day of its many fast taxi runs before it was taken out for the rebuild, and there was a rumour that the main gear also had an air gap at the time.

PPRuNe Pop

19th May 2009, 13:30

The pictures have been on here almost since day one - I thought it was a video that was being suggested as being available.

Pictures are open house!

Matt Jones

19th May 2009, 14:30

As posted on this very forum 23rd March 2009

"Must be awfully frustrating not to complete that take-off run. "

I've already dared him - watch this space! She wouldnt take much persuasion. After all if a rotten tin triangle can do it....

Adds a new dimension to it.

VictorPilot

19th May 2009, 16:25

The answer is NO NO NO!!!

VictorPilot

19th May 2009, 16:27

YS You are right ... not sure how I missed it. Anyway post 219 is worth another read....

Wassermaranow

19th May 2009, 17:06

As the "main man" has asked to see video of the event, why isn't there any available to us?

Does any video actually exist?

Matt Jones

19th May 2009, 19:17

I think there is video. There was apparently some on Youtube the night it happened but it was taken off and hasn't re-appeared.

VP, there's an unsubstantiated rumour on another forum that your co-pilot was managing the throttles for you, not un-common, and mis-heard / interpreted an instruction to and applied full power. I'm guessing it's nonsense?

Stratofreighter

19th May 2009, 21:02

Taken from
Victor aircraft | take- off | Bruntingthorpe airfield | Lutterworth | this is leicestershire (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Probe-launched-10-second-Victor-flight/article-1003711-detail/article.html) :

One spectator quoted on a pilots' website said
if the local press can find "us", then surely the local NIMBY'S can... :ugh:

And for those who still demand a full explanation at Pprune from "the man at the helm": :rolleyes:

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said they had been contacted about the incident relating to the Victor being airborne without a permit to fly.
He said: "We have been made aware of what happened with the Victor."
"We have launched an investigation and evidence will be gathered to ascertain the full facts."
Be patient... :=