Javelin WD808 / Peter Lawrence accident

[Pittsextra]

I wonder is anyone might have a view on this?

I've been reading a number of archive correspondence / writings about the Javelin accident from 1953.

Reading Bill Waterton's book (and indeed a response to it at the time from Gloster Aircraft and others here (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201033.html)) suggested "super-stall".

Yet that doesn't seem to reflect the initial release from Gloster Aircraft at the time. You can read it yourself here (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1953/1953%20-%200777.html)

However it suggests:-

"had
been flying for half an hour when he radioed to his home base, Moreton Valence, that he was in trouble. At this point he was over 20;oooft. If he had baled out then he would have been safe, but he elected to crash-land with minimum damage to the aircraft and homes and people on the ground. He came down in a glide, seeking to avoid built-up areas with houses, and just before landing found himself over playing-fields where teams of boys were playing cricket. He stayed with the aircraft all the way down to 250ft, put it into a straight slow run in, and baled out, using his ejector seat. However, he had waited too long, and he was killed on impact with the ground. The aircraft swept over the heads of the boys and landed in a field, flat. The wings and tail were undamaged "on landing."


Which doesn't really seem to reflect a high rate of descent and out of control.

Someone wrote to Flight to suggest another theory (at least for his abandonment) which is reflected below.

gloster javelin | 1953 | 0938 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1953/1953%20-%200938.html)

'"THE puzzling feature of the recent Gloster Javelin accident is
* that of the pilot leaving the aircraft at an altitude of 250ft
approximately. According to reports it seems as though he intended
making a normal forced landing; it would be logical, therefore,
to infer that he intended to stay with the aircraft. In order to
make a quick "get away" he would have to jettison the canopy
prior to landing; I suggest that this was his intention and that
leaving the aircraft at that low altitude was inadvertent, for it is
obvious that no pilot of any experience would attempt, at that
height, to do so voluntarily.
As is known, there are two circuits concerned with the emergency
exit: (a) jettison canopy only and (b) jettison of canopy,
ejection seat, etc. If the switch controlling (b) circuit is pulled, in
error or otherwise, the pilot has no option but to go; this might
have been what happened.
I have long held the opinion that such emergency system's
could be, with advantage, rearranged. My experience has been
that pilots' understanding of these emergency circuits is far from
perfect, and it is suggested that revision is a matter of some urgency

Is there an official accident report for this??

[chevvron]

Years ago I met an ex Javelin pilot who'd had to bail out of a Javelin in Malaya. He was so low, his parachute had insufficient time to deploy and he sustained back and hip injuries which gave him a 'squashed' appearance. I don't know what mark of seat this was or its limitations, nor do I know if he separated from the seat.
As far as I recall, this pilot's name was Lawrence too.

[kenparry]

The quote from "Flight" is from a reader's letter, not editorial content. The reader seems to be ill informed, and little credence should be given to his remarks.

Martin-Baker seats are not operated by a switch, but by handles. Seats of that vintage, probaly a Mark 2 (though the Mk3 was little different) had an overhead handle which was the regarded as the primary, and a seat-pan handle. Canopy jettison varied between types. On some, pulling the seat handle would jettison the canopy before firing the seat; on others, manually-initiated canopy jettison was required before firing the seat. The specific Javelin system is not known to me. In any event, this was an early prototype and the system may have changed with later examples.

[Pittsextra]

Ken perhaps - although I read the use of the word "switch" is merely a reference that whatever mechanism is used it ultimately operates a switch.

Regardless the plane didn't from earlier reports seem to be in an uncontrolled decent.

[Fareastdriver]

Seats in 1953 didn't have seat pan handles. The Mk 3s I rode on did not get those until about 1963. The seat was probably cleared for 90 knots/200 ft. Unfortunately that would have been in level flight. Any sort of rate of descent knocks most of the altitude cushion aside.