BUCCANEER WHEELS-UP LANDING

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Chaps/chapesses,

I had the misfortune to be an ATCO at Her Majesties Open Prison RAF Machrihanish between Aug 77 and Jan 79. During that period one of the few periods of ‘excitement’ that we enjoyed was when the Laarbruch Buccaneers staged through Machrihanish to re-fuel and re-brief after using LFA 15 (as it was then) and associated TTAs on their Red Flag work-ups.

The reason for this post is that we had one incident when a Bucc couldn’t lower its gear – at all. It, eventually, diverted to Leuchars where a successful approach end cable arrestment was effected, the fire crews having sprayed some foam on the runway upwind of the cable. The crew were all OK when the aircraft came to rest on its weapon-bay fuel tank and vacated the aircraft without resorting to MB’s finest piece of engineering.

The story that we heard ‘back at the ranch’ – via the usually unreliable grape vine – was that prior to landing:

Only one CBLS jettisoned, resulting in an asymmetric under-wing load/drag distribution;

After jettisoning the canopy, a bird strike occurred on finals;

Having landed in the cable with minimal damage, restricted mainly to the weapon-bay door tank, the aircraft was removed to a hanger at Leuchars to determine the case of the failure of the gear to lower, but something then happened that Cat 4’ed the airframe. I say Cat 4 because the rumour at the time was the airframe was Cat 5, but I can’t find any reference to an airframe being lost in these circumstances and it does sound like the story being embellished to improve its telling!


Does anyone on here know any further details of this incident? Especially, wrt to the goings-on in the cockpit and are any of the subsequent trials and tribulations stories true? As I was the Tower Controller, I’d just like to get the whole story of an incident that I was involved with!

[izod tester]

I know nothing of this particular incident, but I question the implication that something happened after the ac was moved to a hangar that made the damage worse. Whilst the apparent damage may have seemed to be minimal when the ac was on the runway, full assessment of the damage can only have been possible after the ac was in the hangar and investigation of the ac structure completed. The ac would only have received any categorisation after that examination had been done and subsequent deliberations by the engineering authority whether repairs be undertaken by the RAF (Cat 3) or by contractors (Cat 4).

[Treble one]

Nothing fitting this accident and these dates/location on the ejection history/accident site....

[Rhino power]

Nothing fitting this accident and these dates/location on the ejection history/accident site....

Hardly surprising since, according to the OP, The crew were all OK when the aircraft came to rest on its weapon-bay fuel tank and vacated the aircraft without resorting to MB’s finest piece of engineering

-RP

[NutLoose]

It wouldn't surprise me, it depends what equipment they had to handle a Buccaneer and get it off the runway, I had seen the old recovery Cat tracks with fittings designed to go under one type used on a totally different type resulting in damage.

I was involved in the recovery of a large Cessna Twin at a civi airport and such was the requirement to get it off the runway and get the airport open they wanted to wrap chains around the props and drag it behind fire engines, pointing out they could damage the runway we managed to get the wing root panels off, lift it with slings around the spars and a pallet as a spreader to stop it crushing the fuselage , then lower it onto a baggage trolley for recovery, once off the runway we lifted it again, dropped the gear which the pilot hadn't, then wheeled it into the hangar for reskinning.

[Chris Kebab]

Highly unlikely a BoI would have been convened in those days for something like this, if the crew got it on a runway and walked away then it was not much more than a DASOR in today's speak. So pretty unlikely you will find anything in any accident archives IMHO.

Different times!

[skua]

As it is the annual Bucc Aircrew tea festival this weekend, you need to find someone going, and they will no doubt find the culprit/unlucky driver.

[Treble one]

Hardly surprising since, according to the OP,

-RP


Further research in other Bucc related material has also drawn a blank.

[sfm818]

It was the latter part of Friday afternoon when the Bucc appeared overhead to orbit & burn off fuel. Conditions were good with calm winds. Those who hadn't stacked for the weekend chose a vantage point. There had been a couple of runway incidents with the F-4 that resulted in ejections around that period, so the assembled throng were expecting a shunt. Intense magnesium flare on touch down but once stopped, no fire. Sans canopy - pilot & nav jumped out and ran for it, just in case. After that we piled into a Land Rover for a closer look and were soon rubbing shoulders with the Staish, who was equally interested. This landing was bang on the centreline. Hardly any debris to be found on the FOD walk. After a brief inspection in ASF it was recovered back to Honington. Most notable RHAG engagement on that end of the runway happened when engine failure on take off punctured one of the dorsal fuel tanks on a PTF Phantom. Not sure if the crew ejected before or after taking the cable but resulting fire damage was Cat 5. Compared to that event, the Bucc wheels up looked routine - they pulled off a smoother landing than some manage with the gear lowered.

[Krystal n chips]

I know nothing of this particular incident, but I question the implication that something happened after the ac was moved to a hangar that made the damage worse. Whilst the apparent damage may have seemed to be minimal when the ac was on the runway, full assessment of the damage can only have been possible after the ac was in the hangar and investigation of the ac structure completed. The ac would only have received any categorisation after that examination had been done and subsequent deliberations by the engineering authority whether repairs be undertaken by the RAF (Cat 3) or by contractors (Cat 4).


I wouldn't. ( sorry if this should be more applicable to the RAFG thread )

Gut 74? or 75 ? not quite sure of the year and 92's "P" lands in something of a hurry and a bit heavy with what transpired to be a spurious fire warning. Left leg parts company late in the landing and left wing goes "plonk". Thus far, damage only resulting in a left leg change ( and a bit of structure )

Enter a member of the Eng Branch whose expertise didn't involve crash recovery, in contrast to those present who did have said expertise.

The result, when the lift and move commenced ?......a very loud "plonk!" as the left hand aileron hits the concrete. The damage extended the repair by at least 4 months, it took about 10 in total, not helped by an M.o.D Quality gronk insisting the tolerances in the book for the aileron attachment be rigidly complied with. It was only when a couple of guys from B.A.C as it was then popped over, took about 15 mins to have a look, and said, "there's nowt wrong, we've never got those dimensions anyway and where's the duty free?" the penny finally dropped with said gronk.

Wildenrath ...somewhere about the same period and 20, or 4, lowered a Harrier using the proven gravity overcomes everything method....result was a Harrier with a bent tummy.

This saga got worse.

After an extensive re-build, there was a requirement to weigh the heap....after about the 934th attempt, during which not one set of figures actually matched the hoped for numbers ( every weighing produced totally different figures ) a, ahem, "decision" was made to arrive at a sort of median figure from those obtained....and call it quits.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Treble one: I checked the usual losses and history sites first too and couldn’t find any reference either, hence my comment that the airframe obviously wasn’t Cat 5’ed (which was the story we heard later) and downgraded it to a surmised Cat 4 following an incident akin to those described by K&C. Clearly, this element of the ‘post landing’ story is likely to be apocryphal, which is one of the things I wanted to establish.

Sfm818: Thanks for the confirmation of the event! Initially, the Bucc was going to divert to their No 1 div (which was West Freugh) for an approach-end arrestment. However, before we lost RT contact behind the hills we were able to confirm (through D&D) that West Freugh was closed, which caused a certain amount of consternation within the detachment! (hence the “It, eventually, diverted to Leuchars…”). On writing the OP I was trying to remember – given the likely time of the day (Mid-PM) – why would West Freugh be closed so early? Being a MoD (PE) base they did close earlier than most units (1600-ish), but mid-afternoon? Unless it was a Friday, when they closed as soon as possible, usually about 1400 or so. So, you have also unconsciously confirmed the day - which I had reasoned, but was unable to otherwise confirm - too.

Not being a Buccaneer Brother, of course, I won’t be attending the Tea Festival this weekend, but if anyone is, I’d appreciate to find out any more of this incident if it could be brought up in ‘I learned about flying the Buccaneer from that’ reminiscence sessions that are bound to take place!

[4mastacker]

.......... Most notable RHAG engagement on that end of the runway happened when engine failure on take off punctured one of the dorsal fuel tanks on a PTF Phantom. Not sure if the crew ejected before or after taking the cable but resulting fire damage was Cat 5. ...........

That would be XV588 belonging to 892 NAS but with an RAF crew. The observer went first and the pilot stayed with it for a bit longer - it looked like he left after the aircraft took the RHAG.

I stand to be corrected on how long the pilot stayed with the aircraft, but that was how I saw it from outside the MESC. Quite a spectacular sight and those parachutes seemed to take an age before their canopies fully opened.