British Airways TriStar 500.

[Mooncrest]

Were there any particular reasons this fleet didn't see very long service with British Airways ? The earlier -1, -100 and -200 fleets seemed to be around for years with BA, BKT and Caledonian but the 500 was seemingly here today, gone tomorrow. The RAF seemed to like them though, going by their acquisition of the ex-Pan Am/United fleet too. I remember BA leased a couple of 500s from Air Lanka in the mid-1980s but that too was for a relatively brief period.

Thankyou.

[DaveReidUK]

The -500 suffered, like most downsized aircraft variants, from relatively poor economics. That may have had something to do with its short career at BA.

[rog747]

The 6 BA mainline 500's seemed to go all over far and wide to some exotic places.
All 6 were delivered in 1979/1980 and then all went to the RAF in 1983, with Marshalls of Cambridge doing the conversions during 1985 as a Type C1 then KC-1 (4) and K-1 (2)

British Airtours (KT) operated a -500 G-BFCB leased back from the RAF in summer 1983.
'CE' was also leased back to KT for the summer in a basic BA livery from the RAF in June 1985 to cover the Tri-Star over-run accident at Leeds.

In May 1979 BA received its first of 6 longer-range series 500s, for which BA was launch customer:
G-BFCA Princess Margaret Rose
G-BFCB Harry Wheatcraft Rose
G-BFCC English Mist Rose
G-BFCD Astral Rose
G-BFCE Gay Gordons Rose
G-BFCF Elizabeth of Glamis Rose

Their first route was to Abu Dhabi which was later extended to Singapore. The 500 was intended for use as a replacement for the VC-10 and 707 on routes with insufficient traffic to warrant a 747 including the East and West coasts of the USA and the Caribbean.
Another service started later on was London-New Orleans-Mexico City. The type were obviously not a success as in 1983 all were sold to the RAF.

That wasn't the end for the Tristar 500 in the BA fleet though as BA leased a pair for South American services from Air Lanka in 1985 for 3 years, but after disposing of it's own -500's!
G-BLUS Laggan Bay
G-BLUT Dunnet Bay
Both remained in service until April 1988.

Pan Am ordered 12 -500's for 1981.
3 went to the RAF in 1984, who operated two as C2's and a single C2A, the rest to Delta and United, who sold 1 to LTU.

More on RAF Ops ~
Tristar operations for the RAF began in 1983 with G-BFCA and G-BFCE flown essentially as airliners, still wearing much of their BA livery, and with BA crews, while RAF personnel were undergoing conversion. On 1 November 1984 216 Sqn was reactivated at Brize Norton and became the sole unit that flew the type during its 30 year RAF career.
Marshall Aerospace at Cambridge Airport was awarded the contract for the Tristar conversion programme. Four of the ex BA aircraft become KC.1 with freight doors as tanker/transports suitable for mixed passenger/freight and tanking ops.
The remaining two were to be solely K.1 tankers, with additional fuel tanks in the fore and aft baggage holds but lacking the large freight doors.
It was mentioned that it had originally been intended as a three-point tanker with Flight Refueling HDU's under the outer wings as well as the centreline unit.
But due to the Tristars 'Active Ailerons' (ACDS) it had proved impossible to fit anything under the wings.

Provision was made for a maximum 187 passengers in the KC.1. The KC.1s cabin floor was modified to load and lock pallets in place and could be quickly reconfigured for mixed passenger/freight loads.
For tanking, the K.1 and KC.1 were fitted with a pair of Flight Refuelling Mk 17T hose drum units (HDU) fitted in the underside of the rear fuselage which limited the Tristar to single point tanking, but allowed back up should one unit fail.

In 1984 three ex Pan Am Tristar 500s (delivered to the airline in 1980) were also purchased by the MOD to add further strategic transport capacity.
Two entered service as C2 passenger transports with seating for up to 267, but without an AAR capability. the third had been intended as a K2 tanker with wing mounted pods, failed to make the grade when it was soon realised the type’s wing configuration would make this impractical.
Instead it became a C2A transport, the new designation reflecting a revised autopilot and other avionic changes.

The RAF 216 sqn then began flying the Falklands air bridge schedule in December 1985, and mixed passenger/freight operations continued to be flown to Mount Pleasant airfield into the early 2000s.
Thereafter that service was civilianised, but this coincided with the Tristar becoming heavily involved in the UK’s contribution to the US led campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, where it was to become the RAF's air bridge type of choice.

In addition, the RAF added the Brize Norton - Akrotiri air bridge to its regular work early on and the Tristar also became regularly involved in tanker trails to the US and beyond.
When the UK launched it's response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the type’s trail capability was called upon immediately.
The two K1s were repainted in Desert Pink, prior to their deployment to Riyadh in support of UK and allied operations over the Gulf. Known collectively as ‘pink pigs’ and named Pinky and Perky.
In 1999 the RAF Tristar was also committed to assist Allied operations over Kosovo, again refuelling numerous NATO air assets.
Northern and Southern no-fly zones that had been established over Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War also saw 216 Sqn provide tankers in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

The UK’s continued involvement in Afghanistan was to characterise the final years of the Tristar’s RAF service career. It soon became the mainstay of trooping missions into theatre as civilian airliners were mostly not permitted to land at military bases in the region.
Reflecting this requirement, a series of upgrades were introduced from 2004 including provision of a defensive aids suite, cockpit armour and other equipment. The most obvious change was the repainting of the type in an overall glossy dark camouflage grey scheme replacing the airline white worn since entering service.

Unfortunately, the high tempo of Afghan support operations began to take its toll on Tristar reliability and serviceability challenges.
Between 2007 and 2009 total hours flown by the Tristar reduced by 40% and this impacted on crew training.
One aircraft was sent to Marshalls in late 2007 for avionics update and glass cockpit.
Flight testing continued but when the 2010 SDSR brought forward Tristar retirement to an expected date in 2013 (from 2016), the upgrade programme was abandoned, and the aircraft eventually scrapped on site.
Ironically, despite the SDSR decision, the type had a further reprieve and extension to its service career resulting from the UK’s contribution to the UN campaign waged in 2011 against the forces of Col Gaddafi’s Libya.
By summer 2013 just seven Tristars remained operational and in September that year, the VC-10 was retired.
Thereafter a single Tristar returned to the Falklands to provide both AAR for the 1435 Flt Typhoons on QRA and casualty evacuation, as did a further aircraft in the UK on standby to maintain UK QRA.
216 Sqn stood down on March 20th 2014, its role replaced by the Air Tanker Consortium A330 Voyager; but its final operational sorties were on March 24th when two aircraft were flown over the North Sea with several Typhoons refuelled for the benefit of the media on board.
Those 6 aircraft that remained airworthy were subsequently flown to Bruntingthorpe and the care of GJD services.
They were subsequently purchased by US company Tempus Applied Solutions who intended to have them flown back to the States to enjoy a further career on AAR work contracted to the US military. However, that plan sadly failed to reach any fruition, and these large grey ladies now face scrapping in view of Bruntingthorpe’s proposed redevelopment.


Was the sale of the BA TriStar 500's as much for political reasons as it was financial?
Was that much wrong with the aircraft from BA's point of view?
The Conservative Government at the time wanted to privatise BA, with BA approximately £1 billion in debt and therefore not attractive to private investors.
Much of the debt was as a result of the order for more than 30 new 757's which started delivery in January 1983.
Add to that the Falkland's War in 1982 and the British Government realised that the RAF did not have a capable Jet tanker/transport cargo aircraft capable of supplying the Falklands.
With BA desperate to make cuts & save money, BA sold their TriStar 500's to the RAF for a rumoured £1 billion pounds, which was way above their market price. And hey presto, BA was suddenly making a profit!

[SWBKCB]

and these large grey ladies now face scrapping in view of Bruntingthorpe’s proposed redevelopment.

Scrapping now largely, if not totally, completed. The proposed American contract always seemed pie-in-the-sky, but suppose we will never know the true story.

[dixi188]

When the RAF got the Tristars I was at British Caledonian, Gatwick.
There were lots of rumours that the RAF were going to get DC-10s as tankers and the vacant Laker hangar at Gatwick was to be used as a maintenance/conversion base for ex Laker aircraft.
But BA wanted to get rid of their -500s and of course they had RR engines so the RAF got those instead.

[tubby linton]

The -500 suffered, like most downsized aircraft variants, from relatively poor economics. That may have had something to do with its short career at BA.
It has been rumoured that a BA accountant had costed them as a four engine aircraft and by the time the mistake was realised they had been sold.Two Air Lanka aircraft US/UT were acquired in the mid 80s and operated for almost three years , the original fleet having left in 83.

[sandringham1]

Incidentally the longer wing and active aileron mod wasn't ready in time for the first deliveries of the BA -500 and several were returned to Lockheed for the wing extension work. When the first one came back it soon got damaged when the tuggie followed the wrong white on the hangar floor, the -500 one was offset by a foot or so from the normal line but he forgot what version he was towing, result a crunched wingtip.

After they went to the RAF one had a very heavy landing at Brize and a big enough bounce that a go around and circuit was required during which a large amount of fuel was lost through diagonal crack in the rear spar, the BA crash team carried out the subsequent repair that took months to do. Does anyone know anymore about this as I believe that it nearly wrote the aircraft off.

[Mooncrest]

Thankyou all. It's quite a story. TAP Air Portugal operated the TriStar 500 for years - I hope their relationship with their aircraft was more favourable.

[BEagle]

I believe that it nearly wrote the aircraft off.

Correct. I was at Brize at the time and saw the photos of the damage. They weren't even sure whether it was safe to tow the aircraft off the RW.

A chap working in the Windrush Industrial Park in Witney decided that it would be a good idea to stop welding when it began to rain kerosene..

Why did ba bin the TriStars rather than some 747s? The story was that some management suit demanded to see the fuel burn figures for the RR engines which powered both - and found that the TriStar engines had a higher burn rate on similar sectors to those flown by the 747. "That's it then! The TriStar is less efficient and must go!"

So that was decided upon....

Then someone realised that although the engine burn rate might have been higher, there was another teensy-weensy factor which should have been considered.... Namely that the TriStar had 3 engines, whereas the 747 had 4. When the subsequent sums were conducted, it seems that the decision might not have been terribly sound.

At least that's the story which was doing the rounds at Brize at the time!

As for Marshalls antics with ZD949:

October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.

November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.

2008 came and went.

2009 came and went.

January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.

October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.

December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.

2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.

October 2011 - A330MRTT now 'Voyager' fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.

January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

February 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

March 2013 - Voyager still not providing an AAR service; 3 x VC10 have to stagger on until Sep 2013.

September 2013 - VC10 retired, but Voyager still not providing a complete AAR service.

March 2014 - TriStar retired, but Voyager still not providing a complete AAR service.

May 2014 - ZD949 finally scrapped having never been returned to RAF service during a wasteful, expensive 7 year programme.

[chevvron]

I remember one arriving at Farnborough direct from Heathrow so it must have been 1983. It parked overnight whilst some boffins installed a rear warning sensor to it and then it did a series of flypasts to check the signal from the sensor before departing to Cambridge (?) - not sure; maybe it was Brize.

[NutLoose]

Re the freight door conversion, prior to that the RAF had full width freight containers made that were just deep enough to fit through the pax doors.

There were several early incident's such as the one you describe which I personally witnessed the results of, Lockheed were if I remember correctly aghast that the RAF would actually rebuild it, looking at the sheared spar sections once removed and the wing damage, I couldn’t believe it still flew.

The aircraft wouldn’t fit into base hangar so a temporary dock of scaffolding and plastic sheeting had to be erected outside the doors to extend the hangar and enclose the tail of the aircraft. When towing it back to the hangar the tug driver had to be convinced as the gear had spread and damaged the structure, including the wing skins, the tugs used to go under the nose of the aircraft when towing, hence the drivers worry.

The other one about the same time was a BA Eng crew that blew a section out of the bottom of a wing during a run, holding in a CB and a seized hyd pump resulting in an explosion was if i remember correctly was the cause.
That one was repaired on the apron, plastic sheeting was thrown over the wing and weighted down forming a “tent” which was heated with aircraft ground heaters.

​​​​​​…

[Asturias56]

"May 2014 - ZD949 finally scrapped having never been returned to RAF service during a wasteful, expensive 7 year programme."

but think of the contribution it made to keeping Marshalls afloat!

[rog747]

-500 Exit door mods in later life ----

Not relevant to the BA -500's, but some aircraft of the type ended up back with USA charter airlines - ATA and Rich International who wanted to cram in more passengers - well over 300.
LTU flew theirs with 288 pax all Y(as built with 6 doors, and the Galley was now on the main deck)

Thus, FAA exit door Reg's demanded another pair of doors added aft of the wing (to now become an 8 door ship like the originals).
The "4th" door was added to the ATA (and Rich International) L-1011-500's, because the FAA would not allow them to be registered in the United States when they were bought from Alia Royal Jordanian.
After all the new L-1011-500's were built and sold, the FAA then created something called the "Sixty Foot Rule".
No two exits can be greater then 60 feet apart. To now get them registered the "4th" door had to be designed and installed.
Delta designed the new door and holds the STC.
However, the 17 L-1011-500's Delta flew did not require the "4th" door as the FAA had already grandfathered that fleet.
The "4th" door is actually made from cut down main sized doors removed from scrapped L-1011's sitting in the desert.

This extra pair of doors were then extremely skinny L3 and R aftermarket exit doors added due to high pax capacity need, and were in fact not the original Doors 4 small rear door, as fitted to all original Tri-Star -1's (except BA and Court Line who opted for the full sized doors at position 4) but were full sized main doors then cut down to size.
The taller doors are custom built from scratch using the modified frames of the L3/R3 doors from scrapped aircraft. That is why you see so many scrapped L-1011's in the desert with missing L3/R3 doors. At least 3 LTU Tri-Star's were door donor ships.

I believe the door mod cost was approx. $4 million which is not unreasonable all those years ago when they were acquired considering the cost of new wide bodies at the time.
It was most likely a bit more expensive because the TZ/ATA modification had to be recertified since it was slightly different than the prototype (Rich International S/N 193J-1183).
This is because the Rich aircraft was ex-LTU (D-AERT) and the LTU -500s ordered did not have a C3 cargo door.
The ex-RJ/Alia airplanes did; so the loading characteristics changed for the R/H extra door 3R requiring recertification.

There were only 6 total -500's modified with this extra door and TZ/ATA ended up owning them all.

The prototype S/N 193J-1183 was operated by Rich (N501GB) to 1996, and Nordic European (SE-DVM), and then Novair (SE-DVX) of Sweden, purchased as N165AT in 2000 by TZ/ATA, then used for spares. It was scrapped in VCV in 2004.

The others are the 5 ex-RJ/Alia aircraft N160AT-164AT.
Aircraft N160AT was retired in 2002 and eventually scrapped. The other four were still flying on until some years later.
N163AT was sold to Jordan for Elite Aviation and was registered in 2010 to Rollins Air but not sure what happened to it.
The other Rollins Air Privilege Jet -500 was skippered by Pprune poster (411A) Captain Bob Welliver who sadly passed away in Honduras in 2011 soon after landing his aircraft there from Europe on the way to Tahiti. That aircraft (ex TAP/Air Transat) still sits out there abandoned afaik.

ATA Airlines (formerly known as American Trans Air) fleet included 28 Tri-Star's, but operations dwindled to only three L1011-500s prior to the company's shut-down in April 2008.


Other L-1011 door anomalies -
BEA, later BA, ordered standard body Tri-Star -1's but with four standard large size doors, not only for added seating capacity, but for more rapid pax loading as well.
Many times I would notice that the L4 door was used during pax boarding.
These doors were identical (but not interchangeable) to the others, electric operation included, with double lane slides.
Court Line also ordered their Tri-Star's with the same large door configuration, and also had the large rear air stairs fitted in the aft hold to use on to Door 3R.
LTU also had these air stairs fitted, but only on their 1st 1973 new build.

UK CAA seating regulations provided the following:
Standard body aircraft,
Small L/R 4 door....max seating capacity 365
Large L/R 4 door... max seating capacity 400
BA and Court Line also had different flight deck instrumentation than other operators, and in addition, the UK CAA required a few modifications to the aircraft to enable it to be brought on to the UK civil register.

The smaller doors 4L/R didn't have the electric drive.
The normal sized doors have an electric motor to open/close the door and the small doors do not.
If you open a small door, you will have to manually crank it closed.

The two (of 5 ordered) L-1011 aircraft delivered to PSA were configured with a smaller forward drop down air stair that led into a lounge bar area with lower deck seating, what was normally the forward lower baggage hold.
This was intended to allow operations from smaller less equipped airfields, and those in Latin America that did not have terminal buildings with Jet way type gates.
These two aircraft were soon sold to AeroPeru, and ended up at Worldways Canada.
The other 3 unsold new aircraft went to LTU, one was lost in a fire in 1991 at DUS - the other two went to TZ/ATA.

Kind Ack's to both the photographer's below -

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/980x656/0229859_1a05dafd25a0cf88302274f9dda5774b65581a8f.jpg
door donors ex LTU
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x700/49060_1074665201_b3c24e5abeb685b8d1dd6bda07b64f9f84470bd2.jp g
the new door 3 mods

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks for the detailed exposition on the doors.

It's a long time ago now, but the TriStar was one of my favourite airliners. both to fly on and to work on.

[rog747]

Thanks for the detailed exposition on the doors.

It's a long time ago now, but the TriStar was one of my favourite airliners. both to fly on and to work on.

Thanks -
BA leased in an Eastern Airlines Tristar for 2 years in 1978 - This one obviously only had the small doors at Posn 4.
BA got it to supplement their fleet until the L-1011-500s entered service, commencing in May 1979. The aircraft retained the Eastern Airlines registration N323EA.
Not sure if BA flight deck crews flew it, or the Americans did>?
This was one of the Tristars I gather, that visited Jersey to repatriate the large numbers of fogbound JER delayed pax.

British Airways placed the launch order for six of the shorter, extended-range L1011-500s in August 1976, converting earlier options, with deliveries in 1979.
This new version with upgraded RR engines could fly 6,030 miles, compared with the -1’s 2,739 miles.
In January 1979 the airline ordered two L1011-200s, followed by another six in September, taking the original BEA/BA L-1011 order up to 23.
The -200 combined the basic -1 airframe with the higher-powered RB.211-524B engines used on the -500, producing an airliner capable of economically serving both the US eastern seaboard and Gulf routes as well as high-density European destinations. It had a range of 4,362 miles
As with the -500s, BA was the first European carrier to take delivery of the -200 series – flight crews were rated for all three variants.
Initially serving mainly Middle East routes, the -200s released the -500s for much longer sectors.

But at the end of 1982 BA was in serious financial trouble, and as a matter of urgency a number of newer aircraft were sold to raise cash.
The sales included all six TriStar 500s to the RAF. However, three were leased back to BA at different times, 2 for British Airtours and one of which operated MAN-JFK in summer '85.
Three of the -1s were converted in 1985 to -50s ~ G-BEAL/AK/AM – among the changes, the undercarriage was strengthened, increasing their maximum take-off weight and range, so the -50 could reach 4,178 miles; BA wanted to operate the Tristars to the USA and it was discovered that these last three Tristar 1s already included extra structural strengthening built into the production line. All BA needed to do to enable transatlantic operations was switch the wheels and axles and the aircraft, designated as Tristar -50s, could carry nine extra tons of payload allowing them the ability to reach the East Coast of the USA.

In 1988 British Airtours became Caledonian Airways and gradually most of the Tristar -1s and -50s moved over to the charter airlines fleet permanently.
Of the original 9 BA Tristars only G-BBAG, G-BEAK and G-BEAM did not serve with Caledonian, but AK and AM had previously served with British Airtours.
In 1989 two -1's G-BBAE/AF, after joining Caledonian Airways were both converted to -100 series and featured a new center fuel tank and higher gross weights that increased the aircraft's range by nearly 930 miles.

As well as the TriStar 500s being sold to the RAF, two 747-136s were sold to TWA, two new undelivered RR 747-236s were sold to MAS Malaysian,
and several new and undelivered 757-236s (plus many future delivery slots) were sold to Air Europe, Air Europa and Air Europe Italy.
Another brand new BA 757 G-BIKF was leased out and went immediately to Air Europe for summer 1983.
Other 757-236's slots NTU by British Airways went later to Pembroke, GPA, Babcock and Brown, Bouillon and Boeing leasing ~ National Airlines 4, TAESA 1, LTE 1, China Southern 1, Caledonian 6 (including 2 intended for Ambassador), and 1 for IEA.

BA flew with -500 GRU-GIG-LHR in the 1980s, perhaps the longest Tristar route in the world>?
Those aircraft were 2 -500 (G-BLUS/UT) that BA had to lease from UL in 1985 (The old Air Ceylon beforehand) for the Brazil routes as BA had ditched its own -500s in 1983.
BA got the South Atlantic routes swapping the Saudi Arabia routes with BCAL's in 1985. I believe these 2 TriStar 500s were used to fly to CCS as well?
BA were shut out from operating at EZE as a consequence of the Falklands conflict, but by early 1990 BA got approval to resume operations to Argentina.

HRH Princess Margaret christened British Airways’ first TriStar 500 at Heathrow, G-BFCA, which became Princess Margaret Rose.

BEA had stopped naming aircraft after getting its first jets, the Comet 4Bs, but this tradition was revived when British Airways accepted its initial TriStars in the new BA Negus livery – the aircraft being named after varieties of Rose.
In 1984 when BA introduced the new Landor-designed scheme, the Tristars were renamed after Bays around the British Coastline.
Two -200s, which had originally been leased to charter subsidiary British Airtours, joined the BA fleet and retained their Airtours birdlife names, Osprey and Golden Eagle.

Cheesy 1979 BA Advert for the new -500's (but using stock images of a -1 !)
https://youtu.be/CpM6pH-5ZLw

[BEagle]

Taking tea in the OM at Brize, as one did in those days, I was chatting with a 216 chap. As we talked, we heard a TriStar conducting a ground run, when there was an almighty series of bangs. "OOPS, that sounded expensive", I said. The reason was that someone had surged a wing engine doing some IR signature trial prior to a planned trip for HM to the Middle East, for which IR jammers were to be fitted.

Then there was the 'held in CB' event - during which the electrical circuit acted as a fuse for the CB. A polythene tent was erected on the flight line under which the repairs were conducted.

The VERY heavy landing incident was used as a "How not to" CRM lecture on the Flying Supervisors' Course at Cranwell. The famous words "It shouldn't have done that" were on the CVR!

I gather that during repairs, it was discovered that the aircraft had suffered an unreported heavy landing before it had entered RAF service. I guess that's the risk in buying other people's cast offs......

[BSD]

Around the early 80s there was a story that some of the BA/BEA/Airtours/Caledonian Tristars had different autoland fits. Some could autoland and some couldn't........

The story went that that a crew used to an autoland capable aeroplane, carried out an autoland at Gatwick one fine day and wrote in the tech log after landing "aircraft landed heavily and well left of centreline on autoland"

The engineers cleared the fault by writing in the action taken column "Autoland not fitted to this aircraft"

Love to know if it really happened.

[Mooncrest]

I am neither a pilot nor avionics engineer but I cannot see how it is possible to configure an aircraft for an automatic landing when the facility is not available on the aeroplane in the first place. Bizarre!

[BSD]

It's true it does seem bizarre, but still possible. Here's how: if your're buying a plane, say a short-haul Tristar for northern Europe short-haul with lots of winter fogs etc., you would naturally tick the box on the option list marked: Autoland required?

If on the other hand you planned to operate in mainly better weather ares, with mostly non-precision approaches, no ILSs (required) where autoland CAT 2/3/3b could used, you wouldn't tick it.

Initial purchase price lower, ongoing maintenance requirements lowered, crew qualification and recurrent training costs minimsed etc., an accountants dream.

The flight systems/cockpit layouts would be the same, but for an autoland, an extra selection to be made, a checklist to be carefully followed and the approach set up only after a careful briefing and a thorough of the planes serviceability status.

Now, 2 airlines merge, same type in their fleets, but specced up for different roles and....

The Swiss cheese slices are lining up nicely perhaps.

What I'm intrigued to know is whether or not it happened or if it is just one of those stories that went the rounds.

[treadigraph]

I think it's one of those tech log engineering jokes that went round years ago. I remember a whole load recounted in Pilot 20 or 30 years ago, though whether that was amongst them I don't recall.

[bean]

Rog747. The Eastern Tristar was still with BA in 1980 that's when it visited Jersey
It was a dry lease

[SimonPaddo]

I think it's one of those tech log engineering jokes that went round years ago. I remember a whole load recounted in Pilot 20 or 30 years ago, though whether that was amongst them I don't recall.
Well remembered, it was indeed amongst them. As was this:

Problem: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Solution: Evidence removed.

[bean]

I think it's one of those tech log engineering jokes that went round years ago. I remember a whole load recounted in Pilot 20 or 30 years ago, though whether that was amongst them I don't recall.
You are correct. The autoland story is a myth. An aircraft needs autoflare to autoland. If the story were to be correct at the very least the aircraft would have sustained severe damage

[Meikleour]

The way I heard of the Brize heavy landing of a Tristar was that the aircraft was, in fact fitted with autoland facility, but that it was a rushed circuit which failed to give the autopilot the required time to stabilise and this resulted in the very firm landing which was indeed an autoland! ( or more correctly, attempted autoland! )

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The -500 suffered, like most downsized aircraft variants, from relatively poor economics. That may have had something to do with its short career at BA.
It was, like the B747SP, built for long range but soon overtaken by more modern aircraft. The rationale for offloading them was that Lord King's remit was to get BA ready to be privatised and they were desperately short of cash. The B707s and VC10s had followed the Viscount fleet into retirement, 2 new build B747-236Bs were sold before delivery to Malaysian and G-KILO was flogged off to Cathay. A further two B747-136s, G-AWNI/K went to TWA and BA were delighted to offload the TriStar 500s to the RAF. BA were a hugely lossmaking and dysfunctional org back in the day.

[chevvron]

BA were a hugely lossmaking and dysfunctional org back in the day.
So what else is different?

[DC10RealMan]

I seem to remember that having sold the long-range Tristar 500s British Airways acquired some South American routes from British Caledonian for which the Tristar 500s were ideal had they not already sold them. They flew the new routes with the shorter range Tristars and we at Heathrow ATC regularly received Diversion Arrival signals from Madrid as they had had to divert to refuel.

[Mooncrest]

I seem to remember that having sold the long-range Tristar 500s British Airways acquired some South American routes from British Caledonian for which the Tristar 500s were ideal had they not already sold them. They flew the new routes with the shorter range Tristars and we at Heathrow ATC regularly received Diversion Arrival signals from Madrid as they had had to divert to refuel.
This is likely what prompted the lease of the pair from Air Lanka.

[Cornish Jack]

Meikleour - essentially correct.
The 'rushed circuit' gave too short a 'finals' to allow the mandated distance to establish. The resultant 'hunting'(What's it doing now'?) was the sircraft performing 'what it said on the tin' ! Super aircraft, DLC was excellent and the autoland was exceptional. It was the first type I tech instructed on at Cranebank and held a small, but definite preference over the subsequent 747 - Classic and 400. The flight deck was 'Texan sized' and the flight deck observer's seat was perfect. Chatting to the Fleet manager he reminisced on a double LHR- CDG one day where the only time he saw the ground was taxying in and out at either end !:D

[chevvron]

Classic and 400. The flight deck was 'Texan sized' and the flight deck observer's seat was perfect.
My first Tristar was 'inadvertant'; I'd been offloaded (ATCO Famil Flight) in Milan (by Alitalia) and managed to get to Paris Orly and transferred to CDG/Heathrow for a one way trip. As you say the jump seat behind the captain was superb with a lull length window right next to me.
My next Famil flight was Heathrow O/I Larnaca with that superb view all the way.
As we shut down at Heathrow, the door opened and in came the purser with a tray of drinks for us; a mniature of whisky topped up with champoo; perfect end to a great flight.

[BEagle]

Cornish Jack, also the RW08 ILS (as it was then) had a glideslope which undulated due to local terrain. It was OK to fly manually down to 200' a.g.l., but not auto-coupled.

ILS not suitable for auto-coupled apps to Cat I DH. is still stated for the RW07 (as it now is) ILS!

[WHBM]

I seem to remember that having sold the long-range Tristar 500s British Airways acquired some South American routes from British Caledonian for which the Tristar 500s were ideal had they not already sold them. They flew the new routes with the shorter range Tristars and we at Heathrow ATC regularly received Diversion Arrival signals from Madrid as they had had to divert to refuel.
The -500s were delivered in 1979-80, just as the Thatcher government came in with goals to improve efficiency, and then privatise the airline. There were a number of poor performing long haul operations, often multi-stop, and once the 707s and VC-10s were disposed the -500, being by then the smallest long-haul aircraft in the fleet, tended to operate these, so they were sold off in 1983 to the RAF. Meanwhile, a parallel government initiative was to shore up B Cal, so BA services to Saudi (profitable) and B Cal services to South America (marginal) were swapped in 1985, and BA leased a couple of -500s from Air Lanka for several years to run these.

The order to Lockheed was for six -500s and eight -200s, the latter being the latest and most capable of the standatd bodied Tristars, having essentially the -500 engines etc in a full length frame. These didn't last much longer, being withdrawn after about 10 years, with the reductions at the start of the first Gulf war in 1991. A couple then returned the compliment to Air Lanka, and were leased out to them for a while, continuing to turn up most days at Heathrow.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The -200s having only 10 years in service is surprising, especially given the -1s flew on for another decade with Caledonian. Such a shame, as BA had nothing between the B747 and B767 at LHR for five years til the first B777 arrived, and they flew for 25 years or more.

[condor17]

Beagle , thanks for letting us know the ILS state . We'd heard that it was an offset Loc. And thus we'd never a/landed off that , but senior RAF decided to test it , with heavy landing following .
If memory serves the Eastern lease was N304EA ..... always heard about the 'Ghost of Flt 401' , which a 'gurlfriend said appeared on several night flights ... due to galley equipment having been salvaged from Flt 401 , N310EA...............Mind you 'wot happened in the underfloor galley stayed in U/F galley !
It was the U/F galley which kept -1 [ only G-BBAJ , not beefed up due her overun at LBA ] ,-50s ,-100s in service wirh Ba Airtours and Cale ....... 393Y + babes in arms , and 16 Flt 'n CC ..got my personal best SOBs well past 400 . The -200s had no U/F galley and thus max seats well reduced ; possibly no increase in max. ldg. wt. which could affect payload . Nominally , if replacing a Cale DC10 , we had 40 + more seats .... M.86 , gas 'n go in Santa Maria , we'd be in the Carribean before you ...
Others have explained the financial need to sell very well .
They were 25+ years old when I got to fly them , wonderful analogue machines . Brilliant wing , well less than 210 kts clean - 375kts VMO.. MMO brain fade but up towards M0.89 , 400+ SOB , 1 tonne spares pack in the hold .. go 7 hrs , gas 'n go another 7 hrs , land by a beach somewhere ....
Not to mention the hotel bedroom which was the flt deck , the window ledge behind and to the left of P1 seat converted readily into a perfect bunk for our 3 year old J/Seating home . When not asleep , he was having more fun than our village playground ... racing up and down in the lift with 'Bootful Blonde Tracey.
Even us flt. deck did not get to do that ! Engineers year or not .

rgds condor .

[WHBM]

..Mind you 'wot happened in the underfloor galley stayed in U/F galley ... They were 25+ years old when I got to fly them
I never observed the underfloor galley, apparently accessed by the catering cart elevator. What provision was there for a breakdown of it ?

I'm guessing you were on the Caledonian Tristar fleet by the end. I recall their very last flight, although I wasn't on board. It was Sunday 31 October 1999, end of the schools half term week, and end of the summer holiday schedule. We were returning from Faro to Gatwick late afternoon, on a Sabre 737. At Faro there was a Caledonian Tristar, also for Gatwick, stuck AOG which had apparently been there since late morning. This was the very last day of the Tristar fleet, they were to be withdrawn then. I wonder if the handling agent had disposed of their common spares a little early. Anyway, we boarded our own flight on time. When we got to Gatwick the Tristar was still on the arrivals board as awaiting information, possibly they were waiting for something to be flown out.

Next morning, back to the office. About lunchtime in comes the chairman, looking uncharacteristically jaded. "Rotten end to our week away. Plane broke down at Faro on the way home, it was 12 hours late, didn't get in to Gatwick until well into the early hours. Just stuck in Faro airport departures. Kids completely restless".

Thank God we didn't run into them ! I've sometimes wondered if the aircraft paperwork had also been set to expire on 31 October as planned, and a ramp check on arrival might have shown a little discrepancy ...

[DaveReidUK]

I never observed the underfloor galley, apparently accessed by the catering cart elevator. What provision was there for a breakdown of it ?

Motor failures were rare, but IIRC in extremis (a F/A trapped down there, for example) the elevator could be moved up or down by hand by inserting a brace handle in the appropriate hole and winding it about a million times.

[teeteringhead]

inserting a brace handle in the appropriate hole and winding it about a million times. Sounds a bit like the Puma manual gear extension (of old?)

Questions for current Puma chaps/chapesses:

1. Is it still the same on the new improved Puma?

2. If so, remind me how many pumps of the lever required.

[chevvron]

Sounds a bit like the Puma manual gear extension (of old?)

Questions for current Puma chaps/chapesses:

1. Is it still the same on the new improved Puma?

2. If so, remind me how many pumps of the lever required.
Sheesh now you tell me.
Years ago when I flew left hand seat in XW 941 from Farnborough, I was handed the FRCs and told 'you have been briefed on the emergency undercarriage lowering system haven't you (wink wink)?'

[SWBKCB]

Motor failures were rare, but IIRC in extremis (a F/A trapped down there, for example) the elevator could be moved up or down by hand by inserting a brace handle in the appropriate hole and winding it about a million times.

Apologies for the thread drift but did Lakers DC-10's have something similar, or am I making that up???

[Jhieminga]

There certainly were DC-10s with an underfloor galley, but I'm not sure whether Laker's DC-10s were part of that batch.

[dixi188]

Apologies for the thread drift but did Lakers DC-10's have something similar, or am I making that up???
Yes, Laker's DC-10s had the lower galley so they could get 389 pax in (IIRC). There were two lifts, one for trolleys and one for people.
World Airways had the same but a hostie got trapped when one of the lifts moved while she was leaning inside and by the time the aircraft landed at Gatwick I believe she was dead. An interlock switch had been by-passed due to a fault, allowing the lift to move with the door open. Around 1982.

[WHBM]

Lower galleys were favoured by charter/holiday operators, who had limited cargo demand but wanted to seat as much of the main deck as possible. The BA Tristar -200s described above, which had main deck galleys, presumably had more cargo hold capacity than the ones with lower galleys.

PSA in the USA actually had a lower deck lounge on their Tristars; it was however not certified for takeoff/landing, so didn't provide more capacity overall. Being confined within California at the time, they handled very little cargo. Pictures :

Do you know the PSA Lockheed L-1011 TriStar had a lower deck lounge? - TravelUpdate (https://travelupdate.com/psa-lockheed-tristar-lounge/)

281Y main deck seats on a single-class, one-hour sector (and no catering apart from coffee, as far as I recall on PSA) is an interesting comparison to 393Y, described above, in the British Airtours/Caledonian aircraft operating holiday flights from Gatwick as far as the Caribbean !

[treadigraph]

Yes, Laker's DC-10s had the lower galley so they could get 389 pax in (IIRC). There were two lifts, one for trolleys and one for people.
World Airways had the same but a hostie got trapped when one of the lifts moved while she was leaning inside and by the time the aircraft landed at Gatwick I believe she was dead. An interlock switch had been by-passed due to a fault, allowing the lift to move with the door open. Around 1982.

I recall that happening - very nasty...

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/190793

[WHBM]

The report tells us that there was an emergency trap door between the main deck galley floor and the lower galley

[condor17]

There were 2 lifts , and memory says if one got stuck 1/2 way you could in extremis crawl in at the bottom and out of the top .
Handle for winding , maybe , certainly one for winding the doors down and closed .
Yes to the -200s having more cargo space , rumour was max ldg. wt. not upped thus volume could be used but not dense cargo .
Cale. got their own crew for last couple of years , as sold off to Flying Colours [ ? ]. We then all returned back to mainline on various fleets .
Last Cale. trip was staff outing to Fairyhouse racecourse in Dublin .[ Aer lingus helped organise , as we had G-BBAF in Shamrock colours ] Crew drawing short straws stayed sober to bring the rest home , request from the cockpit on way back ...'' Slow the 390 peeps conga ...We cannot keep up with the rapid trim changes '' .
Sods law , was that , whatever broke was Not in spares pack .

rgds condor

[DaveReidUK]

Handle for winding , maybe

There's no maybe, see my previous post.

If memory serves the Eastern lease was N304EA

Actually N323EA (identified as "NEA" in the various maintenance computer systems, good job there was only one).

You may be confusing it with N305EA, which was painted in partial Speedjack livery for demo to BEA in 1972.

[condor17]

Dave , apols on 'maybe' ..only because I never used or saw it ! Door handle 'tho ..I watched F/O and F/E wind down D1R , whilst I PA'd from D1L to the 250 peeps [ of 393 ] who could see me ...... that on this a/c , on this day , at this airport we could only fly for 2hrs and thus need a gas 'n go at MXP en route from HER.. That was after n/stopping HER from LXR . Didn't like to mention that we'd be flying racetrack patterns from MXP until we'd climbed tho' 15600' to get over Mt Blanc .
I'd never heard of EPR shortfall in the previous 25 yrs of commercial flying ....effectively we only had a 2 1/2 engine Tristar on that day .

'The Ghost of ' machine info was from an old 'gurlfriend who was on them back then . 'Wot did the engineers call 'Spread Legs' the BM/Dan ? 707 ,G-AYSL ? Leased in at same time .
Certainly saw the BEA demo a/c at Farnborough when a cadet in '72 . still have a B/W 'foto somewhere in attic ...
Was and still am , amazed seeing her flying . Just one year since I'd at been at a school in Suffolk with less pupils than she carried pax. Likewise the local town cinema was smaller too.

rgds condor .

[DH106]

It was the U/F galley which kept -1 [ only G-BBAJ , not beefed up due her overun at LBA ] ,-50s ,-100s in service wirh Ba Airtours and Cale .......

TIny, belated correction - the LBA overrun L-1011 was G-BBAI.

[condor17]

DH , apols and thanks , as memory and typing skills carp . A good mate was on her then . And Alpha Junk was a -100 .

rgds condor .

[CaptainSpeaking2023]

The knowledge in here is unbelievable 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[ATSA1]

I flew on Alpha India the year before her overrun at LBA, back from Naples to Gatwick..and was on the flight deck for the landing...lovely aeroplane..Its a real shame that Lockheed bailed out of the civil market after the TriStar, it was far superior to the DC10, if a tad pricier!
I was at Ascension when the first TriStar 500 came in, still wearing CA on the nosewheel door, and flown by BA crews.One of the engineers said that the Tristar had 3 times the payload of the VC10, for the same fuel burn..no wonder BA dumped the Viccy 10s so sharpish!
Both of them Queens of the Skies!

[bean]

I flew on Alpha India the year before her overrun at LBA, back from Naples to Gatwick..and was on the flight deck for the landing...lovely aeroplane..Its a real shame that Lockheed bailed out of the civil market after the TriStar, it was far superior to the DC10, if a tad pricier!
I was at Ascension when the first TriStar 500 came in, still wearing CA on the nosewheel door, and flown by BA crews.One of the engineers said that the Tristar had 3 times the payload of the VC10, for the same fuel burn..no wonder BA dumped the Viccy 10s so sharpish!
Both of them Queens of the Skies!
BA dropped the Tristar 500s sharpish too: hence you saw a RAF ex BA Tristar at Ascension

[SpringHeeledJack]

I've asked this here some years back, perhaps this time the crew might see it ? I took a flight on BA from LHR-BKK via BAH on a TriStar. It was the last flight out of T3 before BA moved to their own terminal, T4 the following day. Memory is dodgy, but I believe mid April 1986. I was working on behalf of a BA-subsiduary and our escort, who took my group from curb-side to aircraft was happily explaining the move as we walked through the deserted terminal with everything wrapped up ready to be moved across. We were the last to enter the aircraft and the escort reiterated that this was the last BA flight from T3. Would any of the ppruners have operated/dispatched this flight and could confirm ?

[DaveReidUK]

We were the last to enter the aircraft and the escort reiterated that this was the last BA flight from T3. Would any of the ppruners have operated/dispatched this flight and could confirm ?

Definitely not the last BA flight from T3, I could swear I departed on one last week. :O

[WHBM]

Definitely not the last BA flight from T3, I could swear I departed on one last week. :O
Very good ! And do I remember that just one BA flight, which I believe was Miami, was operated from T3 even back when BA long haul was over in T4, pre-T5 days ? I seem to recall an article (which frankly I thought unlikely) that said it was done to keep a BA presence on the committee that allocated Heathrow central area stands. Miami was chosen because of its length, it just fits nicely for the daily round trip to be operated by the same aircraft for days on end without the need to position other aircraft to and from the terminal. They used to use some of the "flexible" check-in positions at T3 that could be reassigned to different carriers through the day.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting. In my time at BA (pre-T4), the opposite applied - Miami was one of the flights that operated from T1 for several years. I think (though I may be wrong) Chicago was another one.

The services in question were renumbered in the BA290 to BA299 range in order to maintain the principle that all flight numbers below a certain value operated to/from T3 and those above (principally short-haul) used T1.

BA uses the same long/short-haul flight number demarcation (above/below 300) at LHR to this day.

[condor17]

DR , something is nudging me to agree on ORD [ Chicago ] operating out of T1 as well as MIA.
Flight numbers on Short Haul are Even going out and Odd home . Longhaul the opposite Odd outbound , Even homebound !
Why ? I've no idea , but been like that since BA formed [ Mar '74 ].
Rereading this post , I see my memory was as bad just 1 yr ago .. Sorry DH for you having to repeat .

rgds condor .

[WHBM]

And do I remember that just one BA flight, which I believe was Miami, was operated from T3 even back when BA long haul was over in T4, pre-T5 days ? I seem to recall an article (which frankly I thought unlikely) that said it was done to keep a BA presence on the committee that allocated Heathrow central area stands. Miami was chosen because of its length, it just fits nicely for the daily round trip to be operated by the same aircraft for days on end without the need to position other aircraft to and from the terminal. They used to use some of the "flexible" check-in positions at T3 that could be reassigned to different carriers through the day.
Anyone able to confirm which terminal BA used for Heathrow to Miami in October 2007, which is when I recall this (obviously quite off topic for a Tristar 500 discussion).

[Sotonsean]

Anyone able to confirm which terminal BA used for Heathrow to Miami in October 2007, which is when I recall this (obviously quite off topic for a Tristar 500 discussion).

Terminal 3.

​​​​​​I flew with British Airways from LHR Terminal 3 to Miami twice in 2007.

When British Airways moved their long haul operation from Terminal 3 to Terminal 4 the Miami and later on Chicago flights moved to Terminal 1 instead. I believe Miami moved to Terminal 3 in the early 2000s and has remained there ever since. I could be wrong on the date though. But British Airways LHR to Miami flights have been at Terminal 3 for several decades, even with the opening of Terminals 4 and 5.

[ScouseJon]

Around the early 80s there was a story that some of the BA/BEA/Airtours/Caledonian Tristars had different autoland fits. Some could autoland and some couldn't........

The story went that that a crew used to an autoland capable aeroplane, carried out an autoland at Gatwick one fine day and wrote in the tech log after landing "aircraft landed heavily and well left of centreline on autoland"

The engineers cleared the fault by writing in the action taken column "Autoland not fitted to this aircraft"

Love to know if it really happened.
I heard it slightly different, although it could be the second heavy landing that has been talked about. When ZE706 was introduced to 216SQN, a senior officer was conducting go-arounds at Brize Norton. He selected autoland and continued the approach. Now the story goes that he was too low and too close for autoland to be selected. But the junior copilot was too scared to say anything. As the Tri-Star is such a stable aircraft, it continued down the glide slope perfectly, but failed to flare and slammed into the tarmac, putting the undercarriage through the wing. The captain elected to go-around instead of staying on the ground and then completed a successful landing, albeit loosing a large volume of fuel from the wing tank. On disembarking the aircraft, the captain stormed into the line office and threw the tech log at the Chief Tech behind the desk, where it fell off the desk, dispersing it's contents all over the floor, declaring that the autopilot didn't work. The Chief calmly gathered the contents back inside the folder and then threw the book back at the captain, declaring that the autoland was not operational.

Not sure how true the whole of this account was, but the landing was certainly why ZE706 sat in Marshals for many years, which we used to call 'the Christmas Tree' which we regularly picked gifts from to keep the rest of the fleet flying.

[Juan Tugoh]

The auto land incident has been recreated and reinvented with a mix of truth and myth. The aircraft was not ZE706 it was 705. 706 sat in Marshall’s for a long time as it was initially a model bought for spares support. The Autoland system was working as it should that day but the crew made errors. Some were errors of ignorance or misunderstanding, some were handling.

The autoland was indeed attempted from a circuit and did not meet the gates that allowed the system to operate as anything but an auto approach.

There were also two models of autopilot in the fleet and they behaved subtly differently in the autoland mode. The training was done by BA,and the majority of the fleet were BA model with the analogue FCU interface to the autopilot. 705 had a different model of autopilot - a digital one.

The main, subtle, difference being that the A/L, Flare and Rollout modes were not shown on the Mode Annuciator Panel until all the requirements for them had been met, unlike the ex BA models where the modes were shown on the on the MAP as armed and active modes. The attempted autoland, carried out from a circuit failed to give the system sufficient time and meet its required gates to let the A/L Flare and Rollout modes to first arm let alone become active modes.

The aircraft did exactly what it was designed to do and flew down the glide slope to the point where it intercepted the runway. The lack of flare - which the autopilots did not do as they were not asked to - resulted in a bounce. The handling pilot disconnected the autopilot and pushed the stick forward slightly. Unfortunately this technique which may have been apt on other aircraft made the second bounce worse as it deployed the DLC to a greater extent further degrading the available lift. The aircraft then went round and flew a circuit during which much fuel then leaked out in the subsequent circuit

It annoyed 216sqn pilots for years after as the incident was a result of people showing off to senior officers. The RAF senior management become entrenched in their fear and distrust of autoland, which could have been a useful tool. In reality the cost of the required maintenance and training for Cat III was probably not worth it as the ILS at Brize was not Cat III capable.

[ScouseJon]

Your account sounds pretty feasible regarding the approach, I worked on these aircraft for 9 years on 216, so am familiar with the autoland systems. But I'm pretty sure it was 706 that bounced. When it eventually returned to the Sqn, many years later, it had huge patches on both wings above the undercarriage.

[Juan Tugoh]

Your account sounds pretty feasible regarding the approach, I worked on these aircraft for 9 years on 216, so am familiar with the autoland systems. But I'm pretty sure it was 706 that bounced. When it eventually returned to the Sqn, many years later, it had huge patches on both wings above the undercarriage.

It was definitely 705 that bounced.

[sandringham1]

It was definitely 705 that bounced.
The Tristar damaged by a heavy landing had to be repaired on site at Brize as it was un-flyable in its damaged state, in fact it was close to being written off. The work was carried out by the BA crash crew using a repair scheme devised up by Lockheed.

[Wycombe]

I remember the "extension" to Base Hangar that was built to accommodate 705 while she was fixed.

706 was still parked-up at Marshalls (IIRC, still in Pan Am colours) at the time.

[old,not bold]

Lockheed flew one of the ex-PSA Tristars to the Gulf to demo the aircraft to Gulf Air (1975? '76?)....... it was decided to show off the Autoland on Doha's then nice new - and very long - runway. The aircraft was fitted with a CCTV system showing the view looking forward through the flight deck windshield, with screens in the first class section for guests to see the action. The bottom of the picture showed the coaming and a bit of the panel.

As we started down the slope, two pairs of hands were ostentatiously placed on the coaming where we could see them. Down we went, runway in view, solid as a rock, perfect approach, speed on the button, etc etc.

Until, as most of the Gulf Air people on board knew would probably happen, at about 700 feet QFE (or something like that) we hit the substantial kink in the ILS caused by a huge recently built hangar. The aircraft oscillated wildly, and the two pairs of hands disappeared faster than a lightning strike.

They regained control, and we landed safely. And Gulf Air bought the aircraft anyway.

[TCU]

On 28th August 1997 I was a passenger on Caledonian Tristar G-BBAH, LGW-DLM. I am not exactly sure where I was sat but it was in an outer 3 row on the starboard side in the area of the wing...so mid cabin...ish

About half way through the flight (which was naturally at silly o'clock in the morning), a hostie approached and asked if we would mind vacating the seats for a while. No problem of course, at which point the FE arrived with a tool box, got on his knees and rummaged around in an under floor panel for 10 minutes or so before retreating back up front satisfied and thanking us for our trouble.

I've often wondered what he did!? Anyone in the know as to what might have needed an in-flight tweak in an ageing L1011 mid-cabin under the floor?

The below attached for no other reason than nostalgia:
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1380x2000/aa1c8395_41c7_44d1_9dac_26c88881c1c2_1_201_a_92c5eade16f5666 2e40ef6422a4998017ab99f86.jpeg

[DaveReidUK]

On 28th August 1997 I was a passenger on Caledonian Tristar G-BBAH, LGW-DLM. I am not exactly sure where I was sat but it was in an outer 3 row on the starboard side in the area of the wing...so mid cabin...ish

About half way through the flight (which was naturally at silly o'clock in the morning), a hostie approached and asked if we would mind vacating the seats for a while. No problem of course, at which point the FE arrived with a tool box, got on his knees and rummaged around in an under floor panel for 10 minutes or so before retreating back up front satisfied and thanking us for our trouble.

I've often wondered what he did!? Anyone in the know as to what might have needed an in-flight tweak in an ageing L1011 mid-cabin under the floor?

IIRC, the Hydraulic Service Centre was underfloor, midships, and accessible from both the cabin and from outside, It was huge - stand-up headroom and big enough to have a party in.

[CV880]

Dave, I don't recall any hatch allowing access from the cabin to the HSC. The HSC was unpressurised being the space between the wheel wells and the ceiling was fairly well covered with components. There were 2 external hatches, one at each end of the HSC. Was the F/E tinkering with the pax services/entertainment system cabling??

[condor17]

TCU , sorry I can't help ; my last Tristar flt was July 16th '97 Mombasa- Chania [ Souda Bay ]- LGW. Funnily enough on G-BBAH .
28th August '97 was day before final check flt back on mainline B757 , G-BIKT [ KT of B Airtours call sign] .
Cale' was magic , like Highland Division with sunshine and kilts ! FEs being part of that magic [ thankfully no kilts 'tho ] , fix anything ; lots learned to fly and ended careers as excellent skippers .
Links below have just refound of G-BBAI being recovered from the Leeds overrun , I've put them on B. Airtours subject as well ..may be of interest ..

G-BBAI at LBA (http://www.britishairtours.com/g-bbai_at_lba_18.html)

Issue 1 (http://www.britishairtours.com/issue_1_12.html)

rgds condor

[Mooncrest]

That was a fascinating read and great pictures, condor. Thankyou!

[TCU]

Condor, I'm honoured by your response...similarly with Dave and CV880.

There is just something about the Tristar that captures the imagination. My father retired to Dartmouth and at one of his gin infused garden parties in the early 2000's I met a retired BA L1011 Commander....his tales of L1011 flying at BA had my attention for several hours although the gin diffused the future retention of his tales

What he did however leave me with was his footnote on his L1011 flying...PFM....Pure F@%*ing Magic. I was just happy to sit on one for a few hours so I can never imagine what it must have felt to be in command of this wonder of Lockheed

[DaveReidUK]

I can believe the TriStar was a great aircraft to fly (and I'm sure DLC was part of the reason) - it was equally a great aircraft to work on, albeit only for a brief spell in my youth.

I remember a fun afternoon in the hangar showing my neighbour's kids around the aircraft, and needless to say the trip down to the galley in the lifts was one of the highlights.

Engine changes were fun, and so was fitting and removing the third pod with its wonderful rope-and-wooden-block arrangement to stop the fan windmilling in flight.

[Cornish Jack]

Many hours on the sim while tech instructing and a flight deck invitation out and back to Lanzarote (the very best observer flight deck seat bar none). A flight deck of extremes ! ... one young female cadet having to loosen her seat straps so that she could reach the fire handles and a Texan (naturally) F/E who was the only one I came across who didn't need to slide his seat backwards and forwards !
Reminiscing with a very senior fleet pilot he mentioned a double LHR _ CDG - LHR duty day when the only times they saw the ground was taxying at either end ! ...the 74 was good ... but the Tri was nicer ! :ok: (ducks for cover !)

[L1011OPHILE]

Flew the 500 in RAF colours from 1990 to 2002. trying to convince the powers that be to let us use all the toys was like banging your head against the wall.
Lovely aircraft much misunderstood but a brilliant job.

[Visitation]

The bouncing Tristar



From what I remember from Flying Supervisors' Course at Cranwell in 1993, the runway at Brize was not certified for Autoland ILS approaches when this incident took place, as confirmed by BEagle. Also, there was a lack of clarity between 38 Gp and MOD whether autoland could be used - one said it could and the other disagreed. Only one person was aware of this contradiction, OC 216 and he failed to clarify this to the crews. However, although he came in for severe criticism in the subsequent enquiry, it didn’t do his career any harm, as he later returned as the Stn Cdr and then went even higher.

[Mooncrest]

Did BA and BKT employ Flight Engineers for their TriStars or was it a third pilot position? I only ask because it's quite well known that BEA and then BA didn't want FEs in the Trident cockpits so they wouldn't have to cross swords with the engineering unions. Therefore, a third pilot got the systems panel gig.

[DaveReidUK]

Tristar was F/E.

[bean]

Mooncrest. The decision to operate 3 man crews consisting of 3 pilots was taken by BEA in 1958 and applied to Vanguar ds, Comets and Tridents. It had nothing to do with Flight Engineer politics as BEA never employed any.
This caused a log jam in the seniority system for pilots causing long delays in promotion to captain which could have, but did not ,cause a problem with BALPA

[chevvron]

(the very best observer flight deck seat bar none). A flight deck of extremes ! ...
My first Tristar trip was unplanned; I was supposed to fly Heathrow - Milan and return on an Alitalia DC9 for an ATC Fam flight but got offloaded for the inbound leg so I managed to switch to a flight to Paris thinking I could still get home but instead ended up kipping down in the terminal at CDG having found the Milan - Paris flight went to Orly.
SO I managed to get on the BA Tristar ('BBAI) next morning where I was invited to occupy the jump seat with its HUGE picture window.
5 years later on 'BBAI once again I was sent O/I Heathrow - Larnaca, once again enjoying that superb view however on return, as we shut down on stand, the flight deck door opened and the purser came in carrying 4 glasses into which he'd put a single (airline) bottle of whisky and topped it up with champagne(?) (at least that's what it was called).

[browndhc2]

Tristar was F/E.

Certainly true. We had a family friend who was a Flight Engineer on the Ba VC10 fleet who transferred to the Tristar circa 1979. However in the 1978 book "Facts about an airline" by Alan Road Published 1978 their is a feature following a Ba 1011 Trip to Nice in G-BBAE. The technical crew composition was a Captain (Doug Lee) and Two Senior First Officers (David Reed and Richard Poad).
It seems European division carried across the Three pilot operation from the Trident for the first few years of the widebody operation.

[Cornish Jack]

My time on Tristar tech instructing all incorporated F/Es. A number of my previous Brize mates turned up and some of those ultimately took the opportunity to cross-over when BA offered their 'cadet' scheme.

[Mooncrest]

Thanks all. Perhaps it was old BOAC influence that brought Flight Engineers across all appropriate types after the merger.

[rog747]

My first Tristar trip,
I managed to get on the BA Tristar ('BBAI) next morning where I was invited to occupy the jump seat with its HUGE picture window.
5 years later on 'BBAI once again I was sent O/I Heathrow - Larnaca, once again enjoying that superb view however on return, as we shut down on stand, the flight deck door opened and the purser came in carrying 4 glasses into which he'd put a single (airline) bottle of whisky and topped it up with champagne (?) (at least that's what it was called).

AKA ''Landing Drinks''
The LCA was a Night Stop iirc...

Some nice night stops back then - such as LCA ATH IST TLV CAI

[Jhieminga]

Thanks all. Perhaps it was old BOAC influence that brought Flight Engineers across all appropriate types after the merger.
That's an interesting thought. Wasn't the 747's introduction delayed by industrial action, partially because of a demand from the F/E side? I cannot find the details right now.

[chevvron]

AKA ''Landing Drinks''
The LCA was a Night Stop iirc...

Some nice night stops back then - such as LCA ATH IST TLV CAI
Not for my trip (16 Jan 81); we did out and return in one day with a quick turnround; I think they were just redeveloping Larnaca at the time and there wasn't a lot of parking space.
I didn't record chock tmes but flying times were 3hr 40min outbound and 4hr 20min for the return.

[Bergerie1]

rog747, On the BOAC Britannia fleet they were called 'Brake Dwell Cocktails'.

jelle, In the UK, the introduction of the 747 was delayed by a dispute between BOAC and the pilots, so far as I know the engineers were not involved. I don't know about what happened in the US. But I would have thought that the handling of the engines and the complexity of the systems panel would have required a flight engineer from the very start.

[Cornish Jack]

The BOAC 47 introduction delay was due to a pilot's dispute over their claim for 'wide body' pay increases ... one of the 'leading lights' being the 'Chingford Skinhead' ! The immediate result was the sight of delivered 74s with their engines replaced by concrete blocks

[ZFT]

The BOAC 47 introduction delay was due to a pilot's dispute over their claim for 'wide body' pay increases ... one of the 'leading lights' being the 'Chingford Skinhead' ! The immediate result was the sight of delivered 74s with their engines replaced by concrete blocks

I gained a lot of experience of engine changes thanks to this period.

[Alan Baker]

The BOAC 47 introduction delay was due to a pilot's dispute over their claim for 'wide body' pay increases ... one of the 'leading lights' being the 'Chingford Skinhead' ! The immediate result was the sight of delivered 74s with their engines replaced by concrete blocks
Hence the joke about why the 747 had a hump over the cockpit, "so that the pilots could sit on their wallets".
I seem to recall that the engines were profitably leased out to other operators, the JT9D not being terribly reliable in those early years.

[SpringHeeledJack]

I seem to recall that the engines were profitably leased out to other operators, the JT9D not being terribly reliable in those early years.

That's an incredible fact, wow! The management must have known that the dispute would drag on for a period of time to be able to consider leasing out the new engines. Considering the prestige of having these game-changing aircraft in your fleet and not being able to use them must have been a big upset to BOAC and their First and Business class passengers.

Out of interest to which airline/airlines did they lase the engines to ?

[ZFT]

That's an incredible fact, wow! The management must have known that the dispute would drag on for a period of time to be able to consider leasing out the new engines. Out of interest to which airline/airlines did they lase the engines to ?

Pan Am and TWA

[Jhieminga]

jelle, In the UK, the introduction of the 747 was delayed by a dispute between BOAC and the pilots, so far as I know the engineers were not involved. I don't know about what happened in the US. But I would have thought that the handling of the engines and the complexity of the systems panel would have required a flight engineer from the very start.
Thanks for this. It is clear that the 747 needed an F/E, but I wondered if the fallout from any industrial action on this fleet would have spread across to other fleets that had a more reasonable case of dispensing with that role on the flight deck. I read in one article that the 747s standing idle started as a dispute with BALPA, but was further delayed by F/Es not turning up for the first scheduled service:
With most of BOAC’s industrial relations problems now behind it, the first scheduled service – set for April 18, 1971 – was cancelled just an hour before departure, as a continuing dispute with a different union meant that no flight engineer reported for duty.The inaugural journey eventually departed a week later using G-AWNF (c/n 19766), which took off at 12:03pm from London/Heathrow bound for New York.
from: https://www.key.aero/article/boacs-turbulent-first-years-flying-boeing-747

We're straying off course a bit... ;)

[SpringHeeledJack]

Pan Am and TWA

Thanks! So the engines were probably sitting in LHR for a good part of every week during turn-arounds ;-)

[DaveReidUK]

The BOAC 47 introduction delay was due to a pilot's dispute over their claim for 'wide body' pay increases ... one of the 'leading lights' being the 'Chingford Skinhead' !

That must have been one of Onyerbike's last activities at BALPA, before he first became an MP in June 1970.

[WHBM]

That's an incredible fact, wow! The management must have known that the dispute would drag on for a period of time to be able to consider leasing out the new engines. Considering the prestige of having these game-changing aircraft in your fleet and not being able to use them must have been a big upset to BOAC and their First and Business class passengers.

Out of interest to which airline/airlines did they lase the engines to ?
I believe the aircraft had not yet been delivered to the UK. I visited Everett at the time and the new BOAC 747 fleet were lined up with concrete blocks hanging from the engine pylons, to maintain the structural loading.

The JT9D were in short supply because the early engines had a significant failure rate, and P&W could not keep up with overhauls.

[dixi188]

I believe the aircraft had not yet been delivered to the UK. I visited Everett at the time and the new BOAC 747 fleet were lined up with concrete blocks hanging from the engine pylons, to maintain the structural loading.

The JT9D were in short supply because the early engines had a significant failure rate, and P&W could not keep up with overhauls.
As an apprentice at BAC, Hurn, I visited BOAC in 1970 and the first 3 747s were there, some engines were missing, but one aircraft had a No. 3 installed. A group of us were standing nearby waiting to go onboard, when some wag in the cockpit did a dry motor of the engine. I nearly fouled my breeches!

[ZFT]

I believe the aircraft had not yet been delivered to the UK. I visited Everett at the time and the new BOAC 747 fleet were lined up with concrete blocks hanging from the engine pylons, to maintain the structural loading.

The JT9D were in short supply because the early engines had a significant failure rate, and P&W could not keep up with overhauls.

NA, NB and NC were all delivered by mid year 1970.

[Flightrider]

Before my time, but yes - the BOAC history books confirm that the first three aircraft had been delivered to Heathrow; BOAC was unable to put them into service due to an industrial dispute with BALPA about the pay differentials between the new 747 and other fleets; and a significant relief to the losses was achieved by leasing out the engines to US airlines suffering with early reliability problems. No mention of a flight engineers' dimension to the dispute.

[Cornish Jack]

The 47 engine problems were (from memory) due to tip clearances causing seizures .. the instantaneous nature of which caused the support pins to act as designed ...and break ! Engine and aircraft then parted company., one such occuring near to Paris This led to the apocryphal story of the conversation between the 47 skipper and a Comet similar 'discussing' their aircraft. The 47 man declared that 'pylon' engine mounts were superior, to which the Comet man replied "perhaps, but we bury our engines in the wing roots ... you bury yours in France!" ...

[Asturias56]

That must have been one of Onyerbike's last activities at BALPA, before he first became an MP in June 1970.


there was reputedly a picture of Mr Tebbit on a picket line

One of the 1980's union leaders (?Whining Clive Jenkins?) offered £10 k for a copy but , like the later Bullingdon Club picture, it seemed it was "disappeared" by a tory backer

[Bergerie1]

He was and I was with him. Something he rather liked to forget!!

[bean]

That's an interesting thought. Wasn't the 747's introduction delayed by industrial action, partially because of a demand from the F/E side? I cannot find the details right now.
You are correct

[MAC 40612]

Coming into this conversation very late, I worked on the TriStar early on as both an apprentice and as an Avionic Engineer during my time at BA. The BA aircraft were fine to work on but the later leased in ex Air Lanka aircraft [G-BLUS and BLUT] were a bit of a nightmare as they were not the 'standard BA' aircraft [BA had the habit until very recently of putting new aircraft straight into the hangars so they could be modified to 'BA standard'] so spares were hard to get for these two. Plus from memory they didn't seem to have been well looked after in their previous life...In fact G-BLUT seemed to spend such a lot of time on the ground [a combination of not being serviceable or spares robberies for G-BLUS] it got the nickname 'BLUT on the landscape'

[NutLoose]

The Tristar damaged by a heavy landing had to be repaired on site at Brize as it was un-flyable in its damaged state, in fact it was close to being written off. The work was carried out by the BA crash crew using a repair scheme devised up by Lockheed.

You could hear it groan when they started to move it.