Victor Airborne (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by coldplayer; 4th May 2009 at 15:27.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
To do so is to push your luck beyond its design limits.
Last edited by coldplayer; 4th May 2009 at 16:12.
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.
Last edited by Shaft109; 4th May 2009 at 16:32. Reason: speculation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Answers on a postcard to, er....
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 know this is a little speculation but do fast taxi operators take this into account?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Given that at those speeds all surfaces would be aerodynamically effective I assume you'd want them all pointing in the right directions.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Answers on a postcard to, er....
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Andrew - replying to the post above yours (I can't reply to a post in less than a minute
- we posted almost simultaneously).
As for yours, I'd hope they had.
- we posted almost simultaneously).As for yours, I'd hope they had.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Last edited by coldplayer; 8th May 2009 at 19:45.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The above comment of course is to Coldplayer.
Speculating in public is not what I intended to do so I won't. It's not my place to say.
The cock up occured when this exercise was pushed too far.