Victor Airborne (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However there was a fair amount of skill demonstrated
I cannot understand why all the aircraft doing fast taxi runs appear to be configured for takeoff. Isn't this asking for trouble?
Last edited by coldplayer; 8th May 2009 at 19:48.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it's a fine thing to preserve these lovely old aeroplanes for the pleasure of the general public, let's not forget that these 'old ladies' aren't subject to any 'formal' engineering maintenence procedures and will allways be 'an accident waiting to happen'. Old tyres and old brake units certainly don't contribute to any wise descision to carry out a fast taxi; or, to be more precise, a planned take-off abort! Regarding the ASI calibration, D120A has an extremely valid point.
It's my guess that these aeroplanes are configured for take-off for only one reason alone... which is to prevent the aural Take-Off Warning Horn/Config Warning Systems from sounding in the cockpit/flight station! Or, if these systems have been dissabled, then it can only be an ego trip (or lack of common sense) being displayed by those who are conducting the Take-Off Abort.
I have no idea who sits at the controls of these aeroplanes; I would surmise/hope that they're either retired aircrew who have experience on type, or, current airline personnell. Furthermore, I would expect those people to be fully briefed in what they are about to undertake; which will include the maximum speed that they will allow the aeroplane to accelerate to. Let's be clear about this, Bruntingthorpe is a licenced aerodrome; therefore, an aeroplane can be taxied by a licenced ground engineer; however, a take-off run must only be conducted by qualified aircrew... whether or not the intention is to remain on the ground! Given that the general public are within the vacinity, it's my hope that a licenced pilot is sat in the left hand seat! For an aeroplane such as the Comet, I'd also hope that a licenced Flight Engineer is also present.
Let's keep it safe
TCF
It's my guess that these aeroplanes are configured for take-off for only one reason alone... which is to prevent the aural Take-Off Warning Horn/Config Warning Systems from sounding in the cockpit/flight station! Or, if these systems have been dissabled, then it can only be an ego trip (or lack of common sense) being displayed by those who are conducting the Take-Off Abort.
I have no idea who sits at the controls of these aeroplanes; I would surmise/hope that they're either retired aircrew who have experience on type, or, current airline personnell. Furthermore, I would expect those people to be fully briefed in what they are about to undertake; which will include the maximum speed that they will allow the aeroplane to accelerate to. Let's be clear about this, Bruntingthorpe is a licenced aerodrome; therefore, an aeroplane can be taxied by a licenced ground engineer; however, a take-off run must only be conducted by qualified aircrew... whether or not the intention is to remain on the ground! Given that the general public are within the vacinity, it's my hope that a licenced pilot is sat in the left hand seat! For an aeroplane such as the Comet, I'd also hope that a licenced Flight Engineer is also present.
Let's keep it safe
TCF
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did it fly? It was going too fast. Why? Perhaps, an uncalibrated ASI.
Maybe a simple safeguard to prevent a replay would be to carry a GPS Groundspeed for the right hander, factored against the current winds/gusts and accurate from the airfield anemometer. Knock 10 Knots off the unstick speed and you’ll be sure to stay on the ground.
A downwind run might help - and it may be an idea not to use take-off flap.
Maybe a simple safeguard to prevent a replay would be to carry a GPS Groundspeed for the right hander, factored against the current winds/gusts and accurate from the airfield anemometer. Knock 10 Knots off the unstick speed and you’ll be sure to stay on the ground.
A downwind run might help - and it may be an idea not to use take-off flap.
I agree coldplayer!
Its no good people saying "but fast taxi's are Ok, nobody's actually taken off!" cos now they have, and from all the accounts, it could have ended far worse......
Just imagine if it had crashed, evn if no member of the public was injured....would XH558 be allowed to display in future? It would have put back aircraft preservation decades....Its no good saying " but thats a what if?"...it very nearly was!
I'm sorry if i sound like a killjoy, but if we are going to have old aircraft displaying, lets do it properly! at least XH558 has all the relevant paperwork and is having its annual service as we speak...
When was the last time XM715 was fully legal? would you jump in a car that hadnt been MOT'd for 15 years, and drive it down the M4 at 80 mph?
No, nor me!
Unless some crystal clear guidelines are formulated and adhered to, then this sort of joyriding has to stop, before we have a disaster on our hands...
Its no good people saying "but fast taxi's are Ok, nobody's actually taken off!" cos now they have, and from all the accounts, it could have ended far worse......
Just imagine if it had crashed, evn if no member of the public was injured....would XH558 be allowed to display in future? It would have put back aircraft preservation decades....Its no good saying " but thats a what if?"...it very nearly was!
I'm sorry if i sound like a killjoy, but if we are going to have old aircraft displaying, lets do it properly! at least XH558 has all the relevant paperwork and is having its annual service as we speak...
When was the last time XM715 was fully legal? would you jump in a car that hadnt been MOT'd for 15 years, and drive it down the M4 at 80 mph?
No, nor me!
Unless some crystal clear guidelines are formulated and adhered to, then this sort of joyriding has to stop, before we have a disaster on our hands...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wowee what a load of sanctimonious claptrap there is on this thread! Thousands of safe ground-bound fast taxi runs have been carried out at Brunters and other venues. One mistake and out come the holier than thou kneejerk ban-it-all-brigade. Pilot was high houred ex-Victor - and horrified at what happened. Every run is done per original checklists by aircrew with time on type. Personally I disagree with takeoff config being used and don't see why flaps need to be down for instance, and it looked like power was held too long on this particular run. Lessons will be learnt. Nobody's ever been hurt at a taxi run day, canhardly say same for motor sport, drag racing, airshows, football, etc. etc. etc. Give the people invovled some credit and stop acting like newspaper journos bleating about 'this xxxx must stop'. 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bleating about 'this xxxx must stop'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One mistake is all it takes to kill people.
Plenty of accidents occured in all areas of engineering "just once" with dire consequences and usually it turns out that years of "it's always been fine" attitude is the cause.
Comparison to other sports is irrelevant. They have their own rules and regulations and are littered with their own disasters from which people generally learn a lesson. Perhaps the crew and organisers can do likewise with some humility rather than a knee jerk request for suppresion of info (however well meant) or playing it down. Having seen the full picture sequence this seems to be so close to killing those on board as well as endagering life, limb and property it can't be played down.
Plenty of accidents occured in all areas of engineering "just once" with dire consequences and usually it turns out that years of "it's always been fine" attitude is the cause.
Comparison to other sports is irrelevant. They have their own rules and regulations and are littered with their own disasters from which people generally learn a lesson. Perhaps the crew and organisers can do likewise with some humility rather than a knee jerk request for suppresion of info (however well meant) or playing it down. Having seen the full picture sequence this seems to be so close to killing those on board as well as endagering life, limb and property it can't be played down.
Looks like we will have to agree to differ then!
It shouldn't have happened, but it did.....and luck seems to have played an inordinately large element in the safe conclusion...
If you want to watch an unlicenced aircraft go and do a cartwheel and explode in a fireball, be my guest, but you won't get any sympathy from me!
It shouldn't have happened, but it did.....and luck seems to have played an inordinately large element in the safe conclusion...
If you want to watch an unlicenced aircraft go and do a cartwheel and explode in a fireball, be my guest, but you won't get any sympathy from me!
I've never been a fan of 'fast taxy runs'.....
A few seconds up to about 80KIAS in aircraft such as V-bombers, perhaps. But old tyres, brake units and unreliable drag bags make even that something of a risk.
Many years ago, there was the incident of 'Roadrunner One'. A Vulcan needed a check for nosewheel shimmy at Waddington. The engineers reckoned they'd fixed it, so asked for a pilot to check it. An eager young co-piglet who'd just completed his ICC LHS course volunteered, cornered a passing AEO and off they went. "Tower, Roadrunner One, taxy?" was met by confusion as there were no scheduled Vulcan movements - and hence there was no Duty Pilot in the tower.....
First run went OK, no shimmy, so stand on the anchors and turn round to taxy back.
"I think we'll do another quick check", said our hero, "just to be sure."
So the aircraft is now aiming downwind, with brakes which are already quite warm..... The shimmy check went fine; then as the aircraft began to decelerate, the brakes decided that enough was enough - and 'Roadrunner One' trundled off the end of the RW towards the A15. Fortunately it soon bogged down.
Not a flight, so not authorised. A well-intentioned idea which went wrong - and that was in a fully serviceable aircraft. Much scratching of heads by the squadron Wheels - who decided that 'a little chat' was all that was needed.
When I was on the VC10 some years later, any 'test' was specifically briefed and authorised. Any unusual engineering request would be handed firmly to an Full Air Test Pilot - of which there were only 2 of us per squadron.
140KIAS or even 125KIAS is simply asking for trouble.
Again, the old VC10 course used to have 'trip one' which was a full pre-flight, start up, taxy, fast run down the runway, taxy back - with all checks etc. One day they did this and ended up with smoking brakes.
"So, on trip one, we learn what happens if we abort above V1, do we?", I later asked the non-QFI 'instructor'.........
A few seconds up to about 80KIAS in aircraft such as V-bombers, perhaps. But old tyres, brake units and unreliable drag bags make even that something of a risk.
Many years ago, there was the incident of 'Roadrunner One'. A Vulcan needed a check for nosewheel shimmy at Waddington. The engineers reckoned they'd fixed it, so asked for a pilot to check it. An eager young co-piglet who'd just completed his ICC LHS course volunteered, cornered a passing AEO and off they went. "Tower, Roadrunner One, taxy?" was met by confusion as there were no scheduled Vulcan movements - and hence there was no Duty Pilot in the tower.....
First run went OK, no shimmy, so stand on the anchors and turn round to taxy back.
"I think we'll do another quick check", said our hero, "just to be sure."
So the aircraft is now aiming downwind, with brakes which are already quite warm..... The shimmy check went fine; then as the aircraft began to decelerate, the brakes decided that enough was enough - and 'Roadrunner One' trundled off the end of the RW towards the A15. Fortunately it soon bogged down.
Not a flight, so not authorised. A well-intentioned idea which went wrong - and that was in a fully serviceable aircraft. Much scratching of heads by the squadron Wheels - who decided that 'a little chat' was all that was needed.
When I was on the VC10 some years later, any 'test' was specifically briefed and authorised. Any unusual engineering request would be handed firmly to an Full Air Test Pilot - of which there were only 2 of us per squadron.
140KIAS or even 125KIAS is simply asking for trouble.
Again, the old VC10 course used to have 'trip one' which was a full pre-flight, start up, taxy, fast run down the runway, taxy back - with all checks etc. One day they did this and ended up with smoking brakes.
"So, on trip one, we learn what happens if we abort above V1, do we?", I later asked the non-QFI 'instructor'.........
Beags! You are so right. Must have been about the same era when the SOAF Hunter Sqn. lost its then only serviceable T-Bird to a fast-taxi "brake-test" fire. Sadly not such an amusing anecdote as both the Airwork employee in the RHS and the seconded RAF pilot (v.experienced ex-FR10 mate) lost their lives. It was (just) before my time but I've always remembered the story when asked by enginees "can you just do an airborne check / taxi-check for us......."
Don'y shoot the messenger boy, SD! if somebody is daft enough to post something like that on the net, then thats his (or her) problem!
Coldplayer didnt identify the post, just saying it was freely available..would you have pulled it if someone had posted it on here?
Coldplayer didnt identify the post, just saying it was freely available..would you have pulled it if someone had posted it on here?
Quote: "It's my guess that these aeroplanes are configured for take-off for only one reason alone... which is to prevent the aural Take-Off Warning Horn/Config Warning Systems from sounding in the cockpit/flight station!"
In a Victor? It was designed in 1948 and first flew in 1952. Such things hadn't even been thought of then. And it had brakes from a Ford Prefect - which makes this sort of thing even less sensible.
In a Victor? It was designed in 1948 and first flew in 1952. Such things hadn't even been thought of then. And it had brakes from a Ford Prefect - which makes this sort of thing even less sensible.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me make something a little clearer to avoid mis-understandings.
It is important in situations like this one not to name names if it is not already in the public domain. That is a strict PPRuNe rule.
It can lead to litigation and we guard against it.
I have been around the block looking at other sites and it is an aviation first (I think - maybe not!) but I suspect it will get more publicity yet.
The story is there to be posted but just take care in the words you choose. I certainly don't subscribe to the 'fact' that it "climbed to 120 feet." Not from the pics I have seen anyway.
PPP
It is important in situations like this one not to name names if it is not already in the public domain. That is a strict PPRuNe rule.
It can lead to litigation and we guard against it.
I have been around the block looking at other sites and it is an aviation first (I think - maybe not!) but I suspect it will get more publicity yet.
The story is there to be posted but just take care in the words you choose. I certainly don't subscribe to the 'fact' that it "climbed to 120 feet." Not from the pics I have seen anyway.
PPP
i thought we had all been careful not to identify anyone, just quote from their blogs
And if the source contains personal information, then...
FBW
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another four engined aeroplane kicking around that will almost certainly be doing this soon
SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at Coventry?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if the source contains personal information, then...
Anyway, I was a bit naiive and I was wrong so I apologise to SD and Pop.
Wrist slapped.
Last edited by coldplayer; 5th May 2009 at 15:34.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LookingNorth
If what you say is correct, and the pilot was a high-houred ex Victor pilot, then that makes it even worse, because frankly, he should have known better!
I don't want to stop these events at all. On the contrary, I think they are important, especially for the younger generation, but your comment that all fast taxi runs are undertaken by type-qualified type, using original checklists suggests that either the pilot mis-read the operating manual when it came to calculating V1 and rotate speeds, and/or the ASIs were reading incorrectly or whatever. Either way, whatever he did or didn't do, he got it wrong I would suggest.
But I reiterate though, that we should all use it as a reminder to check emergency SOPs for these aircraft and ensure that those who are in the cockpits of them at times like this, know what to do when it all goes wrong and gets bent out of shape!
And may I finally just say that, whilst it is my understanding that these aircraft don't require a serviceable ASI (or anything else for that matter) to do taxi runs, it would make a great deal of sence to ensure that an ASI is fitted, is calibrated and is serviceable before any more high speed taxi runs. I'm sure that the first thing on the take-off role in the FRCs was a check of the ASI reading together!
If what you say is correct, and the pilot was a high-houred ex Victor pilot, then that makes it even worse, because frankly, he should have known better!
I don't want to stop these events at all. On the contrary, I think they are important, especially for the younger generation, but your comment that all fast taxi runs are undertaken by type-qualified type, using original checklists suggests that either the pilot mis-read the operating manual when it came to calculating V1 and rotate speeds, and/or the ASIs were reading incorrectly or whatever. Either way, whatever he did or didn't do, he got it wrong I would suggest.
But I reiterate though, that we should all use it as a reminder to check emergency SOPs for these aircraft and ensure that those who are in the cockpits of them at times like this, know what to do when it all goes wrong and gets bent out of shape!
And may I finally just say that, whilst it is my understanding that these aircraft don't require a serviceable ASI (or anything else for that matter) to do taxi runs, it would make a great deal of sence to ensure that an ASI is fitted, is calibrated and is serviceable before any more high speed taxi runs. I'm sure that the first thing on the take-off role in the FRCs was a check of the ASI reading together!
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And may I finally just say that, whilst it is my understanding that these aircraft don't require a serviceable ASI
As this instance shows, you cannot afford to take chances. One marker will ensure the power is cut and the other that a safe distance to stop is available.
SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at
That or the Concorde in Toulouse, kept operational in support of the Paris accident investigation.
The brits drained all of the hydraulics when it was parked up in Filton instead of putting it into long term storage, effectively shagging the systems as they'll have corroded - the rest scattered about are ornamental, with exception of the one in Toulouse which is nominally airworthy, or could achieve airworthy status
The tech manuals are still on the EADS system, which considering there are none operating, seems a strange lapse of memory
Don't underestimate how much the French would like to stick one to the Brits..sour grapes run deep and all that...Zut lors