Victor Airborne (Merged)
But i don't think that the French would attempt a high speed run and just take off anyway!
BTW, the ex AF Concorde at Le Bourget is still semi-functional, the nose still goes up and down! I don't know about the rest of the systems though... I am going to see it next month, I will try and find out!
BTW, the ex AF Concorde at Le Bourget is still semi-functional, the nose still goes up and down! I don't know about the rest of the systems though... I am going to see it next month, I will try and find out!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope the CAA are sensible about it, knuckles are wrapped (and not much more) where appropriate and the days carry on as before albeit under the sort of regulation that has made commerical aviation in the UK so safe. Is there any word as to the outcome of a rumoured meeting between the CAA and Bruntingthorpe today?
Just a quick note to LookingNorth,
There is a concept in aviation regarding error-chains, or holes in the swiss-cheese as it's widely known. The point, of course, being that just one altered course of action would prevent the holes from lining up and an accident occuring. The various holes could be anything from the weather, to SOP's, to a technical fault, to a mis-interpreted radio call and so on. In this instance, there were so many damn holes in the swiss cheese it would be like looking down a tunnel. The ONLY reason this didn't end in a serious accident was pure luck. No one is suggesting anything about stopping these days and ruining what, in my opinion, is a very important part of this country's heritage...just that they are conducted with a bit more professionalism.
Just a quick note to LookingNorth,
There is a concept in aviation regarding error-chains, or holes in the swiss-cheese as it's widely known. The point, of course, being that just one altered course of action would prevent the holes from lining up and an accident occuring. The various holes could be anything from the weather, to SOP's, to a technical fault, to a mis-interpreted radio call and so on. In this instance, there were so many damn holes in the swiss cheese it would be like looking down a tunnel. The ONLY reason this didn't end in a serious accident was pure luck. No one is suggesting anything about stopping these days and ruining what, in my opinion, is a very important part of this country's heritage...just that they are conducted with a bit more professionalism.
Last edited by coldplayer; 6th May 2009 at 08:24.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be supprised if the CAA are interested in what happened. If the aircraft went down the runway and the crew had no intention of taking off then if the aircraft happened to get into the air thats not a flight according to them.
At least thats the card my pal played when he crashed his plane (turned out it had no permit). He got away with it as well.
At least thats the card my pal played when he crashed his plane (turned out it had no permit). He got away with it as well.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be supprised if the CAA are interested in what happened. If the aircraft went down the runway and the crew had no intention of taking off then if the aircraft happened to get into the air thats not a flight according to them.
Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.
A
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Peterborough
Age: 59
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As EASTMIDS said;
Its a vehicle designed to fly, its operated by civilians (rather than falling under military oversight), and it did fly. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that there may have been a breach of the air navigation order - in fact, possibly breaches of many sections of it.
Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.
I wholly agree, the CAA should be respected and their judgement relating to this incident will be most interesting. Let's hope it will not see the end of these "ABORTED TAKE OFF RUNS"!
Its a vehicle designed to fly, its operated by civilians (rather than falling under military oversight), and it did fly. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that there may have been a breach of the air navigation order - in fact, possibly breaches of many sections of it.
Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.
I wholly agree, the CAA should be respected and their judgement relating to this incident will be most interesting. Let's hope it will not see the end of these "ABORTED TAKE OFF RUNS"!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst some folks like to bash the CAA, I suspect that if they do investigate they will take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to what happened, why, and what to do about it than would HSE, council or insurers.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dunno, the sat nav is busted.
Age: 48
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C.A.A. has no jurisdiction on fast taxi/ aborted take offs, however once all wheels leave the ground then they do have jurisdiction and become very interested.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forget,
The problem is that this isn't a one off. I'm not getting into this again but some very precursory searching around the net can find references to this aircraft having been pushed to 140kts on one of these 'fast taxi's' before. Another mentions how the nosewheel was lifted at 125kts in 2005 and there is a comment on a Youtube video from someone claiming to be the 'pilot' (and I suspect he was just that) claiming that he got it airborne in 2006, albeit only by a couple of feet. Now far be it from me to suggest that this might, just might, be what was going on on Sunday.
There is an issue here without question. If I were to take a PA28, for example, that had had no formal maintenance, that I wasn't licenced to fly, that I didn't have a medical to fly and that I hadn't flown for over 20 years and got it airborne at a public event 'by accident' I would expect the CAA to have something to say about it. That would be the case irrespective of the fact that it might be on private grounds and the aircraft may not be on the civil register. Now consider doing it in a 40+ tonne jet......
EastMids makes a very valid point about the CAA, don't be so quick to criticise them. To be absolutely honest, i'm not all that sure it's the CAA that people need to be worrying about.
The problem is that this isn't a one off. I'm not getting into this again but some very precursory searching around the net can find references to this aircraft having been pushed to 140kts on one of these 'fast taxi's' before. Another mentions how the nosewheel was lifted at 125kts in 2005 and there is a comment on a Youtube video from someone claiming to be the 'pilot' (and I suspect he was just that) claiming that he got it airborne in 2006, albeit only by a couple of feet. Now far be it from me to suggest that this might, just might, be what was going on on Sunday.
There is an issue here without question. If I were to take a PA28, for example, that had had no formal maintenance, that I wasn't licenced to fly, that I didn't have a medical to fly and that I hadn't flown for over 20 years and got it airborne at a public event 'by accident' I would expect the CAA to have something to say about it. That would be the case irrespective of the fact that it might be on private grounds and the aircraft may not be on the civil register. Now consider doing it in a 40+ tonne jet......
EastMids makes a very valid point about the CAA, don't be so quick to criticise them. To be absolutely honest, i'm not all that sure it's the CAA that people need to be worrying about.
Last edited by coldplayer; 6th May 2009 at 08:26.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to knock the Concorde speculation on the head straight away...
That ended a couple of years ago. The aircraft is now just another museum exhibit, open to the public.
Sadly, no. Once the care-and-maintenance program ended, very little was even done to maintain the aircraft presentable ...there is already corrosion visible in several places. And the smell of damp in the cockpit is quite noticeable. (I was on the aircraft only a few months ago.)
Semi-functional is the right word. Some of the hydraulics and electrical systems have been kept functional, so the nose and the intake ramps can still be moved, the cockpit lights can still be turned on, some of the alarms can still be tested (makes a nice "son-et lumières") and you can still listen to the radio.
The hydraulics are run off the green ground test auxiliary pump. The blue system has not been under pressure for the last five years, the flying controls have never moved in all that time, and of course engines, fuel system and a lot of other systems are no longer functional either.
So yes, "semi-functional" is all.
(I personally know the people keeping her 'alive'. Sorry to disappoint you.)
End of that particular story.
CJ
Originally Posted by Toshirozero
...the Concorde in Toulouse, kept operational in support of the Paris accident investigation.
... the one in Toulouse which is nominally airworthy, or could achieve airworthy status...
Originally Posted by ATSA1
BTW, the ex AF Concorde at Le Bourget is still semi-functional, the nose still goes up and down! I don't know about the rest of the systems though... I am going to see it next month, I will try and find out!
The hydraulics are run off the green ground test auxiliary pump. The blue system has not been under pressure for the last five years, the flying controls have never moved in all that time, and of course engines, fuel system and a lot of other systems are no longer functional either.
So yes, "semi-functional" is all.
(I personally know the people keeping her 'alive'. Sorry to disappoint you.)
End of that particular story.
CJ
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coldplayer
Pub talk in my opinion. 
The Victor K2 had a 125,000 pound difference between empty and max take-off. The Bruntingthorpe aircraft (with Mil stuff removed minus, fuel on board plus) will probably weigh less than operational empty.
Now try the speeds above - and with take-off flap selected. I'd say you'd fly.
And, by all accounts, it's never done so - until now.
.......... searching around the net can find references to this aircraft having been pushed to 140kts on one of these 'fast taxi's' before. Another mentions how the nosewheel was lifted at 125kts in 2005.
The Victor K2 had a 125,000 pound difference between empty and max take-off. The Bruntingthorpe aircraft (with Mil stuff removed minus, fuel on board plus) will probably weigh less than operational empty.Now try the speeds above - and with take-off flap selected. I'd say you'd fly.
And, by all accounts, it's never done so - until now.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but feel I’m repeating myself a bit so I won't say much more on the subject after this.
Firstly, the 'pub talk' you refer to came from a posting the guy 'flying' the aircraft on Sunday put on a public forum.
Secondly, all this talk about weights etc. is missing the point entirely. The aircraft should NEVER have been anywhere near that speed. Everyone else displaying on Sunday managed not to cock it up so why not the Victor? I would suggest that the various posts picked up from across the web point to the fact that the chap at the controls has, by his own admission, a history of pushing the limits of a 'fast taxi' as far as they will go and has had the thing in the air before, however briefly. I'm not suggesting he intended to get airborne and of course everybody screws up and gets things wrong, but to intentionally and repeatedly accelerate a jet of that age, size and condition to near rotate speed (which by its very definition has to be greater than or equal to V1) to then reject the takeoff is, to quote Agaricus bisporus,
I suggested in Post#38 that a sensible speed to bin it at would be not much more than 80kts. Now take a look at this quote from Dan Winterland if you haven't already read it:
Dan, from what I’ve read of his contributions to this site, is a very experienced pilot (and ex-Victor to boot) has said exactly the same thing, as has BEagle. If you don't believe me then these guys, with experience of this aircraft, know what they're talking about.
All it has done is put in jeopardy a lot of hard work from dedicated enthusiasts, not only at Brunt but elsewhere in the country, and threaten the future of a day which was well run and enjoyable. The salient point is that these speeds on a 'fast taxi' run do nothing to add to the experience of those that were there. Many had already turned away a good couple of seconds before it lifted off assuming it was already slowing down.
All of that said, however, the obvious caveat to all of this is a possible technical fault. If that were the case that would, in itself, then raise issues with even greater possible consequences.
Firstly, the 'pub talk' you refer to came from a posting the guy 'flying' the aircraft on Sunday put on a public forum.
Secondly, all this talk about weights etc. is missing the point entirely. The aircraft should NEVER have been anywhere near that speed. Everyone else displaying on Sunday managed not to cock it up so why not the Victor? I would suggest that the various posts picked up from across the web point to the fact that the chap at the controls has, by his own admission, a history of pushing the limits of a 'fast taxi' as far as they will go and has had the thing in the air before, however briefly. I'm not suggesting he intended to get airborne and of course everybody screws up and gets things wrong, but to intentionally and repeatedly accelerate a jet of that age, size and condition to near rotate speed (which by its very definition has to be greater than or equal to V1) to then reject the takeoff is, to quote Agaricus bisporus,
Utterly inexcusable. Utterly indefensible. Utterly shameful. Totally avoidable. Stupid.
Bloody dangerous.
End of.
Bloody dangerous.
End of.
I suggested in Post#38 that a sensible speed to bin it at would be not much more than 80kts. Now take a look at this quote from Dan Winterland if you haven't already read it:
I find the whole thing amazingly irresponsible. Sure, taxy the things around, fast run them down the runway. But getting them to a speed where they can get airborne? having seen the photos, I'm very thankful the incident didn't end in a fireball. I don't know who was at the controls or if he was once properly qualified on the Victor. What he did was just stupid. If I were at the controls, I would have felt very uncomfortable going much above 80 knots bearing in mind the Victor's stopping performance. And without the brakechute!
The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.
And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.
The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.
And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.
All it has done is put in jeopardy a lot of hard work from dedicated enthusiasts, not only at Brunt but elsewhere in the country, and threaten the future of a day which was well run and enjoyable. The salient point is that these speeds on a 'fast taxi' run do nothing to add to the experience of those that were there. Many had already turned away a good couple of seconds before it lifted off assuming it was already slowing down.
All of that said, however, the obvious caveat to all of this is a possible technical fault. If that were the case that would, in itself, then raise issues with even greater possible consequences.
Last edited by coldplayer; 5th May 2009 at 22:39.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote... "The C.A.A. has no jurisdiction on fast taxi/ aborted take offs, however once all wheels leave the ground then they do have jurisdiction and become very interested".
Given that this is a publicly attended event I would think that the CAA would be very interested! Just considder the worse case tabloid news scenario; 'Retired thirty year old RAF bomber kills dozens of eager spectators'. It didn't neccessarily have to fly to do that... just depart the runway due to ineffective brakes/steering.
Please... I'm not a killjoy; just someone who wants to see this sort of thing carried out professionally and to a safe standard. It just beggars belief that someone actually sanctions these planned Take-Off Aborts as a matter of routine! Trust me, there's nothing routine about a 'Take-Off Abort'. Even in the simulator they get cocked-up by experienced (current) crewmembers.
Given that this is a publicly attended event I would think that the CAA would be very interested! Just considder the worse case tabloid news scenario; 'Retired thirty year old RAF bomber kills dozens of eager spectators'. It didn't neccessarily have to fly to do that... just depart the runway due to ineffective brakes/steering.
Please... I'm not a killjoy; just someone who wants to see this sort of thing carried out professionally and to a safe standard. It just beggars belief that someone actually sanctions these planned Take-Off Aborts as a matter of routine! Trust me, there's nothing routine about a 'Take-Off Abort'. Even in the simulator they get cocked-up by experienced (current) crewmembers.
I'm not a pilot (60 hours on Cessnas excluded) but as an ex-Victor nav I'd like to contribute to this thread without commenting on any actions that may or may not have been taken on this occasion.
I wonder if anyone remembers the K2 accident at Marham around 1975 when an a/c on takeoff suffered a bird strike just at decision speed (we didnt use the terms V1/V2 on Victors as I recall). By the time the captain had registered the fact the K2, accelerating as they did, was way past decision, and the "book" answer would have been to have continued the take-off, done a heavyweight circuit, and landed. Not knowing what damage the a/c might have incurred he opted instead to abort. He cut the throttles, braked and streamed the shute but in spite of his best efforts they went into the overshoot, the undercarriage collapsed and the a/c caught fire and ended up Cat 5. All the crew escaped unhurt.
The point here is that although the captain's instincts were to stay on the ground after a bird strike, he was in fact held in part to blame for the loss of the aircraft, as he had aborted take-off after decision speed had been passed. I think there was a lot of sympathy for his decision, certainly his crew thought he did the right thing, and I dont think the rap on the knuckles he received was a very sharp one. The guy here seems to have made a very good job of landing back on after this inadvertent takeoff, and whatever else happens in the aftermath that should be born in mind.
As I said I only ever sat in the back of these things facing aft, so can't and wont get involved in the technicalities, but I thought there were a few similarities here which might be of interest to readers even though the situations are not the same
I wonder if anyone remembers the K2 accident at Marham around 1975 when an a/c on takeoff suffered a bird strike just at decision speed (we didnt use the terms V1/V2 on Victors as I recall). By the time the captain had registered the fact the K2, accelerating as they did, was way past decision, and the "book" answer would have been to have continued the take-off, done a heavyweight circuit, and landed. Not knowing what damage the a/c might have incurred he opted instead to abort. He cut the throttles, braked and streamed the shute but in spite of his best efforts they went into the overshoot, the undercarriage collapsed and the a/c caught fire and ended up Cat 5. All the crew escaped unhurt.
The point here is that although the captain's instincts were to stay on the ground after a bird strike, he was in fact held in part to blame for the loss of the aircraft, as he had aborted take-off after decision speed had been passed. I think there was a lot of sympathy for his decision, certainly his crew thought he did the right thing, and I dont think the rap on the knuckles he received was a very sharp one. The guy here seems to have made a very good job of landing back on after this inadvertent takeoff, and whatever else happens in the aftermath that should be born in mind.
As I said I only ever sat in the back of these things facing aft, so can't and wont get involved in the technicalities, but I thought there were a few similarities here which might be of interest to readers even though the situations are not the same
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading this thread with interest from the start - some excellent contributions from some very experienced and knowledgeable people
whilst I wasn't at Brunty on Sunday, I have seen some pictures and spoken to several people who were there - all in all it seems to have been an incredible incident
I think that there's very little point in trying to second guess what the outcome of this will be, whether the CAA are involved or not (although frankly I cannot see that they won't be!), whether anyone will get punished for anything etc etc - none of us know the precise details of what happened
what IS abundantly clear however is that the Victor WAS going fast enough to takeoff, because it did! we all know that the aircraft is not legally allowed to fly; whether it was capable of doing so is immaterial - it happened!
I'm the last person to enjoy anything being over-regulated, but ultimately this was 100% wrong and potentially very dangerous - it doesn't take a genius to work out just how much worse it could have been. however much I LOVE these preserved aircraft and what these very dedicated and skilled volunteers do, preservation of human life MUST remain paramount at all times.
if that means that the CAA, or whatever official body/bodies become involved, levy more stringent rules and regulations upon such activities, then I would be the first to applaud them, safe in the knowledge that it was done purely from a "public safety" perspective
I now that we all like to sneer at 'elf n safety' issues, but if it were my family standing on a crowd line at a public event such as this, I would EXPECT all activities to be legal and above board, but most of all SAFE! well, as safe as it is sensible to expect anyway!
bodies such as the CAA exist purely for this purpose, and thank goodness they do!
sm
whilst I wasn't at Brunty on Sunday, I have seen some pictures and spoken to several people who were there - all in all it seems to have been an incredible incident
I think that there's very little point in trying to second guess what the outcome of this will be, whether the CAA are involved or not (although frankly I cannot see that they won't be!), whether anyone will get punished for anything etc etc - none of us know the precise details of what happened
what IS abundantly clear however is that the Victor WAS going fast enough to takeoff, because it did! we all know that the aircraft is not legally allowed to fly; whether it was capable of doing so is immaterial - it happened!
I'm the last person to enjoy anything being over-regulated, but ultimately this was 100% wrong and potentially very dangerous - it doesn't take a genius to work out just how much worse it could have been. however much I LOVE these preserved aircraft and what these very dedicated and skilled volunteers do, preservation of human life MUST remain paramount at all times.
if that means that the CAA, or whatever official body/bodies become involved, levy more stringent rules and regulations upon such activities, then I would be the first to applaud them, safe in the knowledge that it was done purely from a "public safety" perspective
I now that we all like to sneer at 'elf n safety' issues, but if it were my family standing on a crowd line at a public event such as this, I would EXPECT all activities to be legal and above board, but most of all SAFE! well, as safe as it is sensible to expect anyway!
bodies such as the CAA exist purely for this purpose, and thank goodness they do!
sm
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attend a lot of airshows, have visited many aviation museums, saw the Vulcan fly last year, and I really can't see the point of these fast taxis. Without seeing the thing get airborne and fly, seeing something like a Lightning or a V-bomber drive past on the ground at whatever speed is just frustrating and not worth the risk. Would prefer it to be static and keep the memories.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait for it!
I have been following this thread with very keen interest for obvious reasons. I value the intelligent and thoughtful questions from many (which will be answered), accept the comment from others with professional knowledge (most of which are relevant), but despair at the ill-informed comment of the majority. All will be revealed when some technical loops have been closed. In the mean time, I suggest you collect the pictures of a remarkable event when a 48 year old Victor showed what a fine and advanced airframe Handley Page had designed; one which "flew" even better than a Vulcan when the chips were down. I would like copies of the pictures too!!