Victor Airborne (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little note regards CAA involvement here:
PICTURES: Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo
PICTURES: Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo
Victor bomber accidentally becomes airborne during taxi demo
By David Kaminski-Morrow
UK air accident specialists are not intending to investigate an unusual incident at an air show during which a Handley Page Victor bomber unexpectedly became airborne during a high-speed taxi demonstration.
The incident occurred during the Cold War Jets Open Day at the Bruntingthorpe airfield, south of Leicester, the scene of the recent restoration to flight of an Avro Vulcan.
Bruntingthorpe's Victor, XM715, had been participating in the 3 May event when it became briefly airborne, apparently reaching a height - based on photographic evidence - of at least 20-30ft.
Circumstances of the incident are unclear. There are no confirmed details of the speed of the aircraft, the crew complement, or meteorological conditions, nor has it been confirmed whether the aircraft sustained any damage.
But while the Air Accidents Investigation Branch says it is "aware" of the incident, it is not conducting an inquiry. The Civil Aviation Authority has so far been unable to comment further, pending clarification of the incident, but says the aircraft is not on the civil register.
Bruntingthorpe's Cold War Jets event involves fast taxiing of several vintage aircraft including the de Havilland Comet, English Electric Lightning and Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer.
By David Kaminski-Morrow
UK air accident specialists are not intending to investigate an unusual incident at an air show during which a Handley Page Victor bomber unexpectedly became airborne during a high-speed taxi demonstration.
The incident occurred during the Cold War Jets Open Day at the Bruntingthorpe airfield, south of Leicester, the scene of the recent restoration to flight of an Avro Vulcan.
Bruntingthorpe's Victor, XM715, had been participating in the 3 May event when it became briefly airborne, apparently reaching a height - based on photographic evidence - of at least 20-30ft.
Circumstances of the incident are unclear. There are no confirmed details of the speed of the aircraft, the crew complement, or meteorological conditions, nor has it been confirmed whether the aircraft sustained any damage.
But while the Air Accidents Investigation Branch says it is "aware" of the incident, it is not conducting an inquiry. The Civil Aviation Authority has so far been unable to comment further, pending clarification of the incident, but says the aircraft is not on the civil register.
Bruntingthorpe's Cold War Jets event involves fast taxiing of several vintage aircraft including the de Havilland Comet, English Electric Lightning and Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given some of the responses since my last post, and in the interests of fairplay, i'd just like to re-iterate and expand briefly on a point I made earlier;
If this were the case, and it somehow contributed to this incident, then I apologise to the chap involved for some of what I have written. The various triggers that would prompt the decision of whether or not to continue or stop a take-off are laid down in minute detail in every pre-takeoff brief. Given that the option to 'continute' doesn't even exist in this situation then more attention should be paid to any possibility of a tech glitch. I would also still question what has been written on other forums by him with regards to the speed this thing has previously been pushed to allied with the fact that, by his own admission, it has been airborne before. I understand how the temptation to do this sort of thing could be overhwelming but that is why, in my opinion, professionalism and safety is so important in aviation.
You have to understand that I, and a few others that have contributed, are looking at this from just that standpoint. I know that if I ever did anything like that at work the best I could expect would be suspension and a very serious Bo****ing followed no doubt by re-training and a very black mark against my name and career prospects. The worst and most likely outcome, however, is as Agaricus bisporus has said, that you find yourself in front of a judge.
Admittedly the passengers do make a huge difference but this was still a public event.
All of that said, I hope this one gets chalked upto experience. I love jets from that era, 2 of the 3 V bombers in particular (guess which ones) and would hate so see this sort of thing over-regulated or even worse, stopped altogether. In the future, however, maybe just dial it down a bit!!
All of that said, however, the obvious caveat to all of this is a possible technical fault.
You have to understand that I, and a few others that have contributed, are looking at this from just that standpoint. I know that if I ever did anything like that at work the best I could expect would be suspension and a very serious Bo****ing followed no doubt by re-training and a very black mark against my name and career prospects. The worst and most likely outcome, however, is as Agaricus bisporus has said, that you find yourself in front of a judge.
Admittedly the passengers do make a huge difference but this was still a public event.
All of that said, I hope this one gets chalked upto experience. I love jets from that era, 2 of the 3 V bombers in particular (guess which ones) and would hate so see this sort of thing over-regulated or even worse, stopped altogether. In the future, however, maybe just dial it down a bit!!
Last edited by coldplayer; 6th May 2009 at 10:01.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coldplayer,
I know it came from a public forum. The 'pub talk' was metaphorical. You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't believe the aircraft has ever been to 140kts on a fast taxi, and certainly not 125kts with the nosewheel raised. At its very light weights it would have flown, and people would certainly have photographed it. Where are they?
As I said, I believe this was a one-off and, as I predicted on day two, the CAA has no interest in it.
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.
As I said, I believe this was a one-off and, as I predicted on day two, the CAA has no interest in 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!!
N
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is indeed!
On a different note, what will happen if "the authorities" do not do anything in response to this incident? What I am trying to say is that would this eventuality effectively give licence for fast taxi's to include an airborne part to the demonstration? Whole new can of worms opened in that case...
On a different note, what will happen if "the authorities" do not do anything in response to this incident? What I am trying to say is that would this eventuality effectively give licence for fast taxi's to include an airborne part to the demonstration? Whole new can of worms opened in that case...
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
give licence for fast taxi's to include an airborne part to the demonstration?
PS. Cracked it.
From another forum.
Look at the clouds, very flat based clouds in rows. I'm not a cloud expert but doesn't that formation suggest rising warm air, which causes the clouds to go through their cycle/saturation point faster and forming those shapes?
So more lift that day?
Last edited by forget; 6th May 2009 at 09:38.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every pilot who has more than a few hours will have experienced the sudden variation in the Earth's gravitational field. This can manifest itself unexpectedly, usually when you think you have just greased that landing when, suddenly, the aircraft balloons off the ground again resulting in an unseemly second arrival. This phenomenon is normally blamed on a sudden gust of wind. These areas of reduced gravity are also present on the Moon and were first investigated by NASA during the early Apollo missions because of there potentially disastrous effects on the first moon landing. These areas were christened 'Mascons' and found to be either permanent or temporary. Permanent mascons are due to laval flow deposits while temporary mascons can appear and dissapear very quickly due to the crust/mantle interface.
It was obviously the sudden formation of a temporary mascon that caused the Victor to become airborne well below it's normal flying speed and in no way is the pilot to blame for the incident.
(Victor Pilot. I will send you a PM with the address to which I would like the cheque sent).
It was obviously the sudden formation of a temporary mascon that caused the Victor to become airborne well below it's normal flying speed and in no way is the pilot to blame for the incident.
(Victor Pilot. I will send you a PM with the address to which I would like the cheque sent).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget;
I think you will find that the CAA will take enormous interest in this incident. I love aircraft of the Victor era, I grew up watching them, I would like to continue watching them. Like Coldplayer I believe that the heavy hand of regulation will ruin our pleasure unless these runs are carried out with the utmost care and circumspection.
Why on earth David Kaminski thinks the AAIB should be involved is beyond me. There was no accident therefore no need for the AAIB. However this aircraft got airborne with no form of airworthiness certificate or permission to test fly. The CAA will, despite many comments to the contrary do everything in their power to help get an aircraft in the air, they just insist on the highest standards from both the aircraft and the operator.
A few years ago I was involved in an attempt to gain a CAA permit for a Harrier. One of the biggest problems was the finance. The CAA insisted on knowing that we could afford to keep the aircraft in the air without cutting corners in any way. We also had to provide the fullpaper trail for every part used on the aircraft or held in stock, not so easy with a retired Navy SHAR.
Sadly I think that Sunday's incident has let down the teams of restorers across the country, I cannot for the life of me understand why any problem would cause a pilot to get airborne below V1 (or go/no go in Victor speak) and if that excuse is offered then I would expect the CAA to be all over them like a rash. What the hell were they doing at that speed? The aircraft I fly for a living is a modern jet, a rejected take-off from V1 is something which we brief for on every take off and is not taken lightly. Did the pilot of this aircraft get carried away with the fact he was performing for a crowd and put the crew and machine in a situation which needed high skills to get out of rather than good judgement to avoid it in the first place?
The CAA may be quiet at the moment, I'd bet a lot of next months pay that they are in fact arming themselves with every detail before paying a visit to Bruntingthorpe, and that visit will be when they are ready. Victor Pilot if it was you at the controls I'd remember to put some digestives in your nav bag when you go for interview. The Authority never provide biccies.
I think you will find that the CAA will take enormous interest in this incident. I love aircraft of the Victor era, I grew up watching them, I would like to continue watching them. Like Coldplayer I believe that the heavy hand of regulation will ruin our pleasure unless these runs are carried out with the utmost care and circumspection.
Why on earth David Kaminski thinks the AAIB should be involved is beyond me. There was no accident therefore no need for the AAIB. However this aircraft got airborne with no form of airworthiness certificate or permission to test fly. The CAA will, despite many comments to the contrary do everything in their power to help get an aircraft in the air, they just insist on the highest standards from both the aircraft and the operator.
A few years ago I was involved in an attempt to gain a CAA permit for a Harrier. One of the biggest problems was the finance. The CAA insisted on knowing that we could afford to keep the aircraft in the air without cutting corners in any way. We also had to provide the fullpaper trail for every part used on the aircraft or held in stock, not so easy with a retired Navy SHAR.
Sadly I think that Sunday's incident has let down the teams of restorers across the country, I cannot for the life of me understand why any problem would cause a pilot to get airborne below V1 (or go/no go in Victor speak) and if that excuse is offered then I would expect the CAA to be all over them like a rash. What the hell were they doing at that speed? The aircraft I fly for a living is a modern jet, a rejected take-off from V1 is something which we brief for on every take off and is not taken lightly. Did the pilot of this aircraft get carried away with the fact he was performing for a crowd and put the crew and machine in a situation which needed high skills to get out of rather than good judgement to avoid it in the first place?
The CAA may be quiet at the moment, I'd bet a lot of next months pay that they are in fact arming themselves with every detail before paying a visit to Bruntingthorpe, and that visit will be when they are ready. Victor Pilot if it was you at the controls I'd remember to put some digestives in your nav bag when you go for interview. The Authority never provide biccies.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't go speculating folks. The pictures tell all and in that context the aircraft got airborne and its not for us to decide what action will be taken - if any. So please cool it.
It is now even more doubtful that any action will be taken, so say the CAA who, according to Flight magazine, "are aware of the incident" but "the aircraft is not on the civil register" and is, therefore not of concern in this instance.
Now a poster suggests that "all will be revealed when a the technical loops have been closed." It seems to me that he knows rather more than ANYONE on this thread - so far.
I have no desire to curtail the thread or to close it but please stop jumping to conclusions that have no basis in fact.
Anyway, I wish I could add it to my list of old aircraft what I have flewed. Fascinating stuff!
Edit: SND posted as I was about to. I would like to correct him on one point. The CAA do at times provide bikkies, sometimes with chocolate on! Even 'bad' boys have had them.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor to the skies ! may 3rd at bruntingthorpe
UK air accident specialists are not intending to investigate an unusual incident at an air show during which a Handley Page Victor bomber unexpectedly became airborne during a high-speed taxi demonstration.
how do you `accidentally` take off??
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone in an earlier post used the "sexual control" analogy as a possible explanation for the short flight (I guess like one of the three great lie's........)
I would imagine that fast taxi of a beautiful old aircraft is like a visit to a lap dancing club (allegedly), looks good, costs a bundle, but you never get to seal the deal.......
I would imagine that fast taxi of a beautiful old aircraft is like a visit to a lap dancing club (allegedly), looks good, costs a bundle, but you never get to seal the deal.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and that if temptation gets the better of you, you are running a great risk of catching something nasty. That or you'll get caught upto no good and get thrown out!
I like this anology!!
I like this anology!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pics...
Nice set here.. clearly you can see the wind gust catch them..
YouTube - ??-22?3 ??? ?? ??? ?????
YouTube - ??-22?3 ??? ?? ??? ?????
In the Tin Triangle, 'Decision Speed' was the lowest of VSTOP, VROTATE or 145KIAS. This was calculated from the Operating Data Manual for every take-off and reviewed during taxy once the actual met conditions were known*. For any significant failure requiring the take-off to be aborted below Decision Speed, you closed the throttles, extended the airbrakes and streamed the chute. You then waited until the pre-computed 'NMBS + TBC' speed before applying maximum continuous braking - totally unlike the playstation generations' little 737s of today. Above Decision Speed, you were committed to getting airborne.
NMBS was the 'normal maximum braking speed' which, with the Tail Brake Chute streamed, would allow the aircraft to be stopped within the RW ASDA distance available without serious brake damage. It was the same speed as 'EMBS' or 'emergency maximum braking speed', without the TBC - this would still allow the aircraft to be stopped safely, but would certainly damage or destroy the brakes.
A copy of all these calculations was entered in the 'Short Flight Plan', a copy of which was lodged with the Station Operations Staff.
I assume that similar Standard Operating Procedures applied to the Victor?
The relevance of all this?
Well, basically that thundering down the RW in a technically non-airworthy V-bomber is fraught with risk if the speed is allowed to increase to 145KIAS (as has been alleged).
People want to see the jet set off at max chat down the RW - but there is absolutely no point in accelerating to high speeds. No-one will be able to see, in any case.
*Had the fatal Air France Concorde crew bothered with such a check, they would certainly have realised that, given the tailwind and the fact that they'd burned nothing like their sssumed taxy fuel, their Regulated Take Off Weight was well below their planned Actual Take Off Weight - and hence to start the take-off roll alone was an illegal act as the aircraft was well outside scheduled performance limits. But this never really came out in the French Accident Report........
NMBS was the 'normal maximum braking speed' which, with the Tail Brake Chute streamed, would allow the aircraft to be stopped within the RW ASDA distance available without serious brake damage. It was the same speed as 'EMBS' or 'emergency maximum braking speed', without the TBC - this would still allow the aircraft to be stopped safely, but would certainly damage or destroy the brakes.
A copy of all these calculations was entered in the 'Short Flight Plan', a copy of which was lodged with the Station Operations Staff.
I assume that similar Standard Operating Procedures applied to the Victor?
The relevance of all this?
Well, basically that thundering down the RW in a technically non-airworthy V-bomber is fraught with risk if the speed is allowed to increase to 145KIAS (as has been alleged).
People want to see the jet set off at max chat down the RW - but there is absolutely no point in accelerating to high speeds. No-one will be able to see, in any case.
*Had the fatal Air France Concorde crew bothered with such a check, they would certainly have realised that, given the tailwind and the fact that they'd burned nothing like their sssumed taxy fuel, their Regulated Take Off Weight was well below their planned Actual Take Off Weight - and hence to start the take-off roll alone was an illegal act as the aircraft was well outside scheduled performance limits. But this never really came out in the French Accident Report........
Last edited by BEagle; 6th May 2009 at 19:00.
Slightly to the left of topic....but...
When my light aircraft got damaged during construction (tin of paint fell off shelf. Prop smashed) the insurance company said that since it didn't posess a Permit from the PFA or CAA that it was not an aircraft. They paid out (believe it or not) as a "flat-pack furniture, damaged in storage".
My point is, since the Victor was an EX mil aircraft and had never flown nor was intended to be flown under the auspices of the CAA, was it technically NOT an aircraft? If the CAA can persue over unintentional flying of vehicles then the Dukes Of Hazard are in trouble.
I know it is quite probably a load of balls but do you see where I was going with this?
8000+ hours on 757/767s
When my light aircraft got damaged during construction (tin of paint fell off shelf. Prop smashed) the insurance company said that since it didn't posess a Permit from the PFA or CAA that it was not an aircraft. They paid out (believe it or not) as a "flat-pack furniture, damaged in storage".
My point is, since the Victor was an EX mil aircraft and had never flown nor was intended to be flown under the auspices of the CAA, was it technically NOT an aircraft? If the CAA can persue over unintentional flying of vehicles then the Dukes Of Hazard are in trouble.
I know it is quite probably a load of balls but do you see where I was going with this?
8000+ hours on 757/767s