G-ARPI - The Trident Tragedy: 40 years ago today
Never did a low go around except on the sim and discovered when I was researching my book from one of the PI accident investigators that the simulator did not replicate the flying characteristics of the real aircraft in pitch!
We were told that the authority insisted that the sim was more difficult to fly but I suspect it was the inverse as witnessed several older guys who couldn't cope with the aircraft.
A notable from hearsay was the chief training captain.
Suspect it performed better because of the WAT curves and maybe ground effect.
Certainly never had any problems on dark and dirty hand flown apps into Edinburg.
Somewhere in the ether is a report of the stars taking the tail off a comet during a low go around - possibly at Bedford - well incompetent.
We were told that the authority insisted that the sim was more difficult to fly but I suspect it was the inverse as witnessed several older guys who couldn't cope with the aircraft.
A notable from hearsay was the chief training captain.
Suspect it performed better because of the WAT curves and maybe ground effect.
Certainly never had any problems on dark and dirty hand flown apps into Edinburg.
Somewhere in the ether is a report of the stars taking the tail off a comet during a low go around - possibly at Bedford - well incompetent.
Last edited by blind pew; 4th Jul 2012 at 18:23.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there were those who claimed that the Trident could only become airborne because of the curvature of the earth, but maybe it was ground effect that helped.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tubby linton,
Did a four-sector day in foggy conditions back in the early 80s. I can't remember the details, but it was LHR-GLA-LHR-GLA-LHR. Each airfield was on-limits (75m? - so long ago), and each initial approach that day resulted in a GA from decision height.
Bearing in mind that at DH the aircraft's RoD was almost nil (we were well into the flare), when power was applied for the go-around the thing went up like a homesick angel, particularly as the fuel load was light.
Impressive. Not as impressive as the 757, but good enough. I certainly felt very safe in the Gripper in those challenging conditions, and whilst going home totally knackered that day, the whole exercise went like clockwork.
Did a four-sector day in foggy conditions back in the early 80s. I can't remember the details, but it was LHR-GLA-LHR-GLA-LHR. Each airfield was on-limits (75m? - so long ago), and each initial approach that day resulted in a GA from decision height.
Bearing in mind that at DH the aircraft's RoD was almost nil (we were well into the flare), when power was applied for the go-around the thing went up like a homesick angel, particularly as the fuel load was light.
Impressive. Not as impressive as the 757, but good enough. I certainly felt very safe in the Gripper in those challenging conditions, and whilst going home totally knackered that day, the whole exercise went like clockwork.
Blind Pew I am not familiar with your book, would you please supply some details?
I dug out my copy of Handling the Big Jets and I noticed that the photo of an aircraft executing a high performance go around is of a B727!
The Bedford accident report can be found here:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20XP%20915.pdf
I dug out my copy of Handling the Big Jets and I noticed that the photo of an aircraft executing a high performance go around is of a B727!
The Bedford accident report can be found here:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20XP%20915.pdf
Last edited by tubby linton; 4th Jul 2012 at 22:35.
Tubby Not available yet as would have stirred up a hornets nest in its original form.
W/R to the Bedford incident if you factor in a heavy crew, daytime, rest, experience etc and they still manage to smack into a parked aircraft one comes to the conclusion that management/ training were incompetent beyond belief.
One wonders the criteria used in selection for these posts - rumour has it somefink to do with bearing breasts........
They used to recut the dunlops either eight or twelve times which gave us pages of incidents in the horror comic every month - especially stupid as SR had lost an aircraft after a tyre burst and a wing falling off a few years before.
W/R to the Bedford incident if you factor in a heavy crew, daytime, rest, experience etc and they still manage to smack into a parked aircraft one comes to the conclusion that management/ training were incompetent beyond belief.
One wonders the criteria used in selection for these posts - rumour has it somefink to do with bearing breasts........
They used to recut the dunlops either eight or twelve times which gave us pages of incidents in the horror comic every month - especially stupid as SR had lost an aircraft after a tyre burst and a wing falling off a few years before.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok maybe a bad choice of words, which has ruffled a few feathers - for the wrong reasons. But, abuse of mods via PM's will you get you nowhere except the sin bin. Mods are here to contain dubious (or libellous) posts on behalf of the owners of the site. The rules are not made by moderators - and you signed up to them when you joined PPRuNe.
The ARPI story is well known and has been discussed here a few times before. This time around a suggestion that book research is involved. PPRuNe is not for research for books. We don't allow it.
The personal attacks via PM's is a no no, and now ignored, but should they occur again the writer will be banned without any questions or answers.
Stick to debating the subject now that I have re-opend the thread but please heed my comments.
You might care to know, or not, that I started this forum many years ago so that aviation history and its nostalgic aspects could have a place to enjoy, so in answer to one particularly offensive PM that I know nothing of aviation is mistaken. My years of flying numerous types, displaying, and running airlines adds up to knowing something of the industry in the past 50 years plus.
The ARPI story is well known and has been discussed here a few times before. This time around a suggestion that book research is involved. PPRuNe is not for research for books. We don't allow it.
The personal attacks via PM's is a no no, and now ignored, but should they occur again the writer will be banned without any questions or answers.
Stick to debating the subject now that I have re-opend the thread but please heed my comments.
You might care to know, or not, that I started this forum many years ago so that aviation history and its nostalgic aspects could have a place to enjoy, so in answer to one particularly offensive PM that I know nothing of aviation is mistaken. My years of flying numerous types, displaying, and running airlines adds up to knowing something of the industry in the past 50 years plus.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to my post #42 in fairness to the Trident perhaps worth noting that the 727 could get into a mess on approach and (according to Wikipedia) 6 were lost on approach the 1960s. Landing (esp Autoland) was perhaps the Tridents strongpoint...I remember hearing one on VHF amaze the tower by landing so precisely on 28L it was able to take the first right turning (23L junction) (equivalent to landing at LCY 
)
Were the staff relations at BEA a factor in the decision to amalgamate it with BOAC into BA?
)Were the staff relations at BEA a factor in the decision to amalgamate it with BOAC into BA?
Were the staff relations at BEA a factor in the decision to amalgamate it with BOAC into BA?
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD...20-%200831.PDF
Point taken mod and likewise apology.
I have not used the site for research. Book originally finished two years ago after extensive research with former colleagues, FOI searches and delving into various archives.
As to difficult fleets generally the problems were encountered on sophistocated jets in LHR and the Airtours fleet.
Mates who went to the 111 at Man or Viscounts in Scotland had a great time.
My opinion was that many older guys could not cope with the aircraft and our management were generally incompetent.
This was reflected in the national press covering the inquiry.
I only refused to fly with one pilot in my career - he had been posted to LHR because most of the Glasgow pilots had refused to fly with him.
Especially foolish as GLA FOs had to have a minimum of two years.
I was a first year SO just after PI and my reward because of speaking out re safety was being humiliated by a guild member in the crew room, assigned P3 and told to keep my mouth shut unless spoken to.
I have not used the site for research. Book originally finished two years ago after extensive research with former colleagues, FOI searches and delving into various archives.
As to difficult fleets generally the problems were encountered on sophistocated jets in LHR and the Airtours fleet.
Mates who went to the 111 at Man or Viscounts in Scotland had a great time.
My opinion was that many older guys could not cope with the aircraft and our management were generally incompetent.
This was reflected in the national press covering the inquiry.
I only refused to fly with one pilot in my career - he had been posted to LHR because most of the Glasgow pilots had refused to fly with him.
Especially foolish as GLA FOs had to have a minimum of two years.
I was a first year SO just after PI and my reward because of speaking out re safety was being humiliated by a guild member in the crew room, assigned P3 and told to keep my mouth shut unless spoken to.
Never had the pleasure of flying the Trident but was on the S1-11 during the corresponding period. I would not say that this was true on my fleet at all, most of the Captains I flew with in the early days were ex WWII and a real pleasure to fly with. As with any fleet or airline there were some who were less fun to be with than others but I can remember few if any that were "difficult". They had all transitioned to the 1-11 from the Viscount, Vanguard or Comet and were mostly excellent aviators.
However I did hear it said (on my fleet, at least), that those who needed two co-pilots to look after them went on the Trident whereas the more competent went on the 1-11. Again, I am sure that there were many exceptions to this rule - were it true - but it did make sense for the less able.
However I did hear it said (on my fleet, at least), that those who needed two co-pilots to look after them went on the Trident whereas the more competent went on the 1-11. Again, I am sure that there were many exceptions to this rule - were it true - but it did make sense for the less able.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blind pew - thank you for that and for your interesting comments. I did get to have a short period in a Trident sim and found it to be somewhat of handful. However, that was for interest only.
Flight watch you might remember that there was a proposal to change the crewing on the Trident and place the captain in the P3 seat and have the two first officers up front.
Supposedly the Russians in Aeroflot did this.
It was in either 73 or 74.
Initially we thought it was an April fools but were told that it came out after a senior management meeting with some union feedback.
I thought at the time that it would be a good idea for a few of our elderly gentleman but that it would not be accepted by the majority.
The rumour disappeared after a month or so.
I still believe that the idea had merits, especially after I turned fifty.
Don't remember how you operated the 111 but we had the gear down 13 miles out and land flap down as we intercepted the glide slope at 3000ft - incredibly wasteful - and supposedly the Trident needed a long stabilised approach.
After leaving UK employment our criteria was gear down and land flap by latest 300ft.
Mod thanks, and would agree that the Trident was difficult but after a few years watching guys who could throw it about I enjoyed it BUT you had to be watch her as she bit very quickly - you couldn't let her get away from you as I found out with a lot of coloured lights and bits dangling from the cabin ceiling.
Especially difficult during turbulence on app with the auto throttle in.
We weren't allowed to fly manual throttle but engine out we weren't allowed to use it.
Some of our competent line pilots would let us use manual throttle which was far nicer.
Supposedly the Russians in Aeroflot did this.
It was in either 73 or 74.
Initially we thought it was an April fools but were told that it came out after a senior management meeting with some union feedback.
I thought at the time that it would be a good idea for a few of our elderly gentleman but that it would not be accepted by the majority.
The rumour disappeared after a month or so.
I still believe that the idea had merits, especially after I turned fifty.
Don't remember how you operated the 111 but we had the gear down 13 miles out and land flap down as we intercepted the glide slope at 3000ft - incredibly wasteful - and supposedly the Trident needed a long stabilised approach.
After leaving UK employment our criteria was gear down and land flap by latest 300ft.
Mod thanks, and would agree that the Trident was difficult but after a few years watching guys who could throw it about I enjoyed it BUT you had to be watch her as she bit very quickly - you couldn't let her get away from you as I found out with a lot of coloured lights and bits dangling from the cabin ceiling.
Especially difficult during turbulence on app with the auto throttle in.
We weren't allowed to fly manual throttle but engine out we weren't allowed to use it.
Some of our competent line pilots would let us use manual throttle which was far nicer.
Last edited by blind pew; 6th Jul 2012 at 22:03.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind at least one problem with the Comet, such as no L/E devices and hence the ability to stall the aircraft by over rotation, the rectification of which took plenty of time even after the events of 1954, I wonder whether the aerodynamic work on the DH121 was perhaps a bit under-resourced and rushed especially as the lead customer BEA couldn't seem to decide what they wanted until pretty late on in the process. Having a very experienced pilot like Cunningham has its good and bad sides, good because he was likely to do a good development job, but then possibly leaving average pilots at a disadvantage with any tricky handling characteristics.
Maybe the Trident was not quite late enough to make use of the lessons that were being learned by all manufacturers about designing efficient swept wing commercial aircraft during the first decade of the jet age.
Maybe the Trident was not quite late enough to make use of the lessons that were being learned by all manufacturers about designing efficient swept wing commercial aircraft during the first decade of the jet age.
BP - The 1-11 was quite different. The swiftest approach was a straight in out of the Berlin corridor on 27L at HAJ. 333kts (Vno) to 1500' established on the localiser, as the glide path twitched, full speed brake, lower the gear at limiting speed and select flap with one hand whilst raising the speed brake with the other (the two were not allowed together) then the rest of the flap on schedule and engines spooled up by 300'. Even a normal approach rarely saw the gear down before 1000'.
Had QARs been in existence then, the guys at the monitoring office would have had a thrombosis at regular intervals.
The big difference was CAT2 (possibly 3a eventually?). Due to the fact that the aircraft only had one autopilot with duplex monitors a stable approach was necessary to have an even chance of the autopilot staying engaged. However it worked well in genuine conditions when I had to use it!
The training management did have some peculiar ideas though, SOPs called for a flare followed by a slight push to set the aircraft down gently. In fact this technique normally produced a gripper like arrival and pilots soon found out that it could be flared like any other type and landed smoothly.
An amusing training deficiency (possibly apocryphal) came to light when a newly converted crew both from the Viscount who had done all their line training in Berlin below FL180 launched themselves on a LHR-MUC mission around FL330. On landing they wrote in the tech log that the high speed warning bell was incorrectly set as it kept going of around 240kts instead of 333kts and the aircraft would not accelerate. They had never been mach limited before! All crews were assigned at least one "high altitude" flight thereafter on training.
Had QARs been in existence then, the guys at the monitoring office would have had a thrombosis at regular intervals.
The big difference was CAT2 (possibly 3a eventually?). Due to the fact that the aircraft only had one autopilot with duplex monitors a stable approach was necessary to have an even chance of the autopilot staying engaged. However it worked well in genuine conditions when I had to use it!
The training management did have some peculiar ideas though, SOPs called for a flare followed by a slight push to set the aircraft down gently. In fact this technique normally produced a gripper like arrival and pilots soon found out that it could be flared like any other type and landed smoothly.
An amusing training deficiency (possibly apocryphal) came to light when a newly converted crew both from the Viscount who had done all their line training in Berlin below FL180 launched themselves on a LHR-MUC mission around FL330. On landing they wrote in the tech log that the high speed warning bell was incorrectly set as it kept going of around 240kts instead of 333kts and the aircraft would not accelerate. They had never been mach limited before! All crews were assigned at least one "high altitude" flight thereafter on training.
Flight watch you've just blown me up.
Never new anyone else flew aircraft like we did
in Switzerland!
When I started on the DC9 they just brought out a regulation that we had to be in landing conf. By 300ft (nothing about speed nor spooling the engines up); this was because they used to do power off approaches and landing with the inevitable burst tyres, hot brakes and the occasional over run.
What we didn't do was use the PPL - poor planning lever as a South African called the air brakes.
The ROD was dialed up until the clacker sounded then backed off after the clacker was silenced.
After around four years on the gripper I was shown the stuff the stick forward at the last moment landing technique - there were only a few guys who used it - the first one being Rocky who quit to fly Hunters for airwork at Hurn.
Great greasers unless you chickened out which I never did.
Did it on the nine, close the throttles early, trim back as the elevator would loose effectiveness, late flare and stuff the nose forward at the last moment not forgetting to break the nosewheel ROD with an almighty heave.
Had to give it up as I scarred a few Swiss skippers who thought we was going to die and asked me to do a SOP landing. Shame as it gave us a short very smooth landing which was only spoilt when the dumpers deployed and the airframe settled on the dunlops.
Never new anyone else flew aircraft like we did
in Switzerland!
When I started on the DC9 they just brought out a regulation that we had to be in landing conf. By 300ft (nothing about speed nor spooling the engines up); this was because they used to do power off approaches and landing with the inevitable burst tyres, hot brakes and the occasional over run.
What we didn't do was use the PPL - poor planning lever as a South African called the air brakes.
The ROD was dialed up until the clacker sounded then backed off after the clacker was silenced.
After around four years on the gripper I was shown the stuff the stick forward at the last moment landing technique - there were only a few guys who used it - the first one being Rocky who quit to fly Hunters for airwork at Hurn.
Great greasers unless you chickened out which I never did.
Did it on the nine, close the throttles early, trim back as the elevator would loose effectiveness, late flare and stuff the nose forward at the last moment not forgetting to break the nosewheel ROD with an almighty heave.
Had to give it up as I scarred a few Swiss skippers who thought we was going to die and asked me to do a SOP landing. Shame as it gave us a short very smooth landing which was only spoilt when the dumpers deployed and the airframe settled on the dunlops.
Last edited by blind pew; 8th Jul 2012 at 15:09. Reason: Spelling of course
Following the accident was there any weeding out of those who were out of their depth in the aircraft? Also was the noise abatement procedure re-examined and were sop tightened?