LUTON History and Nostalgia
IIRC the 737 had significant damage to the horizontal stab., including bricks inside, and had to be repaired down route.
Last edited by dixi188; 25th Jun 2017 at 11:41. Reason: more
Both turning circles were done and it was the 26 turning circle thats was blown away by the 737. I seem to recall one of the main reasons was the 737-300 having low slung engines which caused the bricks to vibrate before flying up.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: a land far far away
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a flying instructor at Luton Flight Training at the time, and the blockwork had LIA (Luton International Airport) inset in a darker colour. We all wondered for whose benefit this was, as the only people that would ever see it were pilots, and one presumes they all knew they were just about to caress Luton's tarmac, and not someone elses. The blockwork was removed very shortly thereafter and was dumped behind the fire station, and free to take away. At least one person I know retrieved enough of them to re-pave his driveway - he was a student pilot at LFT.
IIRC, Monarch tried to sue the council, but were shown the small print on the conditions and terms of use of the airport, which basically said tough luck. Probably apocryphal though.
IIRC, Monarch tried to sue the council, but were shown the small print on the conditions and terms of use of the airport, which basically said tough luck. Probably apocryphal though.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yeah, the Monarch 757 I was thinking of was the one that kept losing one engine on t/o when the runway was being resurfaced and it hit the chamfered edge left overnight by the resurfacing team.
Think it was G-MONB or D.
IIRC it ended up in the Hangar for quite a while while they tried to find the problem.
Apologies if this has been previously discussed.
Think it was G-MONB or D.
IIRC it ended up in the Hangar for quite a while while they tried to find the problem.
Apologies if this has been previously discussed.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch actually did sue the airport over the 737 bricks incident but lost the case as the judge determined that the level of negligence was not sufficient to override the "use is at your own risk" clause in the airport's contract. This despite the fact that the airport had previously been warned by an expert in writing that this situation could occur. Funny thing at times, the law.
The 757 that had engine failures when it ran over the chamfered edge of the runway resurfacing was indeed hangared for investigation when it was found that a broken spring (inside IIRC the engine start switch) was being thrown about by the shock of the impact with the tarmac edge and was short circuiting electrical terminals which caused the engine to shut down. A huge amount of head scratching took place before this was found though!
The 757 that had engine failures when it ran over the chamfered edge of the runway resurfacing was indeed hangared for investigation when it was found that a broken spring (inside IIRC the engine start switch) was being thrown about by the shock of the impact with the tarmac edge and was short circuiting electrical terminals which caused the engine to shut down. A huge amount of head scratching took place before this was found though!
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I was first on the scene when the B737 paver block incident occurred and tried to get the various ATC agencies to inform he pilot. The aircraft by now was working the French and for whatever reason the notification did not get through.
The pavers were an idea of one of the Council's civil engineers and was initially employed on the apron stands because of the damaged being caused by fuel spills. The runway turning circles were very prone to this because of the 180deg turns that had to made by aircraft when fuel was vented from the wings especially if heavily fuelled (BAC1-11 were very prone to this). A lot of consultation was carried out and there was interest from other parties including the CAA and RAF. At one time the RAF wanted to bring a Harrier to test it but this never occurred.
In the days prior to the incident there was persistent heavy rain and the sand under the paver blocks became saturated although this was not known at the time. The blocks were laid by a German company using a machine that could lay a square metre of pre-linked pavers at a time; the pavers were not cemented down although they were finished with a form of 'grout'.
The incident aircraft was a B737-300 with low under slung engines and Mr Bernoulli took a hand in matters. Low pressure was caused under the engines and as the aircraft rolled, the upwards bulge of the pavers was disrupted by the thrust from the engines which immediate caused them to be blown backwards. It was the following aircraft, a HS125 who told ATC 'there are one or two blocks missing from the turning circle'. One or two was actually several hundred.
When I arrived on scene there was one solitary paver block ahead of the damage, the rest were behind. This immediately suggested to me that it must have hit the airframe therefore my concern of getting a message to the pilot. I do not believe that any blocks were embedded in the airframe although it has been many years since I have read any of the paperwork involved with the case.
I became involved in the legal action following the case which I will not comment upon except to say the reasons the case was dropped (I don't think it was thrown out by the judges) were long and varied.
The airport was complimented on its very prompt and honest reporting of the incident. The turning circles were taken out of use and resurfaced with tarmac.
The pavers were an idea of one of the Council's civil engineers and was initially employed on the apron stands because of the damaged being caused by fuel spills. The runway turning circles were very prone to this because of the 180deg turns that had to made by aircraft when fuel was vented from the wings especially if heavily fuelled (BAC1-11 were very prone to this). A lot of consultation was carried out and there was interest from other parties including the CAA and RAF. At one time the RAF wanted to bring a Harrier to test it but this never occurred.
In the days prior to the incident there was persistent heavy rain and the sand under the paver blocks became saturated although this was not known at the time. The blocks were laid by a German company using a machine that could lay a square metre of pre-linked pavers at a time; the pavers were not cemented down although they were finished with a form of 'grout'.
The incident aircraft was a B737-300 with low under slung engines and Mr Bernoulli took a hand in matters. Low pressure was caused under the engines and as the aircraft rolled, the upwards bulge of the pavers was disrupted by the thrust from the engines which immediate caused them to be blown backwards. It was the following aircraft, a HS125 who told ATC 'there are one or two blocks missing from the turning circle'. One or two was actually several hundred.
When I arrived on scene there was one solitary paver block ahead of the damage, the rest were behind. This immediately suggested to me that it must have hit the airframe therefore my concern of getting a message to the pilot. I do not believe that any blocks were embedded in the airframe although it has been many years since I have read any of the paperwork involved with the case.
I became involved in the legal action following the case which I will not comment upon except to say the reasons the case was dropped (I don't think it was thrown out by the judges) were long and varied.
The airport was complimented on its very prompt and honest reporting of the incident. The turning circles were taken out of use and resurfaced with tarmac.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the crew concerned. Aircraft handling was normal so when the severe damage was discovered on walk round it was a big surprise. I believe there were quite a few pictures taken, some of which got printed by the press.
Whilst they were re-building the turning circles it was a right P in the A as 73 could not make Cairo in one. This meant a tech stop & discretion every time making a long night of it.
Whilst they were re-building the turning circles it was a right P in the A as 73 could not make Cairo in one. This meant a tech stop & discretion every time making a long night of it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow what a set of photos!!!. I thought it was just a few bricks that got blown away and maybe just 1 brick that hit the aircraft but those photos put the incident on a whole new level. 
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At one time the RAF wanted to bring a Harrier to test it but this never occurred.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I saw one pic which showed a paver block shaped dent in the leading edge of the horizontal stab. Presumably this was the single block I saw ahead of the disruption.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case certainly did go to court, in 1996. Mr Justice Clarke was the judge. I was there and as it's the only time I have ever been involved in a trial, I am not likely to have misremembered. The case foundered roughly for the reasons given above, although granted the legal arguments involved were considerably more complex. Documentation of the trial is still available online if anyone is interested, although sadly it looks as though you have to pay for it.
Last edited by Raymond Dome; 26th Jun 2017 at 17:26. Reason: Date typo
There are some references to the 1996 judgement in the Encyclopedia of International Aviation Law Volume 3 (Page 833 on), which can be Googled and previewed for free.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks, Raymond Dome, clearly my recollection is clouded by time. I was grateful I never had to go to court but I was summoned to a barrister's chambers in Lincoln Inn Fields to provide information. No tea or biccies either.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dorset
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch 720 -Runway Damage
Do any recall an incident late 70s early 80s when a Monarch 720 damaged the runway surface on Take-Off. It was a damp foggy morning and during the night resurfacing work had been carried out leaving a slight ramp about half way down across the runway, higher surface being east of the mid-point. Monarch 720 backtracked and departed runway 26, shortly afterwards a light twin on approach to 26 carried out a missed approach and diverted (thankfully ) The AFS crewman carrying out human observer RVR reading reported that the “runway looked strange” and asked to go and look. The departing 720 had lifted the recently laid surface, I guess where rotation started, and it had concertinaed into what looked like, as I saw it, a set of playing cards with some pieces up to about 5 foot high. Runway closed for quite a while for the damage to be repaired! (sorry no photos)
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My recollection it was a BAL B737-200 although that might have been a previous occasion when the runway had been resurfaced. I don't think it was misty/foggy so there would not have been a RVR observer. Someone reported it was like holding the end of a rug and flipping it upwards!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dorset
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have been another one because I recall standing out there in the fog that morning looking at the scene. Just don't have a date and the tapes were played showing how close to having something worse if we had not had a man out there or , of course , had IRVR by then
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of Luton's big boys taken when Luton had a spectators building. I would say the photo was taken around 1996 as the building has been painted easyjet orange.
Last edited by LTNman; 30th Jun 2017 at 08:31.