BA911 G-APFE Mt. Fuji crash

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by eckhard

And here is a sad picture of her last moments.......

I recall that photo at the time. I was a new 707 F/O at the time. It made me very sad then, and does now.

The difference the comes with age: 50 years ago I thought, "How awful, but that won't happen to me."

[ExSp33db1rd]

Originally Posted by aterpster

Perhaps that was a TWA 707-300 diverted to BOAC. TWA "customized" their orders to have the switches go the wrong way. This came to an end with the L1011 and 767, which had push switches.

I see that I flew G-AWHU in 1970, but can't remember a switch position issue?

I do recall that BOAC bought 3 "second-hand" 707's originally owned by a USA company, forget which, but pretty sure it wasn't TWA, to operate the Tokyo - Moscow route. These were707 -336's as opposed to the majority of the 707 fleet, which were the original 707-436's, and had a longer range, Tokyo - Moscow being about the longest sector operated at that time, we also had a stash of high density fuel available for uplift at Tokyo, to make the route possible.

I don't know about 9 crews, but -336 crews were separate from the -436 crews, pilots didn't mix and match between the two fleets.

These first three -336's, being originally of USA origin, certainly had switches that operated in the opposite direction, just as American household light switches operate in the opposite way to British light switches, the Brits knock a switch down on entering a room, the Yanks knock it up.

BOAC decided that it was dangerous to leave these 3 a/c different to the rest of the 707 fleet, so changed them around - at enormous cost I believe.

In another era, years later, I was involved with a company who put an originally American 747 freighter on to the British register. The C.A.A. insisted that we re-write all the Flight Manuals, changing the word "light" for "lamp", ( or v.v. ? ) as they had been first written for the U.S. F.A.A.

I'm sure if a pilot hears a loud warning bell, and sees a bright red warning "light" in an engine fire handle, he doesn't care if it is called a "light" or a "lamp" - he still sh**s himself !

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Didn't the same 'upside down switch' scenario apply to at least one 1-11 on the BEA fleet? It (or they) were different to the rest having been acquired when another airline was merged with BEA?

[Planemike]

Originally Posted by suninmyeyes

BOAC got another aircraft to replace FE registration G-AWHU known to pilots as "The Saturn". It was very different to the other 707s and the other 707 pilots were not allowed to fly it, one of the differences was the switches went up for on and down for off unlike the other 707s or vice versa. So they just trained 9 crews to fly it and they flew nothing else for a while until it was converted.

Jackson's BCA Vol 1 states G-AWHU 707-379C was purchased as a replacement for G-ARWE, this was burned out at Heathrow 08 Apr 68. This model appears to have been a "one off" on the UK Register.


The 707-336C fleet comprising nine aircraft that was acquired between 1966 (G-ASZF) and 1971 (G-AYLT)....

[Groundloop]

And the initial -336C fleet were operated as pure freighters with BOAC CARGO titles for quite a few years after delivery.

[Alan Baker]

To clarify the BOAC 707 situation, the first two P & W JT3D powered 707-336Cs (G-ASZF/G) were ordered in October 1964 as cargo aircraft on the basis that no British equivalent existed and were consequently imported duty free. The third example (G-ATWV) was ordered in July 1966 as a cargo aircraft but was delivered in November 1967 in passenger configuration due to a capacity shortage. This aircraft was also duty free which caused Caledonian and British Eagle to protest as they had had to pay import duty on their 707s. BOAC ordered a further 4 -336Cs, the last as late as October 1970. Although some were used as cargo aircraft, all of the BOAC -320Cs were convertible. In 1969 two 707-336Bs were ordered for the new trans-polar and trans-Siberian routes to Tokyo. These, of course, were pure passenger aircraft. The two 707-320Cs that BOAC acquired "second hand" were G-ATZD, a -365C delivered to British Eagle in 1967 and acquired after Eagle's bankruptcy in 1968 and G-AWHU, a -379C originally ordered by US supplemental Saturn Airways but sold to BOAC before delivery and thus not really second hand as it was delivered to BOAC direct from Seattle.

[Spooky 2]

It's true that the TWA aircraft of that vintage had the overhead switches reversed as they treated the overhead panel as a vertical panel much as one would view the FE panel. There was former VP Flight Ops who, I forget his name now, that was responsible for this. Maybe Apster recalls that individual as he was around for quite a while.


This design crept over to the Lufthansa fleets of that era as well since TWA was providing some technical assistance back in those early days. Clearly recall flying a former Lufthansa 727-100 with that design. Don't see any killer issues as this was limited to things like the landing light and seat belt signs as I recall.

[suninmyeyes]

I wonder when Boeing changed their philosopy on landing light switch position? I am sure on the original 747s I used to switch them up for on whereas on all modern Boeings it is down for on.


Going back to the BOAC 707. Thanks for correcting me Planemike, you are absolutely right, G-AWHU was the replacement for WE not FE. It was last registered as 4L-GAS and was delivered to a company in 2009 called Mach Avia who flew it for a while. Not bad as it was over 40 years old even then. It was flying until a few years ago and is presently stored in the United Arab Emirates at Fujairah.

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by ExSp33db1rd

I

These first three -336's, being originally of USA origin, certainly had switches that operated in the opposite direction, just as American household light switches operate in the opposite way to British light switches, the Brits knock a switch down on entering a room, the Yanks knock it up.

TWA's 300 series were -331, -331B, and -331BA.

[Planemike]

Originally Posted by suninmyeyes

Thanks for correcting me Planemike, you are absolutely right, G-AWHU was the replacement for WE not FE. It was last registered as 4L-GAS and was delivered to a company in 2009 called Mach Avia who flew it for a while. Not bad as it was over 40 years old even then. It was flying until a few years ago and is presently stored in the United Arab Emirates at Fujairah.

Registered 15 times with 13 different registrations. Some sort of record?

[Spooky 2]

Noticed the current Lufthansa 380 still uses this switch logic on the lights at least.

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by Spooky 2

It's true that the TWA aircraft of that vintage had the overhead switches reversed as they treated the overhead panel as a vertical panel much as one would view the FE panel. There was former VP Flight Ops who, I forget his name now, that was responsible for this. Maybe Apster recalls that individual as he was around for quite a while.

.

Gordon Granger

[India Four Two]

I remember this accident very clearly and in particular, reading about an 8mm movie camera that was recovered and used to estimate the vertical loads. After some searching, I found this Flight article which must be where I read about the camera:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201067.PDF

The film sequences showed pictures of Tokyo Airport, the Tanzawa mountains and Lake Yamanaka, followed by two empty frames, then by pictures of what appeared to be passenger seats and / or carpet before suddenly coming to an end. Tests showed that a peak load of 7.5g was required to make the film-feeding malfunction so as to skip frames in this way.

The article also mentions fuel moving foreward but doesn't refer to the horrific consequences for the crew.

Here's the link to the article referred to in an earlier post:
Japan - The Mount Fuji Disaster, by James Wilson (1966)

It's a very moving account by BOAC's Tokyo station manager.

[blind pew]

Switches

My first three aircraft were Trident, VC 10 and DC 9.

The Trident switches were opposite to the VC 10 and the DC 9 had the windshield as datem....above one way, below the opposite.

The Iron duck had a four engine flame out...engineer with Delhi belly had an urgent call of nature - if you can call a curry natural - during climb - did the leaving the panel checklist which was switch all of the fuel pumps on (he was cross feeding).
In his panic he turned them off.
Engines continued to suction feed which had a limit of somewhere around 25 grand and they all flamed out as the climb continued.
We had two RATs...hyrat and elrat...which took a couple of minutes to come on line during which there were no flying controls.
All ended happily and engines got some sort of commendation iirc for getting the engines restarted.

[BEagle]

An ex-BOAC Boeing 707 captain, since passed away, once told me that he'd warned his colleagues not to fly the 'Mt. Fuji tour' when the wind was from the direction it was on that fateful day. Before flying the 707, he'd earlier flown route proving flights to Tokyo in the Comet and had a healthy regard for the weather in that part of the world. He had a lifelong interest in meteorology, so his knowledge would have been better than that of most pilots.

Regrettably his advice was ignored.

[India Four Two]

BEagle,

I had wondered about the decision to fly that routing that day. Even back in the 60s, mountain waves and the associated turbulence were relatively well known.

Given the forecast winds that day, I would have thought an experienced captain would have stayed well away from the lee-side of the mountain, particularly when at or below the summit level.

The summit wind speeds reported in the Flight article were 60-70 kts.

[Jn14:6]

G-AWHU was probably known as 'The Saturn' as it was originally constructed for US carrier Saturn AIrways, hence the -79 (-379C) designation.

[Bergerie1]

I believe the turbulence was caused by a rotor downwind of the summit, but I may be wrong. Does anyone know more about the exact meteorological phenomenon? I know, after this accident, I was always very careful to check the wind when flying near mountains.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Glider pilots exploit mountain wave to heights far above the summit of the mountains creating the wave. AFAIK the destructive turbulence isn't so much the wave itself (which is smooth) but the 'rotor' shear in the associated peaks and troughs. Can anyone confirm?

[India Four Two]

SSD,

I have many years of gliding and towing in the lee of the Canadian Rockies. The rotor occurs downwind of the upgoing air, underneath the "crest" of the wave, where as you said, there is shear between the wave airmass and the underlying air. The rotor is often marked by very ragged, wispy, dark clouds, that are visibly rotating.

The rotor can be extremely rough and quite violent. A very experienced tow-pilot friend of mine used to say "The rotor's not rough until you get rolled inverted!"

Typically, the rotor only occurs at or below the ridge level of the mountain range that is generating it. The largest gust "jolts" I have experienced while flying commercially in the western US and Canada, have been while climbing or descending through the altitude of adjacent mountain ridge lines, on windy days. Based on my "Chipmunk calibrated posterior", I estimate some of them to have been ~2G. Quite scary for non-pilot passengers.

A typical wave-tow consists of flying up-wind through the rotor until you reach the upwind side and then turning to track parallel to the mountain front and climb in the disorganized lift until the air becomes magically smooth. At this point, the glider releases and by the time the towplane has done a 180, the glider is a 1000' or more higher.

The laminar flow in a wave is uncanny. Often the only indication in a glider that you are moving, is the altimeter winding upwards.

PS I've never towed into a wave associated with isolated peaks, but I've seen the so-called "UFO" lenticulars that form downwind of the Cascade volcanoes, like Mt. Rainier. I would image the rotor associated with those waves might be even more violent, because of air coming around the mountain, as well as over it.

Here is a nice time-lapse video of cap clouds and lenticulars at Fuji, although the labelling at the beginning is wrong. What is labelled as "Rotor Cloud" is the stack of lenticulars, marking the laminar wave. The actual rotor can be seen as fast moving wispy clouds, just above the foreground ridgeline. There is a good example at 0:25:


I expect the day of the BOAC accident would have been a "blue wave day", where there was not enough moisture in the airmass to form clouds.