Hurricane Minor Crash at Duxford
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It landed on 24, turned right, Stbd u/c leg started to fol"
Or in other words, uneventfull landing led pilot to believe that lack of `green` indication was an electrical gremlin, (Classic suckers gap!) and as soon as lateral force was placed on the said leg (RH turn is the worst possible case) the inevitable happened.
It may be minor damage, but is sure to cost a fortune in parts and manhours. Hindsight is a lovely thing, but I would suggest that the fact that the gear did not fold on landing is testiment to a very careful and well executed landing followed by a moments nonchallence that has bitten its victim. I dare say the pilot does not feel too good about it, but that goes with the very priveliged position that these people are in.
Am I right in thinking this aircraft is the one that bounced back after being burnt out on the runway at Wittering a few years ago?
It may be minor damage, but is sure to cost a fortune in parts and manhours. Hindsight is a lovely thing, but I would suggest that the fact that the gear did not fold on landing is testiment to a very careful and well executed landing followed by a moments nonchallence that has bitten its victim. I dare say the pilot does not feel too good about it, but that goes with the very priveliged position that these people are in.
Am I right in thinking this aircraft is the one that bounced back after being burnt out on the runway at Wittering a few years ago?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOMCEVAK,
If, as you intimate, the pilot did NOT know that he had a problem, then my comment regarding u/c locks goes out of the window, however.....
it is my understanding that he DID know, and that a call was made to atc saying that. I do concede that I did not hear the call myself, but I see no reason to doubt a good friend who imediately shot off to the crowd line when he heard the call.
If a 'knee jerk' reaction would have prevented this minor incident, then I am all for 'knee jerk' reactions. I am not a scare mongerer, or someone who blows things out of proportion, indeed, had you read my posting, you will have picked up on my comments about the local press blowing it all out of proportion.
And as for the 'totally impractical' bit, I am afraid you are mistaken. Why is is impractical? are you an expert on the Hurricane? I am certainly not, but, it was never impractical to shut down a big 4-jet on the runway when we had an u/c problem, of ANY nature, and tow it back. Or, just get someone to slip the locks in and then taxi back.
Your comments about taxiing on grass et al are frankly too stupid for comment, except to say that after 30+ years of flying (mainly heavy jets) I think I know the difference between concrete and grass, thank you!
Kind regards to all, and lets hope BBMF soon have her back in the skies.
The Swinging Monkey
If, as you intimate, the pilot did NOT know that he had a problem, then my comment regarding u/c locks goes out of the window, however.....
it is my understanding that he DID know, and that a call was made to atc saying that. I do concede that I did not hear the call myself, but I see no reason to doubt a good friend who imediately shot off to the crowd line when he heard the call.
If a 'knee jerk' reaction would have prevented this minor incident, then I am all for 'knee jerk' reactions. I am not a scare mongerer, or someone who blows things out of proportion, indeed, had you read my posting, you will have picked up on my comments about the local press blowing it all out of proportion.
And as for the 'totally impractical' bit, I am afraid you are mistaken. Why is is impractical? are you an expert on the Hurricane? I am certainly not, but, it was never impractical to shut down a big 4-jet on the runway when we had an u/c problem, of ANY nature, and tow it back. Or, just get someone to slip the locks in and then taxi back.
Your comments about taxiing on grass et al are frankly too stupid for comment, except to say that after 30+ years of flying (mainly heavy jets) I think I know the difference between concrete and grass, thank you!
Kind regards to all, and lets hope BBMF soon have her back in the skies.
The Swinging Monkey
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hendon
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"what future has the BBMF?"
Don't let the beancounters hear anything like that. Gives them ideas. If you go onto the RAF website you will find the 'RAF Vision'.
If anyone recalls, it used to say something about an air force which is pround of it's heritage yet forward looking and modern, but there's no mention of that now.
I know that the Tempest and Typhoons can have lock pins at the top of the legs, there is no reason why the Hurri shouldn't have them.
Don't let the beancounters hear anything like that. Gives them ideas. If you go onto the RAF website you will find the 'RAF Vision'.
If anyone recalls, it used to say something about an air force which is pround of it's heritage yet forward looking and modern, but there's no mention of that now.
I know that the Tempest and Typhoons can have lock pins at the top of the legs, there is no reason why the Hurri shouldn't have them.
Oh dear, I am afraid that there has been a bit of "send 3 and 4 pence" going on here. It was not clear to me in the earlier posts that the comments made about putting in the ground locks referred to the assumption that only one green light was on. I interpreted this suggestion as referring to all landings in a Hurricane, likewise the comment on taxying on the grass. If the pilot had only one green light on prior to landing then I agree whole heartedly that he should have shut down and had the ground locks fitted before even attempting to turn off the runway heading.
I apologise if my comments seemed strange, but my interpretation was based on the fact that there was no mention in the pilots' tent at Duxford on Sunday of the landing being made with only one green. However, that is not to say that what The Swinging Monkey's friend heard was not reported accurately.
Hope that this clears up the confusion.
I apologise if my comments seemed strange, but my interpretation was based on the fact that there was no mention in the pilots' tent at Duxford on Sunday of the landing being made with only one green. However, that is not to say that what The Swinging Monkey's friend heard was not reported accurately.
Hope that this clears up the confusion.
Just checked with Insty Snr and he assures me that they did not have ground locks on the Hurricane. It may of course be that BBMF have a different oleo type to that which he was used to or they have carried out some modifications, if that is the case then I stand corrected.
Like all previous posters I can't wait to see it back in the skies.
It is a most under rated and unsung hero of the Battle of Britain and after. Always my favourite aeroplane.
Like all previous posters I can't wait to see it back in the skies.
It is a most under rated and unsung hero of the Battle of Britain and after. Always my favourite aeroplane.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the gen Insty, but even so, I hope the gingers of the BBMF have "manufactured" something to do the job - but then again, it wouldn't be "true to life" would it? Or does/should that matter for this sort of ground equipment? 
Lomce
In light of your last, sorry to be so sharp earlier.
Lomce
In light of your last, sorry to be so sharp earlier.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know who convened this pprune inquiry into LF digging its nose in but it looks rather like a lot of half informed comment has already resulted in a half-baked conclusion.
Pprune situation normal!
Pprune situation normal!
Why not:
1. Make normal into wind approach on longest run of grass available.
2. Shut engine down just before the flare (would the lack of slipstream have hampered elevator authority?)
3. Complete landing roll-out with prop stopped.
4. Don't move, turn, breath or scratch nose or any other appendage until an airbag (that doesn't mean a WRAF, incidentally) is under the wing.
1. Make normal into wind approach on longest run of grass available.
2. Shut engine down just before the flare (would the lack of slipstream have hampered elevator authority?)
3. Complete landing roll-out with prop stopped.
4. Don't move, turn, breath or scratch nose or any other appendage until an airbag (that doesn't mean a WRAF, incidentally) is under the wing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite where I intended it to go, but interesting all the same!!!
Reichman is right - hindsight is fantastic but not much use at the time. How many of our day to day procedures change because of something that happened not previously envisaged? Thankfully the aircraft should only have minor damage with a dented pride somewhere, but how many "in hindsight" situations have ended in a death and Cat 5 (P38 at Duxford, Mosquito near Manchester etc etc.) All's well that ends well and if this particular situation should arise with the BBMF in future............
Insty66 - don't know if your father would remember anything in the pilot's notes about this case - there's usually something somewhere that someone's forgotten along the way!!!
PS. Thanks all for the pictures!!!
Reichman is right - hindsight is fantastic but not much use at the time. How many of our day to day procedures change because of something that happened not previously envisaged? Thankfully the aircraft should only have minor damage with a dented pride somewhere, but how many "in hindsight" situations have ended in a death and Cat 5 (P38 at Duxford, Mosquito near Manchester etc etc.) All's well that ends well and if this particular situation should arise with the BBMF in future............
Insty66 - don't know if your father would remember anything in the pilot's notes about this case - there's usually something somewhere that someone's forgotten along the way!!!
PS. Thanks all for the pictures!!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
as always, you seem to come up with the most sensible of comments of them all (Oh! how I envy you at times!)
This whole matter revolves around whether or not the pilot knew he had a problem dosn't it? If he did know, then u/c locks/pins etc are all valid. If he didn't then it's just damned bad luck.
It is my understanding that he did know, and called 'one green' only, but as you rightly point out, the BOI will sort it out.
As you point out, why not land (gently) scratch appendages (including WRAF if your lucky!) put airbag underneath, and then go and have a nice glass of the Amber fluid!! Hows that eh?
Kind regards to all
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, send a bottle of the famous stuff' over to BEagle, theres a good chap'
as always, you seem to come up with the most sensible of comments of them all (Oh! how I envy you at times!)
This whole matter revolves around whether or not the pilot knew he had a problem dosn't it? If he did know, then u/c locks/pins etc are all valid. If he didn't then it's just damned bad luck.
It is my understanding that he did know, and called 'one green' only, but as you rightly point out, the BOI will sort it out.
As you point out, why not land (gently) scratch appendages (including WRAF if your lucky!) put airbag underneath, and then go and have a nice glass of the Amber fluid!! Hows that eh?
Kind regards to all
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, send a bottle of the famous stuff' over to BEagle, theres a good chap'
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
Hueymeister asked:
"I know this will encourage some fairly 'spirited' replies, but with swingeing cuts coming our way - what future has the BBMF?
Now before you all lambast me, I am a firm supporter of the Flight. It represents a great many individuals who gave their lives in the air during WWII. How much does it cost to run the unit per year? Whilst at the "College of Knowledge" we visited it and East Kirkby many times to see the Lancs engine runs etc. and were very impressed.
Could a consortium of interested parties not buy the aircraft on the understanding that they operate them for the usual events that we use them for? Surely as long as the airframes are kept to sensible hours limits and are well husbanded there is no reason why they shouldn't fly for many more years to come."
Huey,
The BBMF should always be funded from the public purse because they belong to the British nation. So many of our ancestors paid for them with their lives. It would be TOTALLY incorrect to allow them to be "given" to a consortium on the basis of cost cutting.
The cost is tiny in proportion to what they represent and I think there would be an outcry if the RAF or MOD were to even consider this.
"I know this will encourage some fairly 'spirited' replies, but with swingeing cuts coming our way - what future has the BBMF?
Now before you all lambast me, I am a firm supporter of the Flight. It represents a great many individuals who gave their lives in the air during WWII. How much does it cost to run the unit per year? Whilst at the "College of Knowledge" we visited it and East Kirkby many times to see the Lancs engine runs etc. and were very impressed.
Could a consortium of interested parties not buy the aircraft on the understanding that they operate them for the usual events that we use them for? Surely as long as the airframes are kept to sensible hours limits and are well husbanded there is no reason why they shouldn't fly for many more years to come."
Huey,
The BBMF should always be funded from the public purse because they belong to the British nation. So many of our ancestors paid for them with their lives. It would be TOTALLY incorrect to allow them to be "given" to a consortium on the basis of cost cutting.
The cost is tiny in proportion to what they represent and I think there would be an outcry if the RAF or MOD were to even consider this.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with allowing these aircraft into private ownership or even management is that they might be handled purely for profit - that could include taking engineering shortcuts, allowing incompetant or under-trained pilots to fly them or, in the worst case, selling them.
Even RAF air ranking officers in the recent past have sold the odd one and MOD have frequently shied at the cost of running the flight.
The motto of the flight is "Lest we forget" and we must not.
If we can afford the plethora of waste in public expenditure in various government departments and in our contributions to the European Parliament then I am sure we can continue to spend a little money remembering the great and unselfish achievements of our predecessors.
Even RAF air ranking officers in the recent past have sold the odd one and MOD have frequently shied at the cost of running the flight.
The motto of the flight is "Lest we forget" and we must not.
If we can afford the plethora of waste in public expenditure in various government departments and in our contributions to the European Parliament then I am sure we can continue to spend a little money remembering the great and unselfish achievements of our predecessors.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nottingham...
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to East Kirkby last year and asked the same question,
Why do they not get it flying? The response from one of the owners was that they had no intention of getting it flying, until such times as the BBMF Lanc's flying hours have expired.
Their intentions were to keep a spare in hand, so when the inevitable did happen to 474, they could negotiate a hand over to the RAF of their airframe and this would enable a lanc to remain flying in the UK for many many years to come.
Must admit it would be nice to see two in formation but cant help agreeing with their decision.
Why do they not get it flying? The response from one of the owners was that they had no intention of getting it flying, until such times as the BBMF Lanc's flying hours have expired.
Their intentions were to keep a spare in hand, so when the inevitable did happen to 474, they could negotiate a hand over to the RAF of their airframe and this would enable a lanc to remain flying in the UK for many many years to come.
Must admit it would be nice to see two in formation but cant help agreeing with their decision.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soddim,
I think the guys who fly out of Duxford might be a little miffed at your inference that they are "incompetent" and "under-trained".
A civilian pilot flying a Spitfire or similar would have to have a lot of training and quite a few hours in a similar type just to get insured. Not so the BBMF. When it comes to experience and training I think you will find that The Old Flying Machine Company and The Fighter Collection could outdo the BBMF.
And no I'm not being disrespectful to the BBMF. I think ANY organisation that keeps warbirds flying should be applauded and supported. Aircraft are meant to be in the air. not museums.
Reichman.
I think the guys who fly out of Duxford might be a little miffed at your inference that they are "incompetent" and "under-trained".
A civilian pilot flying a Spitfire or similar would have to have a lot of training and quite a few hours in a similar type just to get insured. Not so the BBMF. When it comes to experience and training I think you will find that The Old Flying Machine Company and The Fighter Collection could outdo the BBMF.
And no I'm not being disrespectful to the BBMF. I think ANY organisation that keeps warbirds flying should be applauded and supported. Aircraft are meant to be in the air. not museums.
Reichman.
Why does the RAF never maintain other fine examples of our past aviation.
"Lest we Forget" surely applies to all the other pilots who have died before and since the period that these ac represent.
Why not an 'Historic Flight' for example.
I think it has been done before.........
"Lest we Forget" surely applies to all the other pilots who have died before and since the period that these ac represent.
Why not an 'Historic Flight' for example.
I think it has been done before.........
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reichman,
I make no apologies to you or to anybody at Duxford who feels offended. I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant but it is a fact that if BBMF's aircraft had to make a profit the operating motivation and safety considerations might well change.
The BBMF record of preservation of its' historic aircraft looks pretty good to me in comparison with Duxford or any other private collection. I rest my case.
I make no apologies to you or to anybody at Duxford who feels offended. I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant but it is a fact that if BBMF's aircraft had to make a profit the operating motivation and safety considerations might well change.
The BBMF record of preservation of its' historic aircraft looks pretty good to me in comparison with Duxford or any other private collection. I rest my case.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soddim,
Your last quote:
"I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant."
Your previous quote:
"The problem with allowing these aircraft into private ownership or even management is that they might be handled purely for profit - that could include taking engineering shortcuts, allowing incompetant or under-trained pilots to fly them...."
I fly civilian owned ex military aircaft. They are not flown for profit. They are operated under CAA rules. If I thought any engineering short cuts were taken I wouldn't fly them. If the owners/insurers thought I, or my fellow pilots, were incompetent they wouldn't let us fly them.
Does it matter who actually operates these machines as long as they are flying and bringing pleasure to the crowds who come to see them.
Reichman
Your last quote:
"I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant."
Your previous quote:
"The problem with allowing these aircraft into private ownership or even management is that they might be handled purely for profit - that could include taking engineering shortcuts, allowing incompetant or under-trained pilots to fly them...."
I fly civilian owned ex military aircaft. They are not flown for profit. They are operated under CAA rules. If I thought any engineering short cuts were taken I wouldn't fly them. If the owners/insurers thought I, or my fellow pilots, were incompetent they wouldn't let us fly them.
Does it matter who actually operates these machines as long as they are flying and bringing pleasure to the crowds who come to see them.
Reichman
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reichman,
Yes, it does matter who operates these machines because it affects their longevity and availability for those national and international occasions that a private operator might decide not to support. They are part of our national heritage and should be maintained and flown by our public service using public funds, if necessary.
Yes, it does matter who operates these machines because it affects their longevity and availability for those national and international occasions that a private operator might decide not to support. They are part of our national heritage and should be maintained and flown by our public service using public funds, if necessary.
Surely there is no justification to the retention of the BBMF as an outfit resourced and funded by the MoD anymore.
When the sight of a Spitfire, or more specifically, a Hurricane, was a real rarity then there was an obvious justification, surely with the ever increasing quantity of beautifully restored Spitfires and Hurricanes airworthy these days that justification no longer exists?
The BBMF started out as the Historic Aircraft Flight and was maintained initially purely to be able to put a Spitfire up for the annual BoB flypast over London, from here it sort of snowballed.
Howabout a halfway house like the RNHF where the outfit is privately funded and maintained but the aircrew are still current military.
Do the BBMF ginger beers still provide the Visiting Aircraft Flight for Coningsby, I know they used to.
Another problem maybe the forthcoming Airfield Services PFI that is going to privatise, amongst many other things, all of the remaining service manned VAS, VASF, TASF or whatever the are called these days.
When the sight of a Spitfire, or more specifically, a Hurricane, was a real rarity then there was an obvious justification, surely with the ever increasing quantity of beautifully restored Spitfires and Hurricanes airworthy these days that justification no longer exists?
The BBMF started out as the Historic Aircraft Flight and was maintained initially purely to be able to put a Spitfire up for the annual BoB flypast over London, from here it sort of snowballed.
Howabout a halfway house like the RNHF where the outfit is privately funded and maintained but the aircrew are still current military.
Do the BBMF ginger beers still provide the Visiting Aircraft Flight for Coningsby, I know they used to.
Another problem maybe the forthcoming Airfield Services PFI that is going to privatise, amongst many other things, all of the remaining service manned VAS, VASF, TASF or whatever the are called these days.