Tornado off runway
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for you Tonka guys; why did he over-run the runway when he's got fairly powerful reverse thrust ?
I notice he ended up to one side, which I'd like to think was airmanship...
I can very well appreciate that a big whole in the front quarter side canopy is nothing minor, I've been half out of a/c for filming ( with harness ) at 150kts, so I do know the incredible forces involved even at that speed & distraction / visibilty under the visor & maybe some instruments out possibilities.
Or after the birdstrike was reverse thrust deliberately not selected, possibly even flaps etc too, as there may have been asymetric damage ?
I find the mention somewhere above about a possible collision rather unlikely, as it would have been difficult / a very rare spot-on hit not to have bent some of the metal around the canopy too ( though one could say the same - apart from the alloy arch - about the position of the bird strike ) ?!
Good news is they walked away - bad news, to Newcastle.
I notice he ended up to one side, which I'd like to think was airmanship...
I can very well appreciate that a big whole in the front quarter side canopy is nothing minor, I've been half out of a/c for filming ( with harness ) at 150kts, so I do know the incredible forces involved even at that speed & distraction / visibilty under the visor & maybe some instruments out possibilities.
Or after the birdstrike was reverse thrust deliberately not selected, possibly even flaps etc too, as there may have been asymetric damage ?
I find the mention somewhere above about a possible collision rather unlikely, as it would have been difficult / a very rare spot-on hit not to have bent some of the metal around the canopy too ( though one could say the same - apart from the alloy arch - about the position of the bird strike ) ?!
Good news is they walked away - bad news, to Newcastle.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never having flown anything with reverse thrust I don't know the answer but using reverse thrust on one engine with the other dead having eaten a bird is probably a good reason for not using it, assymetry and things?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero, whilst I'm not prepared to speculate about the causes of this incident, hopefully I can give some generic insight. Part of the way Tornado is designed incorporates more than one hydraulic system, which helps with redundancy. However, it would be bulky and heavy to have every system powered by both hyd channels. Some of the systems are fed by either the left or the right hyd system - for example the spoilers are split inboard/outboard and driven by different hyd feeds. Another example is nosewheel steering, which is driven by just one side of the hyd system. It is possible that a birdstrike might disable some systems but not others, leading to unusual system deployment on landing.
Edit to add: Reverse thrust has it's own set of limitations in use, which may preclude or restrict it's use in some circumstances. If the speed is low enough and you suffer a wheel brake failure, say, rev thrust may not be able to stop you rolling off the runway into the grass.
Following a bird strike, one option available to the crew is to carry out a low speed handling check - usually carried out if airframe but not engine damage is suspected. To carry this out you can fly into a safe area - for example over the sea or in the overhead of an airfield, and then progressively slow down and configure the aircraft, monitoring it for loss of control. This could, for example, reveal that the flaps won't travel beyond mid, or a tendancy to roll below a certain speed. Armed with this knowledge the crew can then modify their approach accordingly. In most cases, a birdstrike leaves you time to climb away from the ground, catch your breath and then solve any ensuing problems in slow time - very rarely do you need to throw the aircraft on the ground straight away.
Anyway, hope this helps a little. I've tried to avoid speculation on this partictular incident but I hope I've made it a little clearer why you might see aircraft landing from a birdstrike in unusual configurations.
Blunty
Edit to add: Reverse thrust has it's own set of limitations in use, which may preclude or restrict it's use in some circumstances. If the speed is low enough and you suffer a wheel brake failure, say, rev thrust may not be able to stop you rolling off the runway into the grass.
Following a bird strike, one option available to the crew is to carry out a low speed handling check - usually carried out if airframe but not engine damage is suspected. To carry this out you can fly into a safe area - for example over the sea or in the overhead of an airfield, and then progressively slow down and configure the aircraft, monitoring it for loss of control. This could, for example, reveal that the flaps won't travel beyond mid, or a tendancy to roll below a certain speed. Armed with this knowledge the crew can then modify their approach accordingly. In most cases, a birdstrike leaves you time to climb away from the ground, catch your breath and then solve any ensuing problems in slow time - very rarely do you need to throw the aircraft on the ground straight away.
Anyway, hope this helps a little. I've tried to avoid speculation on this partictular incident but I hope I've made it a little clearer why you might see aircraft landing from a birdstrike in unusual configurations.
Blunty
Last edited by BluntM8; 6th Aug 2008 at 21:28.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info reference the reverse thrust.... You can use one engine at up to full reverse thrust with the other one at idle/shut-down, all depends upon the crosswind and braking action of the runway. 
Not saying that this was an option for them. It would be unprofessional to speculate as to the cause as we don't have any other facts.
Pleased you walked away.
Not saying that this was an option for them. It would be unprofessional to speculate as to the cause as we don't have any other facts.
Pleased you walked away.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the wing sweep angle on arrival? It's hard to tell from the photos I've seen so far but it looks like the wings might not be all the way forwards to 25 degrees? Reports in the news suggest a very fast touch down.
It seems a pity that 90% of the Wannabe Test Pilot on here weren't flying the aircraft, because no doubt they would have done it all better than the qualified guy who safely landed it. 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Age: 52
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe Landing
I hope this isn't an official definition of "landing safely", or we might have to get a few spare jets.....
Obviously I don't know what happened and I'm sure everyone did very well etc etc...
Obviously I don't know what happened and I'm sure everyone did very well etc etc...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The quiet part of Papa 18.
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad the crew walked away uninjured.
On our local news last night, was a quote that opened my eyes.
An airport worker reported "the speed of the jet was about 300mph as it touched down"
Is it at all possible the speed could have been anywhere near that? The runway is 2329 metres long... and the GR4 came to rest off the runway but short of the trees/bushes on the perimeter.
On our local news last night, was a quote that opened my eyes.
An airport worker reported "the speed of the jet was about 300mph as it touched down"
Is it at all possible the speed could have been anywhere near that? The runway is 2329 metres long... and the GR4 came to rest off the runway but short of the trees/bushes on the perimeter.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300mph would be a stretch to believe. The shuttle only lands at 215mph ! (when it's not doing a wide area landing over Texas anyway)
I seem to recall when I learned to fly that all landings are controlled crashes anyway and as long as you have the same number of landings as take offs in your log book you're a winner.
I seem to recall when I learned to fly that all landings are controlled crashes anyway and as long as you have the same number of landings as take offs in your log book you're a winner.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
you have the same number of landings as take offs
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will never see that aircraft fly again in my RAF career.
I might see it on the chariot that brings it to Marham thought!
E-mail to RSS Control required please!
I remember being on the team that fixed up 20 Sqn's old "GT" at Laarparts when it decided that its nose gear was going to rip out half its bay. We fixed the ground away maxiskirt as well. The bod who did it repaired it did his best, but it never really matched back up with the Kite. Our resident artist did a charecature picture of the guy in a superhero cape, nailing the thing back together.."Gash Gordon, you've got 14 months to save the Maxiskirt!"
I might see it on the chariot that brings it to Marham thought!
E-mail to RSS Control required please!
I remember being on the team that fixed up 20 Sqn's old "GT" at Laarparts when it decided that its nose gear was going to rip out half its bay. We fixed the ground away maxiskirt as well. The bod who did it repaired it did his best, but it never really matched back up with the Kite. Our resident artist did a charecature picture of the guy in a superhero cape, nailing the thing back together.."Gash Gordon, you've got 14 months to save the Maxiskirt!"
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 7th Aug 2008 at 22:53.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
andrewmcharlton
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 38
Posts: 107
300mph would be a stretch to believe. The shuttle only lands at 215mph ! (when it's not doing a wide area landing over Texas anyway)
I seem to recall when I learned to fly that all landings are controlled crashes anyway and as long as you have the same number of landings as take offs in your log book you're a winner.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 38
Posts: 107
300mph would be a stretch to believe. The shuttle only lands at 215mph ! (when it's not doing a wide area landing over Texas anyway)
I seem to recall when I learned to fly that all landings are controlled crashes anyway and as long as you have the same number of landings as take offs in your log book you're a winner.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newcastle is only 6700Ft long. In an emergency, like after a bad 'Bird Strike', the crew may not have had the option of picking their landing airfield and might have been heavier than they would wish.
From experience, I can say that landing a Tornado, single engined and heavy would be a challenge on a runway so short. Single engine thrust reverse is effective, but has some limitations, depending on the crosswind of the day.
Bottom line is, they probably had to make some hard choices, and did the best they could in the conditions. It could have been much worse.
Well done folks, I'm sure you didn't 'plan' it that way!
Regards,
Advo
From experience, I can say that landing a Tornado, single engined and heavy would be a challenge on a runway so short. Single engine thrust reverse is effective, but has some limitations, depending on the crosswind of the day.
Bottom line is, they probably had to make some hard choices, and did the best they could in the conditions. It could have been much worse.
Well done folks, I'm sure you didn't 'plan' it that way!
Regards,
Advo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The quiet part of Papa 18.
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advo
Nice post mate.
Whatever the speed was, whether 300mph+ or not the guys, or girls did a sensational job to get it down and to a standstill in one piece.
2329 metres, or 6700 feet isn't that long when having to make a critical decision.
Nice post mate.
Whatever the speed was, whether 300mph+ or not the guys, or girls did a sensational job to get it down and to a standstill in one piece.
2329 metres, or 6700 feet isn't that long when having to make a critical decision.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing apparently. And seeing as the crew was safe then it was a good landing right?
The pilot may have steered it off center so as to avoid the r/w lights? But is there a point in speculating since the crews are uninjured and nothing terrible happened? I would assume that birdstrikes are scary things and in my opinion the crew did well to land and wal away form it, and I'm sure their boss would say the same thing!
Just my two cents.
The pilot may have steered it off center so as to avoid the r/w lights? But is there a point in speculating since the crews are uninjured and nothing terrible happened? I would assume that birdstrikes are scary things and in my opinion the crew did well to land and wal away form it, and I'm sure their boss would say the same thing!
Just my two cents.