Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF VC10 accident in October 1984

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF VC10 accident in October 1984

Old 13th Oct 2021, 20:44
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,010
Originally Posted by morton View Post
FILO What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
p.s. Is the CCWR still called 'Cloud & Clunk' radar?
Yes, it was. Not sure why you ask, but from the 80s-on there could be little expectation of consistent CCWR performance. The VC10 had a dual-transmitter fit of the Lo-Power variant, but like (e.g.) Hercules, suffered from a lack of assets, so quite possibly a service mod was issued to allow a hybrid, with the Hi-Power transmitter. But that needed complementary mods elsewhere, which were seldom if ever embodied. Such as, different circuit breakers and anti-vibration mounts.

The other main issue was thermal. There was a mod to upgrade from Germanium to Silicon, but MoD decided to embody it in slow time, over a period of many years. Decades even. The latter allowed a different and less stringent cooling convention, but a Germanium LRU fitted to a 'Silicon' aircaft would inevitably fail. You'd get No Fault Found on the bench, and it would fail again when fitted. Similar problems at Culdrose on the Radar Procedures Ground Trainer, with 9 Control Indicators causing a lot of noise, and cooling fans were removed. You had to demand by mod strike off number, which was ok until 1985 after which the RN did not control its own assets. In January 1988, AMSO (RAF) ordered the destruction of all component spares. Then replaced them. Then scrapped them again. Then.....

It is because of this I have sympathy with the VSO who was visiting Emerson in the US, looked at their nice colour Weather Radar (the whole thing cost about half a CCWR Transmitter) and said 'I want that'. Emerson launched production. The VSO was quietly told by DG Contracts that he had inadvertently committed MoD to a contract, which was quietly cancelled.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 21:22
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,689
Originally Posted by Jhieminga View Post
Thank you morton! Much appreciated.

If the Aeropark at EMA would have taken on the whole thing, the tail would have been too high, and be too close to the active runway at East Midlands.
and the other way around it would have overhung the boundary.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 10:01
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 72
Posts: 100
Ref Cloud & Clunk Weather Radar (CCWR)

Yes, it was. Not sure why you ask

No particular reason tucumseh, just a flash back in time and thinking, with a tenuous connection, of the V-Bomber electronic suite curious namesthread.
A thorough and comprehensive reply on your part as usual.
p.s. my 100th post. Do I get a Gold Star or some sort of laudatory award now?
morton is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 12:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,047
An honorary mention on my site will have to do I'm afraid. We're out of medals.
https://www.vc10.net/History/inciden...l#BrizeThunder
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 15:20
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,689
Ref Cloud & Clunk Weather Radar (CCWR)
Commonly known as the yellatelly
NutLoose is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 16:31
  #26 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,499
"That’s where the Captain asked the ground eng (K---- A--------) to relieve the first officer from the controls. K---- obliged by thumping the co-pilot and knocking him out."
Assuming this to be true, one hopes the Grd Eng was commissioned, and senior to the co-pilot. Otherwise cats and pigeons come to mind.
Herod is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 19:04
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,971
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
Assuming this to be true, one hopes the Grd Eng was commissioned, and senior to the co-pilot. Otherwise cats and pigeons come to mind.
Depends on "asked" or "ordered". Under the circumstances, I would expect "ordered".

We next move to the question of legality of the order. I reckon it would pass that test.

And the outcome seems to have been beneficial.

Case dismissed.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 21:34
  #28 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,499
Seems unusual though, unless the co was throwing a wobbly in the RHS. Usually a firm "I have control" should be enough.
Herod is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 05:44
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 445
There are plenty of examples of CM where the perp/victim combo has been senior to junior and vice versa etc. LB legal order-I wouldn't ask you to defend at CM !

I am more curious as to how the co-pilot attempted to stop since even when he was the op pilot he did still not have his hands on the throttles during take off.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 11:21
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,689
Anyone remember the VC10 practice display when OC Ops? missed the centreline and we watched as shockwaves formed over the wings and he trailed vapour as he attempted to heave it back onto the line... when it landed they refused to say how much over G it pulled but said it had pulled "some" and tried to keep it quiet, the meter in the cockpit having been reset. That left the only option open to us to do a full over G check on it, that took longer than a day so when the Aircraft availability stats went in it was listed as over G checks.. needless to say that got some attention in places up the line.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 09:15
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bed
Posts: 242
I flew the aircraft for 13 years and never heard of this incident. Plenty of engine failures (and the occasional fight) but not this out of Deci
sangiovese. is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 12:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S W France
Age: 77
Posts: 223
I flew the mighty beast for four tours, and was flying in a pretty Hemp coloured aircraft from the south side of the airfield on the date mentioned.
Not disputing any facts about the engine failure ( rare as it was ). If the co-pilot had acted as alleged i'm pretty sure we would have been given
a Flight Safety brief about it, or at least heard the scuttlebutt about 'X' being given an E Cat.

Anyway in my experience on 10 Sqn the Ground Engineer would not usually be on the flight deck but down the back enjoying a well earned cold
or hot drink and a plate of something rustled up by the Loadie. The Air Engineer, who would have hold of the throttles, would have prevented the
Co from further hazarding the aircraft, together with the Loud Shout of 'NO' from the Captain and Nav. The Air Engineer also had control of the
'Co-Pilot Control Tool' ( AKA Crash Axe ) stowed in his desk drawer!
Tengah Type is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 16:59
  #33 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,499
Tengah Type. Agree totally. I never flew the 10, but from C-130 experience, this just wouldn't happen. As for having to be knocked out, he would certainly be grounded for mental assessment.
Herod is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 17:25
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bed
Posts: 242
I forgot the Eng used to lock his (and her!) wrist behind their Throttles So you couldn’t move them anyway
sangiovese. is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 21:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S W France
Age: 77
Posts: 223
Herod & Sangiovese

Is it still allowed on PPRuNe for three people/persons/entities to agree on something? Seems quite rare these days!
Tengah Type is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2021, 07:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Tengah Type View Post
Herod & Sangiovese

Is it still allowed on PPRuNe for three people/persons/entities to agree on something? Seems quite rare these days!
No it isn't.
farefield is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2021, 09:39
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,689
Originally Posted by farefield View Post
No it isn't.

I disagree...
NutLoose is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.