Typhoon and VC10 divert to Chile
 

2 Typhoons and a VC10 divert from the Falklands to Chile, link below. Not sure this has ever happened before, anybody know of a similar incident? Sounds like something went wrong, Met, ambitious Auth or just mother nature. Good one for the log book though!




http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas[/URL]

Here's a link that works..

Diverted,

I may be mistaken, however I have a suspicion that the title of the article provides a clue as to the reason they diverted! :rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

PS...Are you RAF Police?:ok:

Probably not - the Typhoon is a relatively recent addition to the FI :}

Part if that story mentions a non-stop flight from UK to the Falklands by 4 typhoons.
Was this just to prove that we can still Black Buck? :cool:

It's SOP to divert to your nominated diversion airfield if you can't land at your destination, it's the same in the Falkland Islands as anywhere else. MPA is one of those airfields where the changeable Wx can easily catch you out, having your own Tanker gives you options but you've all got to land somewhere before the fuel runs out!

From the following Argentine news link.

'Apparently the planes were en route to Chile for an aeronautical expo.'

'Air Force confirms British planes were authorized to enter Argentine airspace when flying from Malvinas to Chile'

Buenos Aires Herald

TJ

They were apparently from the British Real Air Force, as opposed, presumably, to the FAA or AAC.

Still not got to grips with low viz then.

There are cheap brazilian civvy jets that can fly to 3A limits on HUD or Autoland to 3B limits. The equipment and servicing both for the ILS and aircraft cost pennies compared to some other military ventures.

Clockwork

I think you're wrong to presume. 'Real' is Spanish for 'Royal'.

FE Hoppy makes a very valid point - why have the RAF continued to operate 'all weather' fighters that need 600m or so vis to land?

Before the pedants strike, I know, 'all weather' has always applied to day and night capability but surely it is time that it applied as all weather.

Perhaps it is, Dad. However, Air and Force are not spanish words, are they.

I was always told that the lack of 'All weather' capability was an Aircrew limitation and nothing to do with the aircraft.....have I been misinformed!!?

Well, I'd say that was a very sensible and measured report from Argentina.

What did people expect? "Los hijos de putas invaded our beloved country"?

The weather at Base Aerea Gringo, Islas Malvinas, is notoriously unpredictable and, at this time of year, is particularly dog$hit. So a diversion is not terribly surprising, if the weather-guesser porked-up his morning session with his beetles and fir cones and failed to forecast the likelihood of fog.

As for the bolleaux about Cat III operation, I think that anyone who is familiar with the Islas will know all about the terrain problems which rule out such installations. Whether the training cost would be worth the effort and expense for the few days per year when Cat III would actually be necessary even in the UK is a matter of doubt.

of course if the weather was so unpredictable in the Falklands Eagle then this diversion would have been one of many over the years would it not? Funnily enough it isn't, perhaps the aircraft concerned should have been recalled when the weather started closing in.

Two easist places to forecast:

Cyprus......Sunny
FI.....'Changeable'

:)

Having spent 5 years on 216 I'm familiar with the "terrain" and there is nothing to prevent a Cat 3 installation.

I think that BEagle has probably got to the heart of the issue, the costs involved in generating a CAT III capability and maintaining it for the few days a year when it may be needed are simply not warranted. It is not a matter of just putting in an uprated ground installation, the aircraft themselves need to have the capability and reliabilty and technical history to carry out the approach to CAT III, the crews have to be qualified, practiced and current, and the required ground procedures need to be adopted. The costs and risks are just not worth it for a military operation in peacetime.

''All Weather''
 

Same on the Tanker /trooping fleet! Still 200ft/500metres and no no A/L.

In BA we operated the same a/c to 100metres RVR/0 DH
Quite a simple operation, Tech content on Conversion course, a few Sim details, a few sectors under supervision and away you go. Worked every time. Even on the VC10 we got down to Cat111.

What about CatII ? 100ft/300metres every modern a/c can get that, even the TriStar. Just a crew training exercise. Not an A/L, just a sim detail or two and a coupled App to manual landing.

Technical issues associated with adding a Cat III capability to existing ME aircraft are considerable, as would be the associated training burden. 'A few' simulator exercises would add to the total training cost and maintaining the associated pilot recency would be far from straightforward.

Whilst the VC10 might have flown to Cat III limits with ba, current regulatory requirements are considerably more demanding. I don't know whether there's been much improvement in recent years, but the reliability of an auto-coupled approach in an RAF VC10 wasn't particularly good even 7 years ago. Random disconnects at GS intercept were infuriatingly common and autothrottle speed maintenance wasn't particularly accurate.

Cat II limits offer little more than Cat I; the number of days when the cloudbase is between 100 and 200 ft a.a.l. being pretty few. Whereas Cat III, for those who need such a capability on a daily basis, offers true 'no DH' operation. At a cost - which is probably acceptable if your airline revenue stream requires it and you operate a fleet of modern aircraft.

Some years ago, the northern parallel road was relocated at Brize at considerable expense, the intention being to prepare for LVPs for the TriStar. After the work had been completed, it was discovered that the terrain even at Brize didn't allow for anything better than a Cat I ILS installation on RW26, the almost fatal crash of a TriStar on RW08 led to auto-coupled approaches even to Cat I limits being banned on RW08 - most people who have a lot of experience of flying at Brize will be familiar with the undulating glideslope on RW08!

With regard to MPA, terrain relief on the approach to the RW28 is rather less benign than the terrain relief at Brize. Whether it would even be possible to flatten the landscape sufficiently to accommodate a Cat III ILS I don't know - but the cost of the occasional rare diversion will undoubtedly be far less.

But why bother unless the Typhoon also has a 0 ft DH autoland capability?

Are VSTOL jets harder to land in bad weather than conventional jets or easier? e.g would a 'B' JSF have been able to do it (ignoring the tanker for a moment)?