Then there was the VC10 that flew a simulated 2 eng approach at Brize and the crew forgot the gear....only a well observed call from ATC prvented a wheels up - GPWS wouldve stopped it. Not forgetting that ac was flown by Trg Flt staff.

I flew and loved the VC10 for 12 years, it provided endless adventures, but the 4 man flightdeck is safer argument is I'm afraid one from the dinosaurs.

Now back to my Airbus and it's faults! :)

Tourist

Beagle is entitled to his opinion like anyone else and although he is no longer flying the VC10, he was one of the best operators of his generation, and with a few thousand hours on the VC10 flight deck, he has a fair idea of what procedures are in place.

Back to the point - the VC10 flies all over the world (right now) carrying exercise and operational pax. It sometimes carries these pax with a couple of fast jets attached to its backside, whilst discharging lots of fuel at quite high speeds..... not exactly civilian SOP.

Risk assessment i get, changing the rules as to what is acceptable today, is not tomorrow, oh, but we need it to do this task so its ok again the day after... is a pain in the ass.

Torygraph: James Blunt misses Afghanistan concert

It was meant to be a morale-boosting trip to cheer up hundreds of troops spending Christmas in Afghanistan.

Instead, international superstars James Blunt and Katherine Jenkins got a taste of the kind of problems faced by soldiers heading to and from the battlefield as they found themselves stranded for 15 hours at East Midlands airport.

The gaffes lead Mr Blunt, a former officer in the Life Guards, to tell friends that it “bad organisation, verging on incompetence” that led to the cancellation. Fortunately neither singer was aware that the antique VC10 aircraft they had boarded had been banned from taking passengers bar in exceptional circumstances because of safety fears over its ageing equipment.

The two singers joined 160 soldiers at East Midlands airport for a 7am flight on Tuesday to fly out to Helmand for a two-show tour. Mr Blunt was particularly keen to get out to Afghanistan after aircraft problems prevented him travelling last year.

An initial 90 minute delay was caused by the RAF failing to have the right equipment to load the meals on board. Once this was cleared the crew boarded only to discover that the 50-year-old aeroplane’s airborne radar system was malfunctioning. But they had to wait eight hours before they got clearance from RAF chiefs to fly without the problem fixed.

The passengers were then allowed to board shortly after 4pm but the RAF ground movers miscounted the passengers and enforced another delay because they believed they had an extra person on board.

As a result they missed their re-scheduled take-off slot for shortly after 5pm.

But the previous hold-ups meant that the aircrew were outside their duty hours and needed an enforced rest and the aircraft could not fly on its new take-off slot.

The plane had to be emptied but it took almost five hours to get everyone off as no buses could be found to off-load the troops. They were not allowed to walk to the terminal just 75 yards away.

No replacement aircrew could be found and the entire flight was cancelled.

A friend of James Blunt told The Daily Telegraph that the blunders were down to “bad organization, verging on incompetence within the structure of the RAF”.............

If I was on the front line, NOT having James Blunt trying to sing, would be the better morale booster than having him there..

at last a bit of good news..............

RAF save UK troops in Afghanistan from being forced to listen to diminutive squeeky one hit wonder!

Having woken up in pedantic nit picker mode - it is my understanding that the VC10 CMk1 entered RAF service in July 1966 and commenced regular route flights on 4 April 1967.

You mean it's suddenly unsafe to fly without GPWS?

Not sure how I'll cope from now on. Especially this single pilot IFR stuff.

If today's RAF transport crews need GPWS to tell them when to round out over the runway (!), we should all be very concerned. Perhaps the least of our worries should be the age of the airframes?

P.S. If the VC10 is that bad, I demand my money back for all that highly risky backwards flying they made me do. Thinking about it, they never gave me a hi-vis vest to wear, either. How bad was that?

I'm completely traumatised, just before Christmas, too. Where do I claim..... :E

Justanopinion, thanks for the comment - where should I send the cheque?

To say that the VC10 is no longer safe to carry passengers because it doesn't have exit floor lighting or GPWS is a bit like saying it isn't safe to carry passengers in a 20 year old car which has neither airbags nor rear seatbelts. It might not be as 'wrapped in cotton wool' safe as a modern aircraft, but it isn't 'unsafe'.

I don't know whether the CCWR has been upgraded from the orange porridge Ecko 190 the VC10 had when I flew them, but I would have far sooner had a modern radar system than a GPWS.

And yes, GPWS Mode 4A would possibly have stopped that C-130 wheels-up landing.

I don't know when that alleged 2-engine wheels-up approach was flown, but most of us had a 'personal' gear/flap/clearance check at '1000 ft'. But if it is true, then well spotted that ATC person!

When conducting instructor training, I would contrive to get the student instructor into a potential gear up situation, but only after secretly briefing the whole crew first. I would play the Bloggs pilot bit, querying the specific route of the visual circuit for long enough to reach the base turn, then call out 'flap - approach' and fly as normal - when the gear horn went off, the student FI was expected to take control and sort matters out. I expected him to go around onto the deadside, then we would discuss how easy it was to be lulled into such a situation. This ensured that the student FI would probably NEVER get into the same situation with a real student!

No, in the VC10, GPWS would be a 'nice to have', but I do not consider it essential given the presence of 2 well-trained rear crew on the flight deck.

Yes - and maintaining crew situational awareness has mitigated the risks to an acceptable degree. I would be quite happy to return to the VC10 and fly the aeroplane as it stands.

GPWS, like so many other pieces of kit on an aeroplane, is there in part to enhance safety and in part to covers the @rses of aircrew who are not doing their job properly.

It will help to make an operation more safe but its absence does not necessarily make the operation UNsafe.

OK, a close call perhaps - although I've never heard of that incident before - but maybe also one that makes the point that "Management" or "Training" staff crews are the ones most likely to screw it up (remember the 8 Sqn Shackelton crash in 1990 and the 216 "broken spar" incident c1985?). I'm not complacent - I recognise that GPWS, TCAS etc. have a benefit but their absence does not make an aeroplane unsafe to fly. 80% of civil airliner accidents are caused by people and quite often because they ignore GPWS (Flying Tigers 747F in Kuala Lumpur) or TCAS (Tu154 that hit the DHL 757). The Flying Tigers crew were flying an NDB approach without the plates in front of them, descending to 400' when cleared to 2400' QNH and ignored GPWS instructions for almost 30 secs. There were numerous opportunities there for a more professional approach to operations to have saved their lives.

You cannot prevent idiots killing themselves and their companions. There have been cases where two crew aircraft have flown into the ground with the GPWS screaming "PULL UP!!!" and the crew shouting "SHUT-UP!!"
No. The accidents that led up to its introduction all occurred on three-crew aircraft. GPWS has probably been the most useful innovation in avionics during my 46 years as an avionics engineer.

However, the appearance of Katherine Jenkins would certainly boost MY morale (if I may call it that!).

BEagle, so you stand by your statement about wet behind the ears pilots and idiots?
That's precisely the attitude that leads to CFIT accidents - "It won't happen to me". Pathetic.

Blacksheep is quite correct.

Nothing is Foolproof - because Fools are too ingenious.

James Blunt - the only man to be his own cockney rhyming slang

Who are James Blunt and Katherine Jenkins anyway? Don't think I ever flew them on 10 Sqn.

The other problem with GPWS is that of unintended consequences. In the early days of A310 MRTT crew training, the GPWS suddenly issued an alert whilst we were conducting AAR on Saxon anchor.... The reason was that one of the receivers had crossed a bit too close underneath the back of the jet and the GPWS had found itself a 'glass mountain'. But what concerned me was the way both pilots looked at each other in confusion, without knowing what to do. Fortunately the wise head in the jump seat told them "It's spurious, carry on with your tanking!" We were also concerned that an electric nanny might also call out "Retard, retard" if the receivers got within 30ft of the rad alt, so a note to this effect is now included in the relevant FCOM section.

CRM? I was always amused by RFK's comment about that: "CRM? That's for poofs!".

The 'wet-behind-the-ears' comment was to infer that that GPWS is supposed to make flying 2-pilot people-tubes safe no matter how inexperienced the crew are - that's all.

If you read the article, it looks like 'yellow coat' elfin safety nonsense - the passengers weren't allowed to walk 75 yards to the terminal.

EXascot fraid you are showing your ignorance. Movers are just that, not suppliers. Only the Orificers are Loggies with a mover tick. :rolleyes:

And it's the officers that cause the trouble, in my experience.