Sea Vixen
 

Dear all,

The Royal Navy Historic Flight Sea Vixen has made a wheels up landing back at Yeovilton after its display at Duxford....loss of hydraulics meant flapless landing after circuits talking with engineers, but the pilot walked away with no fire or impacts other than skidding along Yeoviltons finest concrete. Pictures coming in but are not mine so not sure if I can share. Poo

Picture credit - Scott Dabinett

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c5&oe=59A05B79

It declared an gear related emergency state 2 at Boscombe last week. That photo looks like what I was relived not see from the office window.

I think she's a bit too complex an aircraft for the Navy to maintain! :D

It seems to be far too complex for the civilian team that maintains it are capable of doing so. It is a civilian Permit to Fly aircraft and in no way connected to the military bar the facilities Yeovilton offers and the pilot whom I believe is still serving. Oh, the canopy carts were fitted by a mate still serving in the RAF as a favour. They worked.

Painful to see. Couple of questions came to mind:

1. Was there anyone in the coal hole.

2. Are the bang seats armed.

3. Is it SOP to jettison the canopy in such a situation

And obviously very happy everyone was ok.

Sea Vixen Does Wheels-Up Emergency Landing at Yeovilton 27 May 2017
https://theaviationist.com/wp-conten...incident-2.jpg Photo by Mr. Scott Dabinett

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...7.jpg~original

Recent Vampire ripping up runway thread had discussion about switches in odd places - Sea Vixen has similar issues with gear handle position but doing 'after landing checks' whilst still on runway? 5 April 2012

Read all about THEM: Postwar 5 de Havilland Vampire, Venom and Sea Vixen

https://www.scribd.com/doc/52083880/...-and-Sea-Vixen (PDF 93 MegaGiggles)

I do not know anything other than the words in this Sea Vixen FAW Mk2 pilot notes page here:

The Sea Vixen has a RAT, which AFAIR was primarily for hydraulic services, particularly the flight controls. Daily check before / after flight with automatic deployment as normal hydraulic pressure decayed.
The undercarriage had an emergency lowering selection on the normal gear handle, being either a segregated hydraulic supply or a dedicated reserve.
Thus a gear up landing would be the result of very unusual circumstances. The gear could have suffered a mechanical jam, but all three at once - selection system.
The hydraulic flight controls appeared to be working; thus some power may have been available - not a complete loss of fluid? Flaps up perhaps a recommendation for a gear up landing; wing tank retention appears to have been a good decision.Tail bumpers are sturdy metal blocks which could be used during aerodynamic braking, but in this instance they may have minimise rear fuselage damage.
Canopy jettison might have been a well considered alternative because the operating system is electric, and presumably the plan was to select all power off after touchdown. The canopy elect and a manual backup / emergency unlock IMHO were not very reliable.

All of the above subject to failing memory of a low hours, love / hate relationship with the aircraft - involving many elect / fuel pump failures, undercarriage, canopy, and hook problems; fortunately only operated the aircraft feet dry.

"Far too complex for the civilian team...." I wondered how long that bandwagon would take to start rolling. Before it does it's worth pointing out that an awful lot of Sea Vixens (and other fighters of that generation) were lost in accidents while in service

A big BRAVO ZULU to Si Hargreaves for sticking with the jet and for such a smooth landing thus minimising the damage. :ok::ok:

Short vid clip of approach, touch down and canopy jettison...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5qEhY3XD6Q

-RP

LJ - I'll second that

safetypee
The Sea Vixen D3 has electrically selected-hydraulically operated undercarriage and flaps. The underwing tanks cannot be jettisoned as this is disabled.

Probably just my imagination, but did it seem that he had the gear down for longer than one would normally expect during the Duxford display preceding this landing? It is on youtube beside the clip linked above.

The last time I saw a Sea Vixen land with the gear up it never flew again, but was used as a ground training aid at HMS Daedalus.

I hope this one will fare better, but I doubt if the money will be available to repair it.

Fonsini,

This was a display sortie whereby minimum crew only is permitted. The Vixen can be flown solo and, therefore, there was no-one in the 'coal hole'. The seats were live.

More likely, too expensive for a group of well meaning, however trained and experienced, volunteers.

Let us make one thing clear, this aircraft DOES NOT belong to the RN Historic Flight. It belongs to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, a registered charity recognised by the Naval Service and one that operates without paying for its facilities, aviation fuel or other services.

Rumour has it that its participation at Duxford was not endorsed by Finance Director Navy nor was an MoU in place and signed.

I think leaving the canopy jettison until inside the airfield boundary is a good idea - at least the area should be devoid of people and houses! :ok:

In the clip posted by 'rhino power', at the 29 second mark the RAT is visible and at the 33 second mark the canopy rails can be seen separating from the canopy. The canopy jettison system certainly did what it said on the tin:)

Am I right in thinking that the hydraulic system had a major re-build over the winter?

I don't recall why this was done, was it as a response to reliability concerns?

Looks like he waited for the 'scraping' noise before blowing the canopy.
Superb landing apart from the lack of wheels though.

3 page PDF from Fly Navy Heritage Trust FNHT about the Sea Vixen FAW Mk2 attached:

http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/content...w_Layout_1.PDF

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...M.jpg~original

It should be remembered that G-CVIX (XP924) is not a FAW2, it is a D3. There are differences. The FNHT seem to like calling her a FAW2 because outwardly she looks like one:)

What a pity. She was the main attraction at next week's fly navy day at shuttleworth. I wonder if they going to replace her with something else ?

Does the UK taxpayer pick up the tab for the costs for the removal of the aircraft and any repairs to 27 and returning the airfield to an operational standard?
That aircraft must have nearly used the entire 7000 foot plus, surprised it didn't reach the 09 end barrier.
Just another weekend with vintage aircraft that just don't cut it anymore, isn't it? Superb bit of recovery by the pilot. But will lessons be learnt?

With complex aircraft, this happens sometimes.

When all is said and done, this looks to have been very well handled by the pilot and brought to a safe conclusion, BZ Sir!

Shame about the Sea Vixen, she is a beautiful aircraft. I do hope she will live to fly again. I remember doing my trade training on Escape Systems on Sea Vixens at Cosford in '83. Oh the intricacies of the underwater ejection system!

Mortmeister

Hangarshuffle
I would imagine that the insurance company will pick up the tab for any damage caused. As well as the repair bill for the aircraft.
After all, is that not why the CAA require the aircraft to be insured:ok:

SpazSinbad, thank you for that interesting Emergency Handling .pdf but despite anything the test pilots have advised, what you actually do on the day is up to the pilot. TF it all ended well.

Does it really matter if the 'UK taxpayer' picks up the tab for shifting the Sea Vixen?
Sometimes Hangershuffle you need to look a little further than the end of your nose.
What a misery you are...:yuk:

'Basil' I'm agreeing with the 'what you actually do on the day is up to the pilot' however Pilot Notes may be 'out of date' according to later pilots and SOPs perhaps. These details I do not know while I thought it was clear I was just parroting a Pilot Note. However pilots making up stuff as they go along can be hazardous if Pilot Notes are disregarded. Starting out at NAS Nowra in the A4G Skyhawk era when fixed wing aircraft were changing from the British Pilot Note tymes (if they were by then available) to the comprehensive USN NATOPS safety culture - I would pick the NATOPS (even though it might have been noted as the BIG BLUE SLEEPING PILL). NATOPS are said to be 'written in blood' from not only test pilot experience but also pilot usage in extreme circumstances over time. This meant that EMERGENCY PROCEDURES would change sometimes.

For example in the early 1970s it was NATOPS procedure to carry out a 'short field arrest on empty underwing tanks' with certain U/C problems. By the late 1970s this NATOPS action had been changed to 'land on empty tanks on foamed runway - NO ARREST'. Not being in the RAN FAA by the late 1970s I can only guess that as noted in earlier NATOPS there was danger in landing short of the short field gear, to have the wire go over the nose of the aircraft, causing pilot death. My point is that Emergency Procedures change while the pilot quite rightly has the freedom to change actions - he may do so at peril perhaps. And I agree all is well that ends well in this case at Yeovilton.

Here is an example of 'all is well that ends well' KIWI TA-4K KAHU arresting - not quite per SOP - with U/C damaged and UP. The aircraft lands well short of the short field gear so it slides into the wire which thankfully catches the drop tanks and goes no further over them or the aircraft: [the 'fire' at end is from fuel vapour in the D/Ts]

and she was built as one.... the D3 conversion came later

Thanks LOM.

I can remember several Sea Vixens being converted at Farnborough in the late '70s (under contract to Flight Refuelling) for target drone work at Llanbedr, was that the D3? I thought drones had a 'U' prefix.
Tarrant Rushton was still open then and the Flight Refuelling test pilot used to fly into Farnborough to test fly them.
On one occasion, a Vixen was pulled out of the hangar, the test pilot arrived and got togged up; next thing we knew the Vixen was being put back into the hangar along with the TPs Aztec.
Apparently he had been a bit enthusiastic leaping into the Vixen and had struck his head on the forward part of the canopy nearly knocking himself out!
Was this a common occurence with the type I wonder?

Drone designation in the UK was changed from U to D sometime during the 1970s.

Agree Nige, these folks that always scream about the "taxpayer" seem to miss some of the finer points. I am sure the fire trucks, cranes and crews are all paid for, and having them serve on one weekend for a major airshow is part of the deal. Insurance should pick up any runway damage. Maybe there is a bit of overtime, but having the emergency crews and the duty crew do an actual emergency response, de-fuel, lift and recovery is better training than squirting water on the same old fire trainer day after day....


Guess some folks would rather have all airshows, open houses, open ships, flyovers, etc. cancelled- and further erode the public connection with the military...

Why worry? It was an ever increasingly rare live training opportunity to practice removal of a fair sized aircraft from an obstructive position. Damage to the runway, while unfortunate can at worst be looked at as fair wear and tear.

Notwithstanding my facetious post early about being operated by the Navy, I'd forgotten that the Vixen is operated by a charitable trust and operated with a civilian registration. Therefore I assume the AAIB will be involved in the incident investigation.