MPN VC-10 'arrival' 10/08/2005
 

Anyone know where one can find the official report into the VC-10 landing incident at MPN on Wednesday 10th August 2005?

pprune.org/military-aviation/185691-vc10-landing-incident-falklands.html?highlight=185731

Thanks in advance.

Link to the thread:-

https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...dent+falklands

BTW, there is a link to yet another thread in one of the posts, ie here:-

https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...-pleasant.html

Saw those a while back but looking for the official MOD report. Had no success on the MAAIB and gov websites. Almost as if it never happened..

The aircraft involved was ZD230 but I can't find a report using G@@gl3. ZD230 was wfu the following December and following parts recovery at St Athan was scrapped in April 2006.

The investigation was internal and stayed in the FI

I collected ZD230 from Filton on 15 Dec 1994 - it flew beautifully! The quietest cockpit and nicest handling of any VC10K I ever flew.

Looks like a.alazia is at MPN, so would there be an opportunity for him to find it there?

Prior to being ZD230 she was G-ASGA the prototype 'Super' VC10 flying with Speedbird for 15 years.

Having checked the crew delivering from Filton aren't named; I feel safe posting this link to a redacted version of March 2006's Gateway magazine (BZN). There is a short article on ZD240/K on page 24 (15 th of the PDF) written by Jez Lewry, one of the pilots on her last flight.
Gateway March 2006

What are you trying to find out Mr Alazia?

Ah well, I'm just trying to ascertain if this incident was the catalyst that lead to the whole 'rotors' fiasco that we now endure at MPA.
If it is, the small amount of information I currenty have raises some serious doubts about certain versions of the event..

No, not linked to that. The weather limits and rotor cautions came with the building of MPA.

The VC10 incident you are enquiring about was reasonably benign in the scheme of things. More of an operational hazard when you operate at or close to hard limits. Eventually the 1-in--a-XXXX event catches up with the best of us, especially when components are worn and tired.

The way you say 'investigation was internal and stayed in the FI' makes it sound dodgy. The occurrence severity dictated the process (incident report) and clearly the support network for the aircraft resides in the UK and the project team had matters to address.

The 1312 Flt VC10 involved was more at risk from the resident lady Hercules captain's jousting. The 1312 Flt Hercules itself didn't fair that well though, requiring remedial metal-bashing at Marshalls once it returned to the UK. I am convinced I saw the aircraft sigh with relief when she had to ground herself after burning her own vagina.

Interesting times.

Sounds like there’s a story to be told there!

Not sure about the Herc reference but I seem to recall this particular incident refers to a VC 10 that didn’t have pre landing brakes on protection. And landed with brakes (crosswind?) partly on.

The incident I'm seeking information on allegedly involves a VC10 landing short (very short) 'due to rotors' and being part of the justification for closing the airfield for long periods when there might be even so much as a puff of wind from the north. Surely an incident as such will have some sort of official inquiry (it did, I know that much for sure) that will be publicly available to read given the severe consequences?

When I did a short 6 week spell as Sqn Ldr (Air) at HQ FIAW Fuerza Area Malvinas in late 2000, a team of met scientists turned up and set up shop in our building. They were researching the danger posed by rotor streaming under certain conditions when the surface wind might seem benign, whereas the wind at 200ft was totally different. They told me that they'd never seen such weird conditions before.

MPA had some VERY challenging wind conditions at times - but closing the airfield seems OTT. State the conditions and allow the operators to assess the threat and mitigate as required.

I would have been entirely happy to land a VC10 on the short RW rather than fight vile crosswinds on the main. Not an option available to a Voyager, I guess? Although it was great fun practising short RW approaches on Saturday mornings when the pongo officers were sleeping off their overindulgence in the DeathStar instead of being at work.

Not sure I'd call bursting all 4 tyres on the port main bogie and scrapping the aircraft several months later benign..
Aaand, a mention that the copilot was 'afforded protection under QR1269(7)' in the minutes of a flight safety meeting shortly after the incident does present a certain odour of skulduggery..

Anybody know what QR1269(7) is?

Ahhh... you are on a mission to find things that support your predetermined conclusion. That is game best played on your own.

...and there is a certain odour of a witch hunt.

despite knowing about this, you’ll be getting nothing from me.

Just this once, from your post you state components were possibly worn and tired - Absolute rubbish, the aircraft was technically serviceable as the inquiry proved. I remember no female Hercules Captain who you slander, at that time and OTA Warrior is indeed correct that a strong cross wind was the main cause. The mark of VC10 allowed brake application whilst airborne and with a strong boot full of rudder and a bit of inadvertent toe brake thrown in, the wheels were locked on landing.

I'm not interested in which crew member may or may not have had a toe on the brakes or who's 'fault' it was. I want to know if this was the incident that rotary winds (not cross winds) was used as a causal factor of the occurrence. If it was, that should be in the official report/investigation. A simple yes or no will suffice Mr Griffin..

12TPI may know if this incident also involved landing short of the runway, or was that a separate occurrence?