USAF KC135 Divert To LHR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west london
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing how things go on these forums! In my original post, I intimated that the aircraft was suffering from "Hydraulic problems". Now, various contributors have upgraded the problem to "Hydraulic failure". As HD said, does it really matter why the Captain opted for Heathrow. It was undoubtedly the most suitable place to land at the time. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham, Surrey. ENGLAND
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've heard, it was a Mildenhall-based aircraft inbound from the Azores with a, as stated, hydraulic problem. Due to cross-winds at its base they opted for EGLL, so must have been critical as I don't think the Mildenhall runway heading is more than 20-30 degrees different than Heafrow, correct me if I'm wrong. Suppose they could have had a completely different wind component at base.
Anyway, as long as everyone is safe then all's well.
Now, start the conspiracy theories....
Anyway, as long as everyone is safe then all's well.
Now, start the conspiracy theories....
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you will find that Heathport Airrow, has 12,000 ft of runway, which is over a thousand feet more than Fairford or Brize. Think Boscombe is longer than Brize and Fairford and that Bedford once was. If one assumes hydraulic issues include brakes, then the answer becomes possibly easier to grasp. Also, they have lots and lots of firecrews at Heathrow. A guess, I admit and although no fan of speculation on aviation issues, coudn't resist this one, for which I apologise.
Conan
Conan
All the airfields mentioned by Conan are in fact 'Standard Nato' 10,000ft plus or minus a few feet, with the exception of Heathrow whose runways are 12,802ft and 12,008ft; Gatwick is next with 10,879ft; these are total paved lengths not LDAs by the way. Boscombe is slightly longer than Brize/Fairford but shorter than Gatwick.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOing back a page, Campbeltown Airport has nothing in the way of facilities to assist a jet like that. They are a small civil airfield owned by HIAL. The days of RAF Macrihanish are LOOOONG gone. Not that you could ever hide much there, the golf course has nice views of the airfield I believe.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mull of Kintyre
Age: 71
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOing back a page, Campbeltown Airport has nothing in the way of facilities to assist a jet like that. They are a small civil airfield owned by HIAL. The days of RAF Macrihanish are LOOOONG gone. Not that you could ever hide much there, the golf course has nice views of the airfield I believe.....
How do you know what still goes on here?
How did we manage with ORE ORI from Mildy last year?
We're still up there & can cope with the best of them.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Er, guys - it was (apparantly) a MAYDAY. Remember that hydraulic failures (more often than not a loss of hyd oil) can affect the flying controls, so a diversion would be made to the nearest suitable runway. There may not be time to fly to Brize, and certainly not all the way to Scotland!<<
Unless the KC is vastly different from civil 707's - I seem to recall that the 707 didn't have much in the way of hydraulic flight controls other than the rudder boost and the flaps, and they were no trouble to extend on the electrical system, the rudder boost was only a problem if one had lost an engine.Dutch roll was hardly a problem at low levels.
The only speed increment I could find when quickly looking through my old flight manual was a 15kt increase in Vref if the LE flaps hadnt extended - and that was on a 320B/C with full span LE flaps - most of those old KC's I've seen only have the LE flap/slat between the engines. Providing the reversers work stopping was not a problem.
Which brings us back to the original question - why LHR? - unless of course the P1 was an AF reserve pilot and in his other life was more familiar with LHR than other UK airfields.
Unless the KC is vastly different from civil 707's - I seem to recall that the 707 didn't have much in the way of hydraulic flight controls other than the rudder boost and the flaps, and they were no trouble to extend on the electrical system, the rudder boost was only a problem if one had lost an engine.Dutch roll was hardly a problem at low levels.
The only speed increment I could find when quickly looking through my old flight manual was a 15kt increase in Vref if the LE flaps hadnt extended - and that was on a 320B/C with full span LE flaps - most of those old KC's I've seen only have the LE flap/slat between the engines. Providing the reversers work stopping was not a problem.
Which brings us back to the original question - why LHR? - unless of course the P1 was an AF reserve pilot and in his other life was more familiar with LHR than other UK airfields.
Unless they have changed the systems, you're correct. The only powered control was the rudder. Ailerons and elevator were balance panels.. hyd system for the spoilers, flaps, brakes and landing gear. And back then on the A, we didn't have reversers.. didn't even have anti-skid.. in fact, we had more 'don't haves' than we had 'haves'.
But these were the water wagons and when I first got on them, they didn't have flight directors, HSI. The heading indicator was about the size of a basketball probably due to GCA being the prime recovery method.
One has to wonder how we ever flew them....
