A feat of superb airmanship
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A feat of superb airmanship
For many years Pprune pages have contained varying opinions on degradation of manual flying skills caused by the accent on automation. I was browsing my local charity shop looking for some cheap shoes when I found a aviation book for sale for five dollars. It was a bound copies of the USAF flight safety magazine "Aerospace Safety" covering the months January 1968 to December 1969. All in perfect condition.
Each issue had a page entitled Well Done. Many of the Well Done stories were quite scary but in each case the happy ending was due to good airmanship - a term now rarely used in aviation reports. Put yourself now in the cockpit of an F105 Thunderchief fighter over North Vietnam in November 1967. The pilot was Lt Col. Rufus Dye. This from USAF Aerospace Safety:
"On 7 November 1976, Lt Col Dye, flying an F105 was a member of a 20 ship strike force assigned to attack an important target in North Vietnam. As the force was inbound to the target deep in enemy territory, a MIG-21 interceptor succeeded in breaking through the force to fire a ALKALI air-to-air missile which impacted directly on Lt Col Dye's aircraft. Lt Col Dye immediately notified his flight leader that he had been hit and , maintaining control of his critically damaged aircraft began a turn out of enemy territory under the escort of his fellow flight members.
Quickly analyzing the engine instruments and noting the performance of his aircraft, Lt Col dye determined it was still flying reasonably well and he elected to attempt recovery at the nearest airfield 200 miles distant. The other flight members inspected his aircraft and found that the missile had detonated just inside the tail, blowing away all the speed brake petals and severely damaging the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The body of the missile had then impacted and lodged between the aft fuselage structure and the engine tailpipe, tearing large holes in both. Forced to fly at full power to maintain airspeed, Lt Col dye realized that a refueling would be required to reach his intended recovery base.
A unique problem faced him on this refueling: The loss of the hydraulic system would require a forced refueling, one in which he would have to hold the aircraft receptacle on the refueling nozzle by engine thrust since the system could not lock on to the boom -and his damaged engine was not putting out sufficient thrust to permit this. When he was in position behind the tanker, he called the tanker pilot to toboggan, a maneuver in which the tanker and receiver make a shallow drive with the tankers power pulled far back. This difficult maneuver gave Lt Col Dye the thrust advantage he needed to take on fuel required to continue the flight.
On arrival at the recovery base, Lt Col Dye knew he would have to lower his landing gear by the emergency system, that he would be without leading edge flaps, speed brakes and wheel brakes, all due to hydraulic loss, and that he would have best marginal thrust for his approach. In addition, he anticipated correctly that the damage would most likely have destroyed his drag chute. He wisely chose to extend the gear and flaps at a safe bailout altitude and proceeded to check the controllability and power capability of the aircraft. Finding these adequate, he then made a successful landing, using the emergency braking system to steer the aircraft and the tail hook for a barrier stop without further incident.
By his cool professionalism under these extremely stressing circumstances, Lt Col Dye not only effected his own safe recovery, but also saved an extremely valuable aircraft. WELL DONE.
.
Each issue had a page entitled Well Done. Many of the Well Done stories were quite scary but in each case the happy ending was due to good airmanship - a term now rarely used in aviation reports. Put yourself now in the cockpit of an F105 Thunderchief fighter over North Vietnam in November 1967. The pilot was Lt Col. Rufus Dye. This from USAF Aerospace Safety:
"On 7 November 1976, Lt Col Dye, flying an F105 was a member of a 20 ship strike force assigned to attack an important target in North Vietnam. As the force was inbound to the target deep in enemy territory, a MIG-21 interceptor succeeded in breaking through the force to fire a ALKALI air-to-air missile which impacted directly on Lt Col Dye's aircraft. Lt Col Dye immediately notified his flight leader that he had been hit and , maintaining control of his critically damaged aircraft began a turn out of enemy territory under the escort of his fellow flight members.
Quickly analyzing the engine instruments and noting the performance of his aircraft, Lt Col dye determined it was still flying reasonably well and he elected to attempt recovery at the nearest airfield 200 miles distant. The other flight members inspected his aircraft and found that the missile had detonated just inside the tail, blowing away all the speed brake petals and severely damaging the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The body of the missile had then impacted and lodged between the aft fuselage structure and the engine tailpipe, tearing large holes in both. Forced to fly at full power to maintain airspeed, Lt Col dye realized that a refueling would be required to reach his intended recovery base.
A unique problem faced him on this refueling: The loss of the hydraulic system would require a forced refueling, one in which he would have to hold the aircraft receptacle on the refueling nozzle by engine thrust since the system could not lock on to the boom -and his damaged engine was not putting out sufficient thrust to permit this. When he was in position behind the tanker, he called the tanker pilot to toboggan, a maneuver in which the tanker and receiver make a shallow drive with the tankers power pulled far back. This difficult maneuver gave Lt Col Dye the thrust advantage he needed to take on fuel required to continue the flight.
On arrival at the recovery base, Lt Col Dye knew he would have to lower his landing gear by the emergency system, that he would be without leading edge flaps, speed brakes and wheel brakes, all due to hydraulic loss, and that he would have best marginal thrust for his approach. In addition, he anticipated correctly that the damage would most likely have destroyed his drag chute. He wisely chose to extend the gear and flaps at a safe bailout altitude and proceeded to check the controllability and power capability of the aircraft. Finding these adequate, he then made a successful landing, using the emergency braking system to steer the aircraft and the tail hook for a barrier stop without further incident.
By his cool professionalism under these extremely stressing circumstances, Lt Col Dye not only effected his own safe recovery, but also saved an extremely valuable aircraft. WELL DONE.
.
Last edited by Tee Emm; 28th May 2010 at 10:34.
Moderator
Tee Emm - I've restored the thread as it is a good yarn and of use especially to the newer folk. Whether MIL/CIV doesn't matter at all. If you really want the thread out by all means delete it again and it will stay deleted.
I would ignore the previous post's sentiments ...
I would ignore the previous post's sentiments ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Beautiful Okanagan Valley
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not agree more .........
Well done, John. I could not agree more.
There are many great feats of airmanship, military and civil, and they are all worthy of our respect and admiration.
GW
There are many great feats of airmanship, military and civil, and they are all worthy of our respect and admiration.
GW
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently reading "Redefining Airmanship by Tony Kern.
There are some amazing stories of superb airmanship detailed in the book, both military and civil as well as some horrifying examples. It is well worth the purchase price.
There are some amazing stories of superb airmanship detailed in the book, both military and civil as well as some horrifying examples. It is well worth the purchase price.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was always inspired by the 21 year old Stirling pilot Arthur Aaron who, although mortally wounded, still guided his aircraft and crew to safety. An incredible man
Flt Sgt Arthur Aaron
Flt Sgt Arthur Aaron
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of being in the Forces is that you give up certain freedoms to serve your country, one of them is the choice of which war to fight. Politicians and, by voting, the public, are the people who decide that.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at the following link, particularly pictures 1,2,3 and 6 for some real present day heroes.
Plane examined for clues to cause of fatal Anchorage crash: Aviation News | adn.com
Plane examined for clues to cause of fatal Anchorage crash: Aviation News | adn.com
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful thread!
Mr. Tullamarine - thanks for reviving it. Such moderation is what sets PPRuNe above the rest.
Just a comment -
News spreads quickly these days, and bad news sells ad space, so it spreads at a much faster rate.
The general public doesn't hear much about things which could have gone pear-shaped but didn't because of pilot skill, MX skill, ATC skill.
I would suggest that this thread be sticky, and be contributed to on a regular basis, to serve as a repository for the vastly under-reported successes which make commercial, military, and general aviation as safe as it is.
Mr. Tullamarine - thanks for reviving it. Such moderation is what sets PPRuNe above the rest.
Just a comment -
News spreads quickly these days, and bad news sells ad space, so it spreads at a much faster rate.
The general public doesn't hear much about things which could have gone pear-shaped but didn't because of pilot skill, MX skill, ATC skill.
I would suggest that this thread be sticky, and be contributed to on a regular basis, to serve as a repository for the vastly under-reported successes which make commercial, military, and general aviation as safe as it is.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Age: 45
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many moons ago I remember reading a story about a fighter jet that got a fuel leak (can't remember the reasons for the leak) but due to the leak he wasn't going to have enough fuel to get back to base so his wingman decided to use his aircraft to "push" the stricken aircraft home.
Not sure if this story is true or false but can anybody add any more details to the story?
Not sure if this story is true or false but can anybody add any more details to the story?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that date was instead 1967.
Another Well Done report from Aerospace Safety as follows:
Captain Ronald D. Clisby demonstrated exceptional airmanship while flying an O-1E Cessna Bird Dog aircraft over North Vietnam on two separate occasions. While attempting to locate camouflaged AA weapons on 20 May 1967, his aircraft was hit in the left wing by a 57mm AA burst. The aircraft rolled to the left and commenced a dive. Aileron control was completely lost, the left flap shot away and there was a large hole completely through the wing. Through skillful use of rudder and power, control was regained and an erratic flight started to home base. The pilot had been wounded and had to administer first aid to himself as he fought to maintain control of the aircraft.
When he reached his home destination he found heavy crosswinds on the sole runway; the crosswind far exceeded the maximum flight handbook limitation but no alternative existed. Captain Clisby skillfully manipulated rudder, power and elevators to make a safe landing.
Again when flying over North Vietnam on 5 June 1967, Captain Clisby's aircraft was hit by 57mm AA fire. He discovered his engine was on fire when smoke started coming from the area around the right rudder pedal. The smoke became blinding and, with no oxygen system, he was forced to place his face into the windstream so he could breathe and see.
A landing was made at a marginal airstrip at a Special Forces Camp. At the last moment the pilot glimpsed a barbed wire barricade across the runway which he zoomed over only to discover on touchdown that his right brake had been shot away. Although the aircraft ground looped, enough control was exercised to preclude more damage.
............................................................ .........................................................
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that this thread be sticky, and be contributed to on a regular basis, to serve as a repository for the vastly under-reported successes which make commercial, military, and general aviation as safe as it is.
On 15 February 1967, Captain Woodhull made a normal take off and climb to above 60,000 ft in a U2C. When at maximum altitude he made a turn towards his next checkpoint. As he rolled out of his turn he heard a loud explosion and the engine flamed out. Weather at the time was completely undercast and the closest alternate airfield over 100 miles away. ATC vectored him towards his alternate airfield. As pressurisation was lost, the canopy began to frost over and Captain Woodhull proceeded to descend solely on instruments. Although partial pressure suit inflation which occured within 30 seconds of the flameout severely limited Capt Woodhull's arm and body movements, he made periodic attempts to scrape ice off the canopy with his Weems plotter, and this allowed him small, intermittent glimpses of the weather below.
As he approached his destination airfield, it became apparent, with the solid overcast, that a visual approach could not be made. After three airstart attempts failed, Captain Woodhull requested ATC to vector him to a point approximately five miles to the west of the field where he could continue his descent in orbit and remain clear of mountains lying just to the east of the field.
With weather reported as 1500 ft scattered, 3500 ft broken to overcast with 15 miles visibility and intermittent snow showers, Captain Woodhull decided that the ceiling was high enough to allow him to break out, get the field in sight, and set up a forced landing pattern. Then the primary microphone in his pressure suit facepiece ceased to function. Prompt action in attaching the bypass chord enabled him once again to have communication with ATC.
At 18,000 ft the aircraft entered weather which stayed solid to 12,000 ft where it became layered. As Captain Woodhull continued his descent, it became apparent that he might not break out of the weather as soon as anticipated and he requested ATC to place him over the field and on a heading aligned with the runway.
Still scraping away at his canopy with his Weems plotter, Captain Woodhull finally noticed a taxiway through a small break in the clouds. Entering a high key, he completed his checklists and made his turn to low key keeping the runway in sight. On the turn to base, he once again entered clouds, which forced him to estimate his turn on to final. Breaking out of cloud once more, he had slightly overshot the runway but by anticipating this possibility he used excess airspeed to return to final approach.
A heavyweight landing was made approximately 3000 ft down the runway without the aid of the mobile controller who would normally transmit to him his height above the runway. The superior airmanship demonstrated by Captain Woodhull saved a valuable aircraft.
............................................................ ...........................................................
Moderator
20 years or so ago I did a course on which one of the instructors was an ex-USAF U2 pilot. Amongst other interesting stories from the instructor group .. he related a tale of one U2 which, having suffered an engine problem south of Tasmania proceeded to deadstick into Avalon.
I thought that was a pretty neat sort of story.
I thought that was a pretty neat sort of story.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The heroics of tanker crews during the conflict in Southeast Asia is exactly why a tanker should not have draconian flight envelope protections. Lives and aircraft were saved, sometimes far above Mmo.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone recall the incident which occurred to the late Neil Williams, in which the wing bolts on one side of his Zlin failed, causing the wing to start folding upwards? IIRC, he had the presence of mind to fly inverted, to minimise any further folding, then roll upright just prior to landing, saving both himself and the aircraft. A remarkable feat of airmanship and flying by any standards.
Does anyone recall the incident which occurred to the late Neil Williams, in which the wing bolts on one side of his Zlin failed, causing the wing to start folding upwards? IIRC, he had the presence of mind to fly inverted, to minimise any further folding, then roll upright just prior to landing, saving both himself and the aircraft. A remarkable feat of airmanship and flying by any standards.
Excellent Thread
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zlin wing Structural Failure Report
By Neil Williams - British Aerobatic Team member
1970 World Aerobatic Championships, practising at Hullavington
The weather at Hullavington was good, with 2/8 of cumulus based above 3,500ft, 1,066m. The wind was south-easterly, 5kt to 10kt and there was no turbulence.
Because there were three static balloons flying in front of ATC it was decided that we would use runway O5/23 as datum and fly on sorties over the grass parallel to that runway. This would keep us well clear of the balloons and the wind was so light that it did not pose any problems.
Two Zlins were operational that day, with three pilots. I had flown one sortie and took off on the second with full fuel tanks at 11.35 a.m. The sequence was flown twice through satisfactorily, and the aircraft was climbed for the next and final run through. Everything progressed normally until the completion of the fifth figure. which was a vertical climbing half roll, half outside loop to a vertical dive and pull out to level flight at about 1,000ft, 300m. During this pullout, as the nose came up to the level attitude, with 5g indicating. There was a loud bang and a severe jolt was felt through the airframe.
I have heard eyewitness reports in which the aircraft is said to have "staggered". That is perhaps the best way to describe the immediate sensation following the failure. At the same instant there was a sudden and very peculiar increase in slipstream noise. and I found myself leaning against the straps to the left although, as I looked left, the aircraft appeared to be flying level. I had reduced power and centralised controls instinctively at the first signs of trouble.
The reason for the sensation of being pulled to the left was very soon apparent. Although the left wing was flying more or less level, the rest of the aeroplane was rolling left around the failure point. At this stage there was some degree of control over the aircraft, which was by this time beginning to lose height. I throttled fully back to reduce speed and thereby reduce the flight loads, but this caused the nose to drop further. Dihedral was increasing steadily and the roll and yaw to the left were becoming progressively more determined. Full power was then applied in an attempt to get the nose up, but this had no effect at all on the situation. By this time the aircraft was outside the airfield and losing height fast. It was my intention to try to keep the wings as level as possible and to try to achieve a shallow flight path with the intention of arriving, if possible, right way up in the most convenient field available. It was, however, apparent that if control was being lost at that rate, it would have gone completely before reaching the ground. In fact all control was finally lost at about 300ft, 91m.
At this stage the aircraft had turned left nearly 90° from its original heading, and was banked 90° to the left (at least the fuselage was). I thought the wing had folded to about 45° but it was probably less than that, if one takes into account the fright factor. Full right aileron and rudder were being held on and the throttle was wide open as the bank reached 90° left and the nose finally dropped. The sideslip was very high, and the instinctive reaction to pull the stick back only worsened the situation. I had heard a report from Bulgaria some years ago where a top wing bolt had failed on an early mark of Zlin whilst under negative g and that the aircraft had involuntarily flick rolled right way up, whereupon the wing came back into position, and the aircraft was landed by a very frightened, but alive, pilot. I had guessed by this time that a lower wing bolt had failed and that I was faced with a similar situation, albeit inverted.
It seemed that if positive G had saved the Bulgarian, negative G might work for me. In any event, there was nothing else left to try. I centralised the rudder, rolled left and pushed, still with full throttle. The wing snapped back into position with a loud bang. which made me even more concerned for the structure. Immediately the negative G started to rise and the nose started coming up. Altitude was very low by this time and I had no instrument readings at all. For just a moment I thought I was going into the trees, but then the nose was up and the machine was climbing fast, inverted. I was just beginning to think that I might make it after all when the engine died. I checked the fuel pressure - zero. A check around the cockpit revealed the fact that the main fuel cock had been knocked off. This could possibly have been the result of the jolt which accompanied the initial failure. I think I was probably thrown around in the cockpit and may well have accidentally knocked the cock then. I selected reserve fuel and almost immediately realised that this position would take fuel from the bottom of the gravity tank, which was of course now upside down. I therefore re-selected main tank and after a few coughs the engine started and ran at full power.
Inverted circuit
I was quite low again by this time and initially started to climb straight ahead. I then turned back towards the airfield and continued the inverted climb to 1OOOft, 305m. By this time, the remainder of the team had been very quick off the mark and had alerted crash facilities. I throttled back to conserve fuel as I knew the gravity tank was only good for about 8 minutes safe inverted flight. I then turned the aircraft in steady flight and held the stick between my knees (no aileron trimmer) whilst I used both hands to tighten my shoulder harness even more. Had a parachute been carried I would have climbed as high as possible and used it.
I then considered using undercarriage and/or flaps, but rejected both. Flaps were no use to me whilst inverted, and I could not fly right way up anyway. Also if only one flap extended it would cause an immediate loss of control. The undercarriage required more thought. If I could make an inverted approach with a last minute rollout and if the aircraft arrived on its wheels damage might be minimised. However, if the gear fully or partially collapsed the aircraft might turn over. Also, and this was the biggest argument against, the Zlin undercarriage usually extends with a fairly solid thump.
I did not know exactly what damage had occurred and I was concerned in case the strain of lowering the wheels might remove the wing altogether. It was just as well that I left thewheels up, because the failure was not the wing bolt after all, but in the centre section inboard of the undercarriage leg.
I also considered four possibilities for landing, namely, inverted ditching, deliberately crashing inverted into trees to take the impact, inverted crash-landing on the airfield, or an inverted approach with a last minute rollout and hope for the best.
The last seemed to hold the best chances for survival, but I then decided to experiment to see which way was the best to rollout; if the rate of fold of the wing was sufficiently slow it might have been possible to exercise some control over what was obviously going to be a belly landing (I hoped). A rollout to the left was attempted, and the wing immediately started to fold, with the result that the inverted flight was quickly re-established. The rollout to the right was not investigated, as the left wing was obviously being weakened by these manoeuvres. Also the supply of adrenalin was getting rather low by this time.
A wide inverted circuit was made for the grass strip parallel to runway 23. As the crosswind was insignificant this afforded the best approach, clear of buildings and balloons. The threshold was crossed at 112 m.p.h., 180 k.p.h. at about 200ft, 60m with the throttle closed. Petrol and switches were left on in case it was necessary to overshoot; also the canopy was retained, since I did not want my height judgement affected by slipstream. The possibility of a jammed canopy was considered, but the hood is very light, and I felt that I could break my way out if necessary. A slow inverted flare was made and the aircraft was levelled as near to the ground as possible.
Low, low rollout
As the speed fell to 87 m.p.h., 140 k.p.h. a full aileron rollout was made to the right, and just a trace of negative G was maintained in order to hold the left wing in place. The aircraft responded well to the controls at this stage, but as it approached level flight the left wing started to fold up again. The nose was already down as a result of the slight negative G, and subsequent examination of the impact marks showed that the left wing tip touched the ground during the roll, although this could not be felt inside the aircraft. As the wing folded the aircraft hit the ground hard in a slight nose down, left bank attitude. I released the controls and concentrated on trying to roll into a ball, knees and feet pulled up and in, and head down protected by arms. I had a blurred impression of the world going past the windscreen sideways and then with a final jolt, everything stopped. I released the harness, which had done a very good job, and then found that the canopy had sprung 6in, 15cm open and jammed. I didn't bother to investigate this, as the petrol tanks had split! I gave the canopy a resounding blow and it flew open first time. I felt mildly surprised that everything was still working as I evacuated the area, and having decided that the aircraft was not going to burn, and having also collected some semblance of breath and composure, I returned to the aircraft and made all switches safe. The crash services were on the scene very quickly, which was most encouraging. Fortunately they were not required.
The aircraft was a complete write-off, but on reaching into the cockpit and checking the, seat, it was as solid as a rock, all the straps were intact, and on moving the control column, both ailerons worked in the correct sense. True, there was a failure, but it is a tribute to the Czech designers and engineers that the aircraft could be flown at all.
It was a nasty experience, but a lot can be learned from it, notably that the aileron was acting as a geared tab, as the wing folded. This resulted in the left aileron being pulled down, since the aileron rods were intact, and as the wing moved, the aileron was applied without any movement of the stick. Any attempt to apply right aileron merely worsened this situation. I could have saved myself a lot of problems by rolling left immediately the failure occurred. It seems also that the damaged wing must be towards the ground during any rolls, either in or out. The ability to fly over an airfield with crash facilities is absolutely essential. This time assistance was not required, but lives have already been saved by this.
This situation may never be repeated but if such an accident does occur again the information in this account may be useful.
I hope it will never be needed.
From Flight International - 18 June 1970
By Neil Williams - British Aerobatic Team member
1970 World Aerobatic Championships, practising at Hullavington
The weather at Hullavington was good, with 2/8 of cumulus based above 3,500ft, 1,066m. The wind was south-easterly, 5kt to 10kt and there was no turbulence.
Because there were three static balloons flying in front of ATC it was decided that we would use runway O5/23 as datum and fly on sorties over the grass parallel to that runway. This would keep us well clear of the balloons and the wind was so light that it did not pose any problems.
Two Zlins were operational that day, with three pilots. I had flown one sortie and took off on the second with full fuel tanks at 11.35 a.m. The sequence was flown twice through satisfactorily, and the aircraft was climbed for the next and final run through. Everything progressed normally until the completion of the fifth figure. which was a vertical climbing half roll, half outside loop to a vertical dive and pull out to level flight at about 1,000ft, 300m. During this pullout, as the nose came up to the level attitude, with 5g indicating. There was a loud bang and a severe jolt was felt through the airframe.
I have heard eyewitness reports in which the aircraft is said to have "staggered". That is perhaps the best way to describe the immediate sensation following the failure. At the same instant there was a sudden and very peculiar increase in slipstream noise. and I found myself leaning against the straps to the left although, as I looked left, the aircraft appeared to be flying level. I had reduced power and centralised controls instinctively at the first signs of trouble.
The reason for the sensation of being pulled to the left was very soon apparent. Although the left wing was flying more or less level, the rest of the aeroplane was rolling left around the failure point. At this stage there was some degree of control over the aircraft, which was by this time beginning to lose height. I throttled fully back to reduce speed and thereby reduce the flight loads, but this caused the nose to drop further. Dihedral was increasing steadily and the roll and yaw to the left were becoming progressively more determined. Full power was then applied in an attempt to get the nose up, but this had no effect at all on the situation. By this time the aircraft was outside the airfield and losing height fast. It was my intention to try to keep the wings as level as possible and to try to achieve a shallow flight path with the intention of arriving, if possible, right way up in the most convenient field available. It was, however, apparent that if control was being lost at that rate, it would have gone completely before reaching the ground. In fact all control was finally lost at about 300ft, 91m.
At this stage the aircraft had turned left nearly 90° from its original heading, and was banked 90° to the left (at least the fuselage was). I thought the wing had folded to about 45° but it was probably less than that, if one takes into account the fright factor. Full right aileron and rudder were being held on and the throttle was wide open as the bank reached 90° left and the nose finally dropped. The sideslip was very high, and the instinctive reaction to pull the stick back only worsened the situation. I had heard a report from Bulgaria some years ago where a top wing bolt had failed on an early mark of Zlin whilst under negative g and that the aircraft had involuntarily flick rolled right way up, whereupon the wing came back into position, and the aircraft was landed by a very frightened, but alive, pilot. I had guessed by this time that a lower wing bolt had failed and that I was faced with a similar situation, albeit inverted.
It seemed that if positive G had saved the Bulgarian, negative G might work for me. In any event, there was nothing else left to try. I centralised the rudder, rolled left and pushed, still with full throttle. The wing snapped back into position with a loud bang. which made me even more concerned for the structure. Immediately the negative G started to rise and the nose started coming up. Altitude was very low by this time and I had no instrument readings at all. For just a moment I thought I was going into the trees, but then the nose was up and the machine was climbing fast, inverted. I was just beginning to think that I might make it after all when the engine died. I checked the fuel pressure - zero. A check around the cockpit revealed the fact that the main fuel cock had been knocked off. This could possibly have been the result of the jolt which accompanied the initial failure. I think I was probably thrown around in the cockpit and may well have accidentally knocked the cock then. I selected reserve fuel and almost immediately realised that this position would take fuel from the bottom of the gravity tank, which was of course now upside down. I therefore re-selected main tank and after a few coughs the engine started and ran at full power.
Inverted circuit
I was quite low again by this time and initially started to climb straight ahead. I then turned back towards the airfield and continued the inverted climb to 1OOOft, 305m. By this time, the remainder of the team had been very quick off the mark and had alerted crash facilities. I throttled back to conserve fuel as I knew the gravity tank was only good for about 8 minutes safe inverted flight. I then turned the aircraft in steady flight and held the stick between my knees (no aileron trimmer) whilst I used both hands to tighten my shoulder harness even more. Had a parachute been carried I would have climbed as high as possible and used it.
I then considered using undercarriage and/or flaps, but rejected both. Flaps were no use to me whilst inverted, and I could not fly right way up anyway. Also if only one flap extended it would cause an immediate loss of control. The undercarriage required more thought. If I could make an inverted approach with a last minute rollout and if the aircraft arrived on its wheels damage might be minimised. However, if the gear fully or partially collapsed the aircraft might turn over. Also, and this was the biggest argument against, the Zlin undercarriage usually extends with a fairly solid thump.
I did not know exactly what damage had occurred and I was concerned in case the strain of lowering the wheels might remove the wing altogether. It was just as well that I left thewheels up, because the failure was not the wing bolt after all, but in the centre section inboard of the undercarriage leg.
I also considered four possibilities for landing, namely, inverted ditching, deliberately crashing inverted into trees to take the impact, inverted crash-landing on the airfield, or an inverted approach with a last minute rollout and hope for the best.
The last seemed to hold the best chances for survival, but I then decided to experiment to see which way was the best to rollout; if the rate of fold of the wing was sufficiently slow it might have been possible to exercise some control over what was obviously going to be a belly landing (I hoped). A rollout to the left was attempted, and the wing immediately started to fold, with the result that the inverted flight was quickly re-established. The rollout to the right was not investigated, as the left wing was obviously being weakened by these manoeuvres. Also the supply of adrenalin was getting rather low by this time.
A wide inverted circuit was made for the grass strip parallel to runway 23. As the crosswind was insignificant this afforded the best approach, clear of buildings and balloons. The threshold was crossed at 112 m.p.h., 180 k.p.h. at about 200ft, 60m with the throttle closed. Petrol and switches were left on in case it was necessary to overshoot; also the canopy was retained, since I did not want my height judgement affected by slipstream. The possibility of a jammed canopy was considered, but the hood is very light, and I felt that I could break my way out if necessary. A slow inverted flare was made and the aircraft was levelled as near to the ground as possible.
Low, low rollout
As the speed fell to 87 m.p.h., 140 k.p.h. a full aileron rollout was made to the right, and just a trace of negative G was maintained in order to hold the left wing in place. The aircraft responded well to the controls at this stage, but as it approached level flight the left wing started to fold up again. The nose was already down as a result of the slight negative G, and subsequent examination of the impact marks showed that the left wing tip touched the ground during the roll, although this could not be felt inside the aircraft. As the wing folded the aircraft hit the ground hard in a slight nose down, left bank attitude. I released the controls and concentrated on trying to roll into a ball, knees and feet pulled up and in, and head down protected by arms. I had a blurred impression of the world going past the windscreen sideways and then with a final jolt, everything stopped. I released the harness, which had done a very good job, and then found that the canopy had sprung 6in, 15cm open and jammed. I didn't bother to investigate this, as the petrol tanks had split! I gave the canopy a resounding blow and it flew open first time. I felt mildly surprised that everything was still working as I evacuated the area, and having decided that the aircraft was not going to burn, and having also collected some semblance of breath and composure, I returned to the aircraft and made all switches safe. The crash services were on the scene very quickly, which was most encouraging. Fortunately they were not required.
The aircraft was a complete write-off, but on reaching into the cockpit and checking the, seat, it was as solid as a rock, all the straps were intact, and on moving the control column, both ailerons worked in the correct sense. True, there was a failure, but it is a tribute to the Czech designers and engineers that the aircraft could be flown at all.
It was a nasty experience, but a lot can be learned from it, notably that the aileron was acting as a geared tab, as the wing folded. This resulted in the left aileron being pulled down, since the aileron rods were intact, and as the wing moved, the aileron was applied without any movement of the stick. Any attempt to apply right aileron merely worsened this situation. I could have saved myself a lot of problems by rolling left immediately the failure occurred. It seems also that the damaged wing must be towards the ground during any rolls, either in or out. The ability to fly over an airfield with crash facilities is absolutely essential. This time assistance was not required, but lives have already been saved by this.
This situation may never be repeated but if such an accident does occur again the information in this account may be useful.
I hope it will never be needed.
From Flight International - 18 June 1970
I do
, but I am very aware of the incident in aviation's story
Brian Exactly the article I read
