Barnacles found on Tristar C2?

[CommonSenseApproach]

Nothing heard yet about the recent tail scrape. Come on you professional pilots what happened? :D

[Antique Driver]

Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!!:ok:

[Cannonfodder]

"Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!"

It is the ALM who deals with the imprest on 216 sqn. At least they do something for their money.........

Heard it was a tail scrape on landing somewhere hot and dusty.
A bit heavy on the flares there Mr Travolta!!!

[Combine Harvester]

Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?

Standing by for incoming.

[Runaway Gun]

Are you suggesting they allow Movers to land aircraft now? ;)

[mbga9pgf]

Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?
Standing by for incoming.

Bloody movers. Bet they loaded it a bit taily didnt they? :ok:

[Aeronut]

Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.

[London Mil]

Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.


Not if you use the autoland.





Ooops, I forgot, they did that a few years back.

[Aeronut]

Not if you use the autoland.
Ooops, I forgot, they did that a few years back.


Aircraft steps have autoland now?

[rolandpull]

Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.

Surely the three holer drivers have some sort of reference point (written/visual) that says 'dont pull back any more' when they try to land (one hopes) lot lighter than 225K. Prob level 3-4.

Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.

[Aeronut]

Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.
Yes I do remember, thanks so much for reminding me of that demanding moment in my life. Defo level 1, if that.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Surely the three holer drivers have some sort of reference point (written/visual) that says 'dont pull back any more' when they try to land (one hopes) lot lighter than 225K. Prob level 3-4.
Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.

So, landing Timmy at high AUW = 5
Landing Timmy <MAUW = 3-4
Driving steps up to Timmy* = 2-3
* - Insert aircraft type here as necessary

So by your reckoning Roland, driving steps is, at it's easiest, 40-60% as difficult as driving a Timmy and at it's most difficult, 66-100% as difficult.

Thanks for the clarification Roland. :D I'm sure that we'll now have a great deal more sympathy with the movers next time we're stuck in some toilet or other waiting for the aircraft to be fixed post a Muppet driving another set of steps into it.

Is driving the baggage loading thingy into the aircraft a different OCU, and if so, what's the return of service that entails?

Before this turns into another muppet-bashing thread and it gets locked by the mods, I'm sure the Timmy driver was trying his best and just made a simple old mistake. As any highly skilled operator of technical machinery (such as a mover) will tell you, mistakes are just a fact of life and shouldn't automatically instigate a witch-hunt.

[glum]

Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?
Standing by for incoming.

Not really. It demonstrates that Pilots make mistakes too.

I thought you'd be able to differentiate between a dynamically moving plane - in pitch, roll, yaw and speed - and a set of steps which go forward and backwards - rather slowly - and stop when you let go of the trigger.

Of course, aas groundcrew, it is our duty to milk it for all it's worth!

[Combine Harvester]

Glum,

You have missed my point. It was not a question of who was at fault, but the speed at which the airborne brigade are ready to criticise ground trades for accidents and mistakes compared to the retiscence to pass judgement on the pilot in this case. Reticence is an unfamiliar trait on these pages and I was merely highlighting the difference in attitude in this case.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Glum,
You have missed my point. It was not a question of who was at fault, but the speed at which the airborne brigade are ready to criticise ground trades for accidents and mistakes compared to the retiscence to pass judgement on the pilot in this case. Reticence is an unfamiliar trait on these pages and I was merely highlighting the difference in attitude in this case.

Combine, I thought the "all the officers are to$$ers and the pilots are even worse" website was E-Goat.

And why would 16 Air Assault Bde want to pass comment?

[Twopack]

You allowed all of 2 posts to the original, both of which were jokey replies, before you started you bleat of ''why aren't you all slinging mud at the pilot?'' What's your problem??

Maybe it's because the majority of people on here would rather know the true facts before any conclusions are drawn. Whatever, I hope you wallow in your schadenfraude alone... :{

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Combine,

The main differance is as follows:-

The pilot is working in a highly dynamic environment that is changing by the second due to a multitude of internal and external variations, weather, light levels and threat to name but a few and whilst there is rarely an excuse when Pilot error is the cause lets wait and see what exactly happened with this one:=

On the other hand the mover who dinks an aircraft has quite simply contravened a set of orders that he/she sign's for on, normally, an annual basis. The orders have been written by trade specialists who have risk assesed each scenario and have put in place clear and precise procedures that WILL prevent exactly the incident that said mover has caused provided procedures are folowed:ugh:

The perception that the average muppet is sufficiently IQ challenged to be unable to adhere to a simple set of orders is rather sadly clear for all to see on a regular basis:eek:

[Smudger552]

Maybe it's because the majority of people on here would rather know the true facts before any conclusions are drawn. Whatever, I hope you wallow in your schadenfraude alone... :{

......but only when an aircrew mate is involved. With everyone else why let the facts get in the way roasting the movers. :hmm:

TTFN

Smudge

[Smudger552]

On the other hand the mover who dinks an aircraft has quite simply contravened a set of orders that he/she sign's for on, normally, an annual basis.

Once again horribly one sided old chap. A mover controlling an Atlas is also in a 'dynamic & moving environment'. If a mechanical failure occurs then this would not be a case of contravening orders, however, the 2 winged master race will immediately jump to the conclusion that it was the individuals fault. You can't have it both ways.

Interesting to hear that the crew of the Timmy slept on the ac last night....were they worrying about the lynch mob outside waiting to insert garden tools and flaming torches?

TTFN

Smudge

[flyboy007]

HAHAHAHAHA> Someone stop me laughing, it's beginning to hurt!
Tell you what Combine. Hows about, you visit the Tristar Simulator for a landing, and I'll come and drive some steps. You have to land safely, and I have to get said steps in without ripping off a pitot tube!
The reason there maybe calls for pistols at dawn whenever a Mover jousts the side of a jet, is that it happens tooooooooo often. When was the last time a Tristar had a tail strike? And, on that note. When was the last time a Ground Engineer dinged a jet when driving the steps in? Hasn't happened while I have been around, and they operate the steps a lot downroute etc. Perhaps it's because they would be dragged across the coals if they didn't lower the steps before driving away and hit the aileron?

It has has happened before, it will happen again, but not with the same regularity that jets suffer 'Step Rash'. It's not a good thing to have happened, and yup, it shouldn't have happened. No one can deny that.

[TheInquisitor]

When a pilot suffers a tailstrike, there can be MANY factors in play, ranging from pilot error through technical problems right through to weather or runway / strip conditions.

When a mover drives a piece of GSE into an aircraft, there is only ONE factor in play - STUPIDITY.

[ProfessionalStudent]

An oxymoron if I ever read one..........................:bored:

Now if he'd said "NAVIGATOR controlling an Atlas" that WOULD have been an oxymoron.:E

[The Helpful Stacker]

Why would a WSO be driving an Atlas?

Might be taking it to the Officers Mess to burn it.

[mayorofgander]

But Navigators don't drive.

That' s why they sit at the back...:sad:

MOG

[ShyTorque]

Shouldn't discussions about GHE accidents be posted in the "Stepdrivers and tea drinkers" forum? :confused:

BTW, Maybe they should get a longer undercarriage or a tailwheel for dat pilot.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Shouldn't discussions about GHE accidents be posted in the "Stepdrivers and tea drinkers" forum? :confused:
BTW, Maybe they should get a longer undercarriage or a tailwheel for dat pilot.

Shouldn't your post be in the 'complaints about posts that are in the military forum but shouldn't be' forum.

;)

[Wycombe]

Somewhat ironic that the only pics I have found of this are on the Movers site.
To their credit, no sign of any childish banter whatsoever, just some "at least they can't blame us this time" comments.

[rolandpull]

[QUOTE=ProfessionalStudent;3060523] I'm sure that we'll now have a great deal more sympathy with the movers next time we're stuck in some toilet or other waiting for the aircraft to be fixed post a Muppet driving another set of steps into it.]
Seems the muppets were having to wait for the muppet that signed for the jet in this case.

[Doctor Cruces]

:)
For Flyboy007
Last TriStar tailscrape was probably 1997 to EI-COL as a result of a lbs/kgs cockup that required quite a bit of extra pitch on finals

I would suspect tha last "rash" was considerably later than that


Doc C

[desmonev]

The mover brought the freightdoor down on the high loader, the pilot brought Timmy down at max land weight, at night, at a unfamiliar airfield. Same result, damaged Aircraft. One avoidable, one an incident waiting to happen. Both bad judgement. A brave crew have moved Timmy to be fixed under great pressure from above. Last tail strike I have read of, the pressure bulkhead was damaged. :ugh: Will it be fixed properly? We'll see.

[rudekid]

Left or right seat landing?

Anyone know?

[Nibbled2DeathByDucks]

Will it be fixed properly? We'll see.

Considering where the 'injured' Timmy is now, I doubt it. :mad:

[Antique Driver]

Here's the evidence that our lords and masters require to prove that our AT fleet is overstretched.

Not enough airframes with the right kit=same airframes being hammered in and out of theatres
Not enough airframes for training=crews deploying/flying into theatres without the right work-up sorties
Not enough airframes for currencies=crews barely legal for the jobs the are expected to do
Not enough aircrew=same guys/gals rotating through dets - lowest average is 5 months away per year in high -tempo operational theatres for some fleets=fatigue
Inexperienced leadership=poor decisions by the chain of command who don't understand the problems of the coal face
Poor government policies=involvement in conflicts that continue to stretch our underfunded and undermanned services
Useless procurement and servicing programmes=airframes being extended past their out of service dates, airframes carrying fatigue problems and over-priced, ineffective replacement platforms that are always late and arrive without the right equipment.

Night landing in a heavy aircraft at an unfamiliar airfield in a hostile environment? Not easy - incidents happen, it's called OPERATIONAL RISK!

Now, a muppet driving into the airframe at his peacetime UK base with only the pressure of making his tea-break on time=UNACCEPTABLE!

Give the guys a break - they're working hard on minimum turn-rounds, flying a dwindling, aged and over-strteched AT fleet.

[mary_hinge]

:)
For Flyboy007
Last TriStar tailscrape was probably 1997 to EI-COL as a result of a lbs/kgs cockup that required quite a bit of extra pitch on finals
I would suspect tha last "rash" was considerably later than that
Doc C
19 August 2003
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200447.pdf
Turned out to be avionics defect.

[MaxedOutMan]

Ref reply #29, excuse my ignorance but where's the Movers site?

[November4]

Movers site (http://www.rafmovs.com/cpgn/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=14983#14983)

[exvicar]

When did 'Marge' do her TriStar course? Seems to be quite opinionated.

[Blakey875]

Antiques - Give the Movers a break. "No pressure in Uk apart from making their tea break". If only...... Sometimes lots of pressure in UK to load the frame which was finally made serviceable very late to ETD and warning of "If we don't meet the chock time we will lose our Dip Clearance and it will be a 24 hour delay and 260+ Pax to placate!!" Absolutely no pressure then?
Roll on 2012....

[L1A2 discharged]

Lots to go on here.

Driver Airframe dinks a jet as reported above, will there be a Human Factors element to the enquiry? Some comments with regard to stretch, minimum quals etc (also above somewhere) should give rise to concerns about the wider implications.

Mover dinks jet, again there should be an enquiry which should also take HF into account - how long on shift, trained, supervised, briefed etc etc etc.

Its the baddies job to dink the jets - not ours. (paraphrased from CAS HF brief).

'We' are now working our people harder, for longer periods, under greater pressure - both intrinsic (self imposed) and extrinsic (imposed by others) - than we have for many years. The risks we run are assessed and should be accepted at an appropriate level. Is once a year often enough to 'sign' for orders?

Should we not be looking for solutions and remedies rather than blame and disgruntlement?

Lets not do the enemies job for them.

[SamCaine]

What fun, watching the 'elite' of the British aviation military slag each other off in public.

More please. :hmm:

[Antique Driver]

It would appear some pepole can't take a joke or a bit of banter anymore!!

Roll on 2012? Why? Is that when we dis-establish the Movers trade?

:ok:

[Kitbag]

Have to say that having looked at the movers thread a few hours ago they display a far more sensible and measured response than quite a few posts on this thread. Maybe not too many egos to bruise?

[Echo 5]

" Roll on 2012? Why? Is that when we dis-establish the Movers trade? "


Care to enlighten the guy Wilts ?:D

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Cerainly E5,

It's they year I leave the RAF after 38.5 years of loyal service, which is slowly but surely becoming more difficult to endure:(

[mayorofgander]

,

It's they year I leave the RAF after 38.5 years of loyal service, which is slowly but surely becoming more difficult to endure:(

You old git!!:ok:

Sorry...couldn't resist it!!:p

MOG:cool:
(Younger and not so grey!!)

[rsb]

I'm so glad to be on the outside working with proffesionals and an outfit that works together to achieve a common goal, instead of a team of individuals who are too busy bickering and pursuing their own selfish interests without a damn for anyone else but themselves. Good luck to the lot of you. And, I have no doubt that the blame for this incident will fall fully on 1 individual to cover up the years of neglect by the leaders who never listened to the voices of experience on that squadron. :ugh:

[Bernie]

Can't agree more with rsb. Not so much lions led by donkeys as monkeys led by chimps. No meaningful selection, no meaningful training (outside fast jet CFS), no meaningful leadership, ever... It's coming to a sqn near you guys. Movers are generally clueless, aircrew kid themselves they are any better, cover your ass people, nobody else will do it for you!

B

[splitbrain]

At the risk of keeping this thread alive long after it should be buried without honours...
Whether we like it or not there is a definite perception that aircrew related incidents are treated by those on high with more sympathy than groundcrew related ones, a belief that leads to a sense of injustice. With the slow take-up of HFOR this is hopefully being redressed, fingers crossed.
I well recall an incident at our secret Wiltshire base when one of our cabs got itself damaged in a flying incident. A board of enquiry was convened and, at some point, began examining the engineering paperwork raised to recover the airframe. An anomoly was found which caused such excitement amongst the BOI team that their pursual of this avenue of investigation threatened to overshadow (not my words, the words of our bosses) the fact that their initial remit had been to investigate the flying incident that had led to the paperwork being raised in the first place :ugh:

[exvicar]

Forgive me while I yawn. Thought this thread was about the TriStar not the Movers.

[splitbrain]

Forgive me while I yawn. Thought this thread was about the TriStar not the Movers.

Topic drift, it happens. Human nature and all that. Doesn't make any of the points raised less valid even if they are not immediately related to the OP. Better to cover it one thread than start multiple threads each time a change of direction occurs IMHO.

[SASless]

As slow as most movers errrrrr....move.....it is they that should have barnacles on them and not the aircraft.

[Blakey875]

This post is Brill!! Just as CH predicted the attention has turned away from the guys who bent the frame on to the guys with broad shoulders...

Roll on 2012....

[Echo 5]

Ah yes I am looking forward to the London Olympics as well. Do you think Mover baiting will be accepted as an Olympic event?:E
Fair chance..............along with aircrew bashing. :)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Mover baiting...............hardly a competitive sport as it's way tooooo easy:rolleyes:

Hey Blakey, just moved up to PA band 15 so add another grand to the figure that sent you apopleptic not so long ago:p

[Blakey875]

ABIW - Make the most of it while you can because in Civvy street your wages are linked to ability...
Roll on 2012

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Blakey,

Did I not mention in a previous post that the PA spine and new pension scheme means I get to retire at 55 and never have to worry about a earning a crust again...........in fact all I have to worry about is what size boat to buy for our life cruising round the med:p

[Echo 5]

Blakey/Wilts,
I searched out the Movers v Loadies thread a few nights ago cos I was bored and wanted a laugh. Would you believe it....some git has actually closed it. Bloody cheek.

Might have to start up a new thread and get some proper banter going again. What to call it though I wonder ? :hmm:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I quite like Loadies v Movers sorts out the priorities nicely...............

Nah lets go with The Military, including RAFP v Movers as thats how, and rightly so, it always ends up:p

[Echo 5]

Wilts,
I quite like Loadies v Movers sorts out the priorities nicely...............
Nah lets go with The Military, including RAFP v Movers as thats how, and rightly so, it always ends up:p
As I recall the last Scuffer that posted here was hounded off, am I correct ?

[fergineer]

And still nothing on what happened just inane dribble on the merits or not of other trades. Being the FE on the last tail strike with Air Luxor I would be interested to hear what happened to this one. It would also be nice to read posts that do answer the title.

[AT Mov]

And still nothing on what happened just inane dribble on the merits or not of other trades. Being the FE on the last tail strike with Air Luxor I would be interested to hear what happened to this one. It would also be nice to read posts that do answer the title.

Ah!, as someone who may know, what angle, nose up, must you have to have a tail strike?

[Specaircrew]

About 19 degrees

[brit bus driver]

Spec....would that be a "generic" 19 degrees nose up as per the Aircrew Manual, or do you know more?

[14greens]

fergie

what was the outcome of the Air Luxor tail strike??
Engine damage?
any airframe damage??? what was the inspection carried out post the incident?

[fergineer]

Hi 14 Greens,
There was quite a bit of damage both to the airframe and the engine, I will try and enclose a photo. There were many checks made to both the airframe and engine by our line engineers and the CAA before they would authorise a one flight 2 enging ferry to Jordan for the repairs to be made, they found lots more damage when they stripped the frame down. Will need to look at how to import the photo onto these pages and will post them later.

[SASless]

They sleep on the aircraft all the time I thought....so long as the autopilot is awake! Oh, my....the dreaded two engine ferry flight with an empty aircraft.

Here's one that did not do so well....

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041020X01664&key=1

[fergineer]

Well Sasless you obviously know the Tristar well......Number 2 engine was the failed engine.......unpressurised flight only.......Stanstead to Jordan......do the sums and see just how easy it was.....not!!!!! Oh and I think it was no APU as well. Still not managed to find how to post a picture, anyone out there help, tried to do it as it says on the FAQ's but it wont do it.

[TeBoi]

Seem to remember a new co dinking a tail on one of his first circuits trips at Brize on 216. The crew didn't realise they had done it, ATC saw it but didn't tell the crew until later, resulting in the aircraft landing on a runway covered with broken glass from the AAR lights!:D

[dirtygc]

So, back to the original topic from post numero 1.

From where I was sitting, which was pretty much as far down the back as you can get, it just felt like a heavy(ish) landing, nothing else . We only found out about the incident due to the baggage being delayed as they couldn't get the rear doors open. Top marks to anyone who puts it down safely at candybar; must have a lot on your plate during finals.

[14greens]

fergie
sorry not responded earlier,did you have any joy with the pix of yr tailstrike incident
Still trying to find out what checks they are going to do on our jet, the RR is pretty well buggered but thats to be expected, waiting for info on the structural checks

[Bernie]

Dirtygc, you and the other apologists, are beginning to sound like Mr Flintoff downunder. Boys did great today, found their bats, put their own pads on, walked on the field all by themselves etc. The British disease of accepting poor perfomance strikes the military..........again. A difficult approach? Only to those lacking basic piloting ability I think. Lets stop making excuses for blatent errors, the next one could and probably will be fatal.

Look after number 1, no one else will.

Fly safe

B

[flyboy007]

Concur Bernie; I think putting that one down to the pressure of the approach is a little far fetched.

[ACSfirstfail]

This thread is old and frankly boring, however,......rant on go!......Bernie and Flyboy007 have you actually flown a TriStar? Bernie if you are who I think you are then you have, but I beleive you haven't flown into KDH! Has FB007?? Until you have done both then shut up and get on with your life. Doh you haven't got one! Here's acknowledging all aircrew from any station, any sqn and any aircraft type that has to fly into KDH; depending on the wx it can be a pig of a destination. rant over. End this thread!!!!!!:ugh:

[flyboy007]

Wow, There is one for the books!

I'm not saying that the approach isn't a difficult one, and I'm not saying that it is without challenge, however it is not the only time/destination that the pressure is on. You could make that argument about many destinations.
As you said, hats off to anyone who has to fly into these places; certainly I don't envy anyone who does!

[Bernie]

Dear ‘I Failed First’, I would have loved to have had the pleasure of God’s own Tri-motor but had to derive my enjoyment from something smaller and faster! I have however, had to rely on the Timster on more than one occasion for help in getting from one place to another and therefore find your complacency (or over confidence) more than a little worrying. The very fact that you claim to find a thread about a near disastrous accident on your aircraft type “BORING” speaks volumes for your (and your sqn mate's?) attitude towards aviation and flight safety in general. Let’s have some input from others who have a lower propensity to stick their heads in the sand – is crashing now an acceptable standard of airmanship? Mr ACS appears to think so. Is this attitude endemic on the AT fleet?

Look after number 1, nobody else will

Fly safe

B

[exvicar]

Is this attitude endemic on the AT fleet?

Someone jumps out of one of your 'smaller and faster' things Bernie. Is this endemic of the FJ fraternity? Course not. Grow up.

Let the BOI do their job & stop slinging mud.

[Bernie]

When ever someone 'jumps out' of a Fast Jet an enquiry into the circumstances and causes is convened with a view to preventing the same accident reoccurring. In the mean time some meaningful debate will take place within the FJ brethren often within these forums. It seams that any meaningful debate in this case consists of statements of the ilk 'get a life', 'close this thread' (sweep it under the carpet?) and 'Grow up'. An interesting comparison. Further, I would have thought that the fact that the Martin Baker option is denied to both crew and passengers aboard At assets is all the more reason to avoid accidents such as this in the first place. Or perhaps you are happy relying on divine intervention Mr ExVicar?

Look after number 1, nobody else will.

Fly Safe

B

[Specaircrew]

'near disastrous accident on your aircraft type'

Where on earth did you get that from!!!! The tail was scraped after landing (the second one :) ) and after some minor rectification and much faffing the aircraft was flown without incident by a brave and good looking crew to somewhere where the locals were more friendly!

[Mach the Knife]

I would describe it as "near disastrous" too. As I understand it 10 degrees of pitch up is the limit on landing, the tail does not touch until about 15 and the second landing (yes the one AFTER the big bounce) was approaching 19 degrees. Even if you're not looking at angles I would have thought 30 - 40 kts below threshold speed would have been quite warning enough that it was about to get tasty. I always taught my studes to go around if they (or circumstances beyond their control) cocked up the approach.

[goldcup]

Mach- I think the previous poster has far more credibility when discussing this incident, so if he doesn't think it was "near disastrous" then it probably wasn't.

Specaircrew- fillings ok?

[exvicar]

Good looking crew Specaircrew?

[Specaircrew]

The aircraft crossed the threshold at the correct speed but it was a 'heavy' landing and the aircraft ballooned.(ie small not big bounce) The Tristar Aircrew Manual states
' To recover, hold or re-establish the landing attitude and allow the aircraft to sink back on to the runway. Apply power if necessary to control the rate of speed decay. Do not push hard forward on the control column. If a large bounce occurs, cary out a go-around.'
Going around after a heavy landing has proved very unwise in a lot of incidents (Vulcan at Malta, Tristar autoland at BZZ)
No one would have thanked the operating pilot for getting airborne again so that jonny bloody foreigner could have a go with his big catapult and the crew were unaware of the tail scrape until ATC mentioned that sparks had been seen during the landing run.
I'm sure that the genuinely experienced ME pilots amongst us can cast their minds back to a less than perfect landing and wonder what might have occured if they hadn't got away with it!
PS My mum thinks I'm good looking :O

[exvicar]

Bernie

Meaningful debate?

is crashing now an acceptable standard of airmanship? Mr ACS appears to think so. Is this attitude endemic on the AT fleet?

When do you intend to start?

[Bernie]

My ecclesiastical friend, please find below, for your information the definition for which you are striving.

de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.

v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.

n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

I have attempted to start the said debate by proffering the proposition. Your attempted rejection by way of counter debate suggests lack of understanding and/or education, Sir. Either way an attempt to answer the original questions would be most appreciated. Unless of course the answers are too unpalatable?!

Look after number one, no body else will.

Fly Safe

B

PS. Come on Speccy, surely landing an airliner on its tail amounts at the very least to gross mishandling?

[brit bus driver]

To recover, hold or re-establish the landing attitude and allow the aircraft to sink back on to the runway. Apply power if necessary to control the rate of speed decay. Do not push hard forward on the control column. If a large bounce occurs, cary out a go-around.'


So...did he hold the landing attitude? Or anything close to it?

[Bernie]

Quite BBD. Gross mishandling at the very least I should think. Wonder what follow up action is being/has been taken? BTW, what were the rest of the crew doing whilst the handling pilot was doing his best to reverse-tent-peg the airliner? Isn't it this sort of thing CRM is meant to prevent? For those of you who need it spelling out, this is my attempt to provoke debate.

Look after number one, nobody else will

Fly Safe

B

[goldcup]

"gross mishandling at the very least I should think"

Were you there? Much Tristar, or indeed multi engine experience?

"Wonder what follow up action is being/has been taken?"

Looking for a witch-hunt? If so, why?

What's the problem, bullied by a multi-engine pilot at school?

What debate do you want to start? Is it: should we hang a bloke on the strength of an internet message board and what you have heard/surmise? Or is it: Are Tristar crews all rubbish?

How about you wait for the results of follow up action (if any)?

[You want it when?]

Hurrah - we at least have one aircraft that can be flown, and a crew onboard to fly it - abeit maybe not quite as the maker intended.

I know you (we) all strive for perfection (who doesn't) but it's the odd clanger that keeps the edge.

No hurt, no foul. Problem? :}

[Specaircrew]

Bernie old chap there's a big difference between landing an aircraft on its tail(not what happened in this case and bloody difficult to do anyway) and scraping the tail on the landing run because the nose is too high. The former causes an accident the latter gives the back end a scrape.

The old tin triangle used to have a little skid on the tail attached to 2 red lights on the coaming, when they came on it was considered prudent to lower the nose and start braking with the wheels rather than the wings!

May I suggest that if you have no experience of flying large aircraft you refrain from making inaccurate speculative statements. The usual post incident report investigations will clarify the sequence of events and will be published in the usual places.

[JamesA]

As one of those civilian types on the browse and, a 1011 fan (never driven one unfortunately). I notice you military johnnies, obviously from the action man department, are very quickto hang us freight dogs mil or civ. I see no body has thought of the good old 'Wind shear' which just might have contributed to the situation. Before you hang a guy you might get the facts to criticise from.
I see a WAFU thinks you light blues provide a lot of amusement to the other services, pulling each other apart. As I read it, the FJ jocks still thinkthey are God's gift to the world - boys you wouldn't get many hours in if it weren't for the heavies with fuel for you. Think about your next life (the dreaded civilian world, all that SLF). You need them more than they need you - think about it, especially BTFF - what did they do for a village idiot when you joined up? At best took the recruiter who signed you on.

[brit bus driver]

Bernie - please don't haul me into your ill-informed version of events. My question was somewhat rhetorical but does not infer "gross mishandling" or trying to "reverse tent peg" the aircraft (whatever that is!).

Unlike you, I do have (quite a bit of) Tri* time so am as eager as everyone else to see the facts when they are published. I'm sure it's been a salutory lesson to those on the Sqn.

BTFF....you are still noticeable by your absence...perhaps you mysteriously diverted into the deep south on the trail back and are now the gimp for the one-horse town. Judicious bootfull (actually just the tiniest squeeze) of rudder as you're trying to make contact can be a real b!tch. MSAC.

[Bernie]

Speccy and BBD, I despair! :ugh: Surely the tail skid warning was for over zealous pitch on take-off and never intended (or in the manufacturers wildest dreams thought of) as a landing warning?! A 90% exceedence of an aircraft limitation (19 degrees pitch rather than 10, thanks speccy) not gross mishandling, you *** boys really have let yourselves go. Airmanship is not type specific guys, anyone can see this for what it was - a grossly mishandled approach.

Look after number one, no one else will.

Fly Safe (even you *** boys)

B

[goldcup]

And that concludes the findings of the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry.....

It must have been pretty scary for you Bernie, seeing as you were obviously sat on the Tri* flight deck when the incident happened.....

[Specaircrew]

Bernie you really are a prat, I suspect your knowledge of aviation is limited to what you've read in comics in W H Smiths!

My reference to tail skid warning lights on the Vulcan referred to the need for a pilot warning device in an aircraft which routinely held the nose up until 80kts on landing. This aerodynamic braking technique was very effective on a delta wing aircraft but pilots had to be careful when their tail was only a few inches above the ground!

Indeed I recall seeing the lights illuminate and then disappear very quickly on one particular landing at Goose Bay. Needless to say the ground crew used a bit of 'no more nails' to stick the tail skid back on and we spent the rest of the afternoon bombing frozen lakes above the tree line!

To be honest Bernie I think you'd be better off on a Wanabees website, I suspect you were probably chopped from pilot training at sometime in your past and have some sort of chip on your shoulder? Anyway you're providing much amusement amongst us older and wiser chaps, perhaps you should try therapy? :confused:

[Bernie]

So what you're saying speccy my dear chap, is that your average RAF *** pilot is so poor that the RAF *** fleet needs an additional tail strike warning mod? Some sense at last. Sounds like you guys need it!

Please see - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263190

for a company who knows how to incentivise its pilots. Perhaps similar sentiments from your AOC might focus minds?

Thanks for not even trying to put to rest legitimate fears of falling standards in the AT world guys, guess you deserve what's coming! I'll be taking the bus next time!

Look after number one, nobody else will.

Fly Safe

B

[goldcup]

"legitimate fears of falling standards"

Oh really?

[Over_Shoot]

"Interests:
CAA ATPLs, Job seeking"

I wonder why you are job seeking Bernie...either screwed up in the past or waiting to screw up.

I happen to know quite a few people from the Tri's who are average RAF *** (BTW they are pretty **** good)

In my long and youthful career I have always found that the best way of helping people is to provide advice....

"Isn't it this sort of thing CRM is meant to prevent?...Thanks for not even trying to put to rest legitimate fears of falling standards in the AT world guys, guess you deserve what's coming! I'll be taking the bus next time!"

No advice there I think. I would be greatful to learn from your wisdom oh masterful one...if anybody out that happens to fly this smeghead anywhere please ensure the loadie serves him some of the captains special orange juice.

[brit bus driver]

Hmmmm....BTFF....not a Harrier pilot who was on his way to Fairford, in the vicinity of Kidlington last summer are you? Of course, that wouldn't be falling standards now would it....

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I think Bernie needs to read the "Walt" thread, probably be quite applicable :=