Harrier Crash Ejection Video - Kandahar 2009

#2
Why does he fly the approach so fast, and with such a high sink rate? He then appears to over-pitch at the flare, and judging by the change in engine note, attempts a go-around.

Looks like he screwed up to me - or was there some major technical fault?
 
#3
stab23 said:
Why does he fly the approach so fast, and with such a high sink rate? He then appears to over-pitch at the flare, and judging by the change in engine note, attempts a go-around.

Looks like he screwed up to me - or was there some major technical fault?

Yes well done stab....and when did you qualify as a Harrier pilot?
 
#4
I don't need to be a Harrier pilot to recognise a non-stabilised approach, a high-sink rate, and an over-pitched late flare.
 
#5
Well I don't know the facts and until I see a BOI result it would be unfair to even speculate.

From what I do know about Harrier pilots in general they are very switched on cookies. There are too many possible causes to this particular event but to suggest from a position of ignorance that the pilot "screwed up" is naive and a bit reckless.
 
#6
That was why I asked if there had been a major technical fault which caused him to be so fast on final.

FWIW, I found a reference here to say there was no technical fault - you need to browse to "losses", then "2009", and find the incident.

http://www.ukserials.com/
 
#7
stab23 said:
I don't need to be a Harrier pilot to recognise a non-stabilised approach, a high-sink rate, and an over-pitched late flare.
For the record, it was the last comment you made that made you look like a twat.

Hope this helps.
 
#8
He is not making a vertical landing - he is making a conventional landing - so no different to any other jet with mild wing sweep. He is clearly way too fast, and overpitches.

Are you a pilot? I thought not.
 
#9
stab23 said:
That was why I asked if there had been a major technical fault which caused him to be so fast on final.

FWIW, I found a reference here to say there was no technical fault - you need to browse to "losses", then "2009", and find the incident.

http://www.ukserials.com/
Of course, the Wolverhampton Aviation Group is an authoritative source...
 
#10
I'm not sure if the website you have linked to can be classed as an official source, not saying it isn't, just not certain.

Also the BOI findings may be out and I have missed them, that said I would be very surprised if they were as there is no mention of it on other aviation forums and this sort of thing gets tongues and fingers wagging, especially if the findings are "pilot error"
 
#11
Code:
Of course, the Wolverhampton Aviation Group is an authoritative source...
Look at where Bob Dunn gets his information from...
 
#12
Stab, I can think of at least 50 reasons why this could happen, one of which is indeed pilot error but as you have already made your mind up through a perceived understanding of aviation then I will not try to convince you otherwise.

Mainly because I don't know and I'm not prepared to assume.
 
#13
I get the impression it was actually coming in with a lack of power. If you've ever spent along time around Harriers you will appreciate that theu are not the quietest of planes, even landing conventionally. IIRC, it is also SOPs in Harriers to switch the engines to full power and back again on approach (I don't know why, but I suspect it is to ensure they can abort a landing if required), which could account for the sudden engine increase, although it does seem very, very late.
 
#14
stab23 said:
Code:
Of course, the Wolverhampton Aviation Group is an authoritative source...
Look at where Bob Dunn gets his information from...
Who?

Care to give us a clue? I can't be bothered to spend more than 10 seconds on that website.
 
#15
I haven't made up my mind - that was why I asked if there had been a technical fault.

But then I found that reference which suggests that there was no technical fault. I'm still open to suggestions as to why he was so fast on final. Some perimeter threat?
 
#16
May14 2009 No 1 Sqn Harrier GR9 ZG478/"68"
Crashed at around 1030hrs Whilst Landing at Kandahar. The Pilot ejected saftly , sustaining only minor injuries,and was taken to the ISAF medical facility for treatment. Although there were reports of engine failure, these were believed to be wrong, however,the undercarrage collapsed when it hit the runway hard. The pilot remained with the aircraft for as long as possible in an effort to avoid hitting a commercial aircraft waiting to take-off,which had 8 people on board.The ATC had allegedly asked the Harrier pilot to land quickly because of this aircraft. When the Harrier burst into flames, he ejected and the damaged aircraft came to a halt 30ft from the civilian aircraft.

From the crash report
 
#17
stab23 said:
I'm still open to suggestions as to why he was so fast on final. Some perimeter threat?
Maybe his brew was getting cold? I dare say there will be a proper report, with evidence and investigation and all, in due course. Perhaps waiting till then would be a good idea.
 
#18
Care to give us a clue? I can't be bothered to spend more than 10 seconds on that website.
Well that is your loss. The "losses" section is a resumé of all the BOI inquries for the past forty years or so.
 
#19
Noticed a comment suggesting lack of elevator/tail control.

Right enough when you watch the last few seconds before touchdown, there isn't much going on "down the back".

Still, that's his no claims bonus buggered.
 
#20
He seems to have maintained some kind of rudder control as he manages to steer it away from the other a/c before stopping and doing his zero-zero eject, whether that was the natural path the aircraft was going to take or not could be up for debate.

Either way, thank (insert deity here) that he survived and no-one else was injured, including the fire crews who got a bit too close to a bombed up aircraft on fire for my liking.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Countryman Aviation 114
jaybee2786 The NAAFI Bar 18
eul0gy Aviation 33

Similar threads

Latest Threads