The RAF had it right all along when air-trooping in a VC10

#41
For instance, the only personnel injured in this NATO E-3A take-off accident in Greece were in forward facing seats.

Similarly, there are numerous examples of civilian airliner incidents where injuries and in certain cases fatalities could've been avoided by rearward facing seats.

Regards,
MM
That looks expensive - is there a story behind it?
 
#42
That looks expensive - is there a story behind it?
The incident was back in 96 and the aircraft was taking off for an Op DENY FLIGHT mission from Aktion. For context, the previous Sep a USAF E-3B had been lost with all crew in Alaska following a bird strike on take off.

In this case, the skipper saw several birds pass down one side of the aircraft after V1 (the speed at which the aircraft cannot be stopped in the remaining runway) and called abort. The co-pilot (who I believe was handling pilot) was understandably somewhat confused, particularly as there was no indication of a bird strike. However, the throttles were retarded and both stood on the brakes but they subsequently proved the accuracy of the flight engineer's V1 performance calculations by running off the end of the runway onto the causeway lights. This broke the back of the aircraft which was a complete write off. Luckily, no one was killed although several crew members suffered broken ribs and limbs while others got fuel burns when they were doused in leaking fuel during evacuation.

Subsequent investigation showed that all 4 engines were fully serviceable when the aircraft had run off the runway and no bird damage was evident. Essentially, the skipper had aborted after seeing birds due to the USAF incident being in his mind.

However, every cloud has a silver lining and the RAF got the consoles from the jet to add an extra mission position to our jets!

Regards,
MM
 
#43
Rearward facing seats provide significantly greater protection for occupants than those in forward facing during landing accidents. Whiplash, back injuries, flailing and head injuries are all reduced.

For instance, the only personnel injured in this NATO E-3A take-off accident in Greece were in forward facing seats.

Similarly, there are numerous examples of civilian airliner incidents where injuries and in certain cases fatalities could've been avoided by rearward facing seats.



The only reason airlines don't adopt them is that the punters don't like the idea (the same goes for automatically locking overhead lockers, no duty free bottles in the cabin, and cabin baggage size/weight being enforced).

Ironically, cost is the only reason our Voyagers do NOT have rearward facing seats these days!

Regards,
MM
Ditto sprinkler or water mist systems.
 
#44
The incident was back in 96 and the aircraft was taking off for an Op DENY FLIGHT mission from Aktion. For context, the previous Sep a USAF E-3B had been lost with all crew in Alaska following a bird strike on take off.

In this case, the skipper saw several birds pass down one side of the aircraft after V1 (the speed at which the aircraft cannot be stopped in the remaining runway) and called abort. The co-pilot (who I believe was handling pilot) was understandably somewhat confused, particularly as there was no indication of a bird strike. However, the throttles were retarded and both stood on the brakes but they subsequently proved the accuracy of the flight engineer's V1 performance calculations by running off the end of the runway onto the causeway lights. This broke the back of the aircraft which was a complete write off. Luckily, no one was killed although several crew members suffered broken ribs and limbs while others got fuel burns when they were doused in leaking fuel during evacuation.

Subsequent investigation showed that all 4 engines were fully serviceable when the aircraft had run off the runway and no bird damage was evident. Essentially, the skipper had aborted after seeing birds due to the USAF incident being in his mind.

However, every cloud has a silver lining and the RAF got the consoles from the jet to add an extra mission position to our jets!

Regards,
MM
Confirmation bias. Seeing / acting on what you expect rather than what is the reality. It’s caught more than a few but (not knowing any more than what MM posted) I’d suspect that not following SOP on rejecting above V1 was more questionable?

Edit to ask: Is the aircraft capable of flying with the total loss of thrust on both engines on one side on take off? I’m assuming so as per Perf A? If so I assume it’s a standard sim exercise? If both of the above are so, I have to ask “what was he thinking?”
 
Last edited:
#45
To save on the shekels the Israelis did not fit seats, & made their troops stand, from the Sea of Galilee to Lake Victoria


Traveled by C-130 with a couple SUV's in the back some years ago. As soon as we were wheels up there was a mad rush to claim seats in the wagons. A few elbows, jabs and locks soon sorted out who got the seats. Knowing my place in the pecking order I resigned myself to being on the stock frame seats. Could have been worse, Tac loaded, sitting on your pack in rows or 8-10 with a strop holding across everyone's lap as a "Safety belt"
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#46
The incident was back in 96 and the aircraft was taking off for an Op DENY FLIGHT mission from Aktion. For context, the previous Sep a USAF E-3B had been lost with all crew in Alaska following a bird strike on take off.

In this case, the skipper saw several birds pass down one side of the aircraft after V1 (the speed at which the aircraft cannot be stopped in the remaining runway) and called abort. The co-pilot (who I believe was handling pilot) was understandably somewhat confused, particularly as there was no indication of a bird strike. However, the throttles were retarded and both stood on the brakes but they subsequently proved the accuracy of the flight engineer's V1 performance calculations by running off the end of the runway onto the causeway lights. This broke the back of the aircraft which was a complete write off. Luckily, no one was killed although several crew members suffered broken ribs and limbs while others got fuel burns when they were doused in leaking fuel during evacuation.

Subsequent investigation showed that all 4 engines were fully serviceable when the aircraft had run off the runway and no bird damage was evident. Essentially, the skipper had aborted after seeing birds due to the USAF incident being in his mind.

However, every cloud has a silver lining and the RAF got the consoles from the jet to add an extra mission position to our jets!

Regards,
MM
Thanks, I was thinking Nato was a way of spreading the blame rather than naming a particular country!
 
#47
I remember rear facing seats on the BAC1-11s from Gatwick to Gütersloh (and vice versa, presumably).

As best I recall there were four lots of four seats facing each other front and rear. I assumed they were for families.

Here’s a floor plan showing the “family seats” and a row of rear facing seats.

9973F006-C17C-4B24-AA78-65A9AE9C32CF.jpeg


However this is only one configuration out of many possible ones.

Not 100% sure how the “escape ropes” worked.

And the boiled sweet on take off. And the plain white box with a sarny, piece of fruit, slice of cake. Choice! Eff off.
 
#50
the escape rope is still fitted to the cockpit of today's A320s and the rest.......just gagging at that seat row arrangement on that 1-11....2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3.....no wonder they never made money.
 
#51
Confirmation bias. Seeing / acting on what you expect rather than what is the reality. It’s caught more than a few but (not knowing any more than what MM posted) I’d suspect that not following SOP on rejecting above V1 was more questionable?...
Rejecting any take-off after V1 is normally going to be questionable.

...Edit to ask: Is the aircraft capable of flying with the total loss of thrust on both engines on one side on take off? I’m assuming so as per Perf A? If so I assume it’s a standard sim exercise? If both of the above are so, I have to ask “what was he thinking?”
A fully fuelled E-3A would not be able to take off with 2 donks out on the same side.

Regards,
MM
 
#52
Confirmation bias. Seeing / acting on what you expect rather than what is the reality. It’s caught more than a few but (not knowing any more than what MM posted) I’d suspect that not following SOP on rejecting above V1 was more questionable?

Edit to ask: Is the aircraft capable of flying with the total loss of thrust on both engines on one side on take off? I’m assuming so as per Perf A? If so I assume it’s a standard sim exercise? If both of the above are so, I have to ask “what was he thinking?”
Perf A covers the loss of an engine at a crucial stage of flight; not the loss of two.

Losing two on the same side is going to present you serious asymmetry problems as well as the obvious loss of 50% of your thrust. You'd have to be already airborne, above a certain height / speed bracket, and very light in weight, to get away with that.

Edited to add: lastly, most abort criteria are normally associated with 'loss of thrust or positive signs of fire' or similar, but it has to be called below V1. After V1, you're committed to rotating at Vr and sorting the problem out in the circuit.
 
Last edited:
#53
the escape rope is still fitted to the cockpit of today's A320s and the rest.......just gagging at that seat row arrangement on that 1-11....2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3.....no wonder they never made money.
On the 737 it is specifically designed such that if you draw a line vertically from the roof fixing point, out of the window and down to the ground (as per the path your body will follow courtesy of gravity) you will find a very precise intersection of your scrotum with the pitot tubes and AoA vane.

For the benefit of those that don’t know, these are the sticky out bits of sharp metal, some of which are heated that you see on the front, side of the aircraft nose. They make some instruments work by sensing air speed etc.
 
#54
Edited to add: lastly, abort criteria are normally associated with 'loss of thrust or positive signs of fire' or similar, but it has to be below V1. After V1, you're committed to rotating at Vr.

Theres been a few aircraft running out of runway incidents caused by something going bang boing or boom after V1 and the not unexpected human reaction of if its going to ratshit** better down here than up there

**That may not be the actual wording in subsequent reports
 
#55
Theres been a few aircraft running out of runway incidents caused by something going bang boing or boom after V1 and the not unexpected human reaction of if its going to ratshit** better down here than up there

**That may not be the actual wording in subsequent reports
That's why the synthetic training environment is utilised so often and so intensely; to ensure that boldface and subsequent actions are implemented correctly.

Otherwise, you get the E3 debacle that MM describes on post No 42.
 
#56
For those of you who remember "Air-trooping" on VC10's, according to the latest "non-news", the Crabs had it right all along and the safest way to fly is sat facing backwards.
Couple of points:
1. I can't see Joe public experiencing the thrill of your guts doing a good imitation of "Alien" and trying to bust out of the front of your stomach during take-off and landing.
2. Given the size of the stomachs of some of the people who fly these days, surely such a large mass suddenly surging backwards would unbalance the plane.

Your plane seat would be safer if it faced backwards but airlines won't change it
Pardon?

North Sea Chinook crash mid ‘80s, only surviving passenger was in rear facing seat.
 
#57
Pardon?

North Sea Chinook crash mid ‘80s, only surviving passenger was in rear facing seat.
IIRC, most of the ‘Busby Babes’ that survived the Munich crash were in the rearward facing seats. It makes much more sense, but some people ‘just have to face the direction they’re travelling in’. Except in lifts when suddenly it’s not critical...
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#59
I remember rear facing seats on the BAC1-11s from Gatwick to Gütersloh (and vice versa, presumably).

As best I recall there were four lots of four seats facing each other front and rear. I assumed they were for families.

Here’s a floor plan showing the “family seats” and a row of rear facing seats.

View attachment 332299

However this is only one configuration out of many possible ones.

Not 100% sure how the “escape ropes” worked.

And the boiled sweet on take off. And the plain white box with a sarny, piece of fruit, slice of cake. Choice! Eff off.

I remember flying as a padbrat out in BAOR in late 70's early 80s and definitely was in a rear facing seat though obviously memory is playing tricks as I thought it was a Lufthansa plane.
Didn't usually fly to Gutersloh, usually went to and from Hanover.
 
#60
I remember flying as a padbrat out in BAOR in late 70's early 80s and definitely was in a rear facing seat though obviously memory is playing tricks as I thought it was a Lufthansa plane.
Didn't usually fly to Gutersloh, usually went to and from Hanover.
I never flew to Hanover but IIRC the flights to Gütersloh were all BEA.

Blimey. The old BAC1-11s are still flying (or were until recently).

As of October 2013 only two aircraft were still in service used by Northrop Grumman as airborne test beds for the F-35 programme, Since the One-Eleven's type certificate has been withdrawn, they fly as experimental aircraft in the research and development category.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top