Page 2 of 2
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 02:30
by jonesey2k
I know if I was ordered to ditch an aircraft that had nothing wrong with it then I would tell them where to stick that order.
I do find it interesting that it looks in very good condition considering that it must have been going about 200kts.
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 13:23
by Nigel H-J
As an ex Lightning Simulator instructor I agree...no question of ditching a Lightning...You would have to eject. Also the article suggests that the Radar chaps ordered him to ditch...Preposterous! This would never happen
Many thanks Peter, just knew that you would join in and give your expertise and knowledge on that one without me having to come and ask you!!
Think I had better leave these unsolved flying mysteries where they belong...................On the shelf!
Regards Nigel.
Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 09:23
by VC10
A somewhat different story to the version told in Crowoods book "E.E. Lightning".
Major Schaffner was one of the 5 Sqd pilots taking part in a TACEVAL exercise from Binbrook. The evaluation involved the pilots identifying and shadowing a simulated 'intel gatherer' (in this case a Shackleton flying at 160 kts at the min auth alt of 1500 Ft) during a period of rising tension. The 'intruder' entered UK airspace during daylight and remained on station through dusk and into darkness. One by one, the 5 Sqd pilots were scambled to ID the 'intruder'. Each subsequently completed the task before returning to Binbrook. The TACEVAL continued as darkness fell , by which time it became the turn of Major Schaffner. Schaffner had had to endure one hour of cockpit readiness before being scrambled but this was cancelled before TO could commence. Later he was scrambled again and got airborne at 2030. He then climbed to 10,000 ft and was handed over to GCI. Schaffner was then given a shadowing task against the Shackleton at 1500ft. At a range of 28nm he was told to accelerate to M 0.95 in order to expedite the takeover from another Lightning. Schaffner called that he was in contact with the lights, but would have to manoeuvre to slow down. His voice sounded strained, as though he was being affected by 'g'. XS894 was seen by the other Lightning pilot and appeared to be about 2000yds astern and 500-1000ft above the Shackleton, on a port turn. The Shackleton crew then saw Schaffner's Ligtning apparently very low. Shortly afterwards, Schaffner failed to acknowledge instructions and emergency procedures initiated. He crashed into the sea 5nm off Flamborough Head. A search by the Shackleton and a further ASR search the following day, failed to find any trace of the F.6 or its pilot.
The a/c was located within a few days, and recovered on the seabed at a depth of 190ft, almost completely intact with the canopy closed. The cockpit was empty, but with the seat still in the aircraft, the harness release box undone and the harness still in postion. The ASI read 176kt. Gp Capt Barwood, who was invovled in the investigation tells what happened next.:
"When the a/c was raised, it was established that the seat firing mechanism had been initiated, but the cockpit canopy jettison mechanism had failed to fire. The cockpit area was completely undamaged , but the visor attachment track on the pilots helmet had contacted the instrument panel. this probably had no effect on the pilot. He had accidentally flown into, or onto, the sea, and the very large belly fuel tank acted as a boat hull to take most of th impact load. (during salvage the ventral tank and the belly area of the aircraft were found to be ripped open and there was under tail damage).
The pilot had attempted to eject, but the canopy mechanism failed to fire as the mechanism had been incorrectly assembled. (The breech firing mechanism of the cockpit canopy jettison system had been clamped in a vice, partially flattening the threads, so that when assembled, it was not screwed completely home, so that the firing plunger did not contact the percussion cap with sufficient energy to fire it.) He then opened the his cockpit canopy manually using the ordinary post-flight opening mechanism, which is hydraulically operated. He still could not eject as the interdictor wire had not armed his seat firing mechanism. He undid his combined harness quick release box and climbed out of the a/c. His dingy lanyard was still connected and as he separated from the cockpit this extended - fully. At full extension it would check his upward movement, so he released it.
The pilot's body was never recovered. The cockpit canopy hydraulic pressure slowly decayed so that the canopy closed, trapping the extended dingy line lanyard inside. We did find some broken visor transparency on the cockpit floor. This would have broken when the pilot's Mk.3 helmet had hit the coming beneath the Flt refuelling panel. and its possible that a sharp edge cut his life preserver. We shall never know"
Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 09:50
by Nigel H-J
Thanks for the HU VC10, you obviously spent some time researching into this incident.
As I said before, think I'll leave these books of 'unexplained mysteries' on the shelves where they belong and just stick to factuals!!
Regards Nigel.
Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 11:54
by DaveB
An interesting read and one I thought.. for a brief moment, I may have been involved with. Not the case I'm afraid.
The Lightning we had to find had ditched in a similar area (off Grimsby) and when located was far from intact which is usually the case. I remember seeing the aircraft centre console sitting on our deck with the clocks 'frozen' and wondered what kind of situation the poor pilot had found himself in. His body was recovered on the surface almost immediately and our divers had found the ejector seat had gone and the firing mech fired. Never did find out what the cause of the accident was :think:
On the same ship, we had to go and find a Fradu Hunter that had gone down in the Solent while doing low level training with some of our ships. Again, you could tell that the aircraft was a Hunter due to the Hunters unique shape but it was smashed to smitherines. Sadly, the pilot failed to survive :sad:
ATB
DaveB :tab:
Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 12:19
by TobyV
Paul, sounds a much more plausible explanation. I cant believe that cash-strapped Britain the late 1960s and early 70s would have been seriously investigating UFOs!