Classic British Flight Sim

Jim,

Not trying to say whether the organisers off the cuff request was right, wrong or indifferent just trying to shed a little light on why there was a perceived cover up.

I suppose the organisers where hoping not to have the incident exaggerated before they were able to present their case to which ever authority cares. That said it would appear they need not have worried as reading the Flightglobal article none of them seem terribly fussed (perhaps this will mean we can see any aircraft we like going for a short hop and a skip without the need for all of that tiresome paperwork!!! ).

In any case, the flood gates are open now. Although unsurprisingly Flightglobal ran with the only shots available at the time. :roll:

It’ll be intriguing to see if the real news i.e. the daily papers, TV etc run with it or whether my hypothesis that it’s now old news holds water.


As for the latest photos - UKAR, the third shot of the newly added Victor pics on the ‘Sunny Brunty’ thread . . . . that guy in the high vis must have got some awesome pictures . . . . unless he hauled ass outa there!!!

Alex

Just spent some Skype time with Brian Horsey looking at the two photos

two things jump out at you

1/. The ailerons like the VC10 both deflect UP with takeoff flap setting

2/. in the second photo it appears that there is an asymeteric flap situation - look at the right flap as opposed to the left.

it appears the right wing picked up due to the asymeteric flap and he was using the rudder to pick up the left wing.

all in all they were very very lucky

Leif

Blimey....posted a few bits over at UKAR and got me head bitten off.... :-(

And now permantly banned....

Tony

I wouldn't say bitten off.. savaged slightly

They're good shots those and a possible asymetric flap condition noted as mentioned above. However.. they only enforce my initial view that the crew pushed a little too close to a 'flight condition'. They obviously don't practice on the Alpha Victor as they'd be used to this happening ;-)

Take some pills mate and forget the UKAR incident. Wear a flak jacket next time

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Full body armour more like Dave.....Friendly are not us.....I think the motto there is...?

Tony

AlexP wrote:Jim,

Not trying to say whether the organisers off the cuff request was right, wrong or indifferent just trying to shed a little light on why there was a perceived cover up.

I suppose the organisers where hoping not to have the incident exaggerated before they were able to present their case to which ever authority cares. That said it would appear they need not have worried as reading the Flightglobal article none of them seem terribly fussed (perhaps this will mean we can see any aircraft we like going for a short hop and a skip without the need for all of that tiresome paperwork!!! ).

In any case, the flood gates are open now. Although unsurprisingly Flightglobal ran with the only shots available at the time. :roll:

It’ll be intriguing to see if the real news i.e. the daily papers, TV etc run with it or whether my hypothesis that it’s now old news holds water.


Alex

Yeah. Must admit (until I found some shots) I was interested to see them, but (not including you here ;-) ) there's a lot of the 'toys out the pram' chat on this elesewhere from both sides, which is rather annoying ;-)

I doubt we'll see anything similar soon as I'm pretty sure anyone taxiing will be very careful about their velocity shall we say :o

If anything, it serves as a good reminder to us all just how easily these things happen. Take most aircraft incidents: in this case, possibly the PIC has been distracted by the wing lift and this meant power remained on while he corrected that, etc etc - how often has distraction or failing to notice a developing situation been cited as a contributory factor in a disaster?

If you look at the images, the A/C is roughly half way down the runway. No idea what speed he was doing, but if one were there (as at any airport) - once the aircraft's about a quarter mile away, you don't really see a speed difference between say 80 and 120 kts, so in reality, if this means a strict limit to power on times and speed, I don't think it will spoil the viewer's enjoyment per se ;-)

But we can all relax that 'all's well that ends well' and if anything official is said, we'll know soon enough!

Dunno about the geezer in the hi-viz: I'd have been making a hasty retreat mind you :o

Techy111 wrote:Full body armour more like Dave.....Friendly are not us.....I think the motto there is...?

Tony

You know what? I reckon we've got just about the most adult, sensible and enjoyable board on 'tinternet! Long may it continue :flying:

forthbridge wrote: You know what? I reckon we've got just about the most adult, sensible and enjoyable board on 'tinternet! Long may it continue :flying:

Garry

forthbridge wrote:

Techy111 wrote:Full body armour more like Dave.....Friendly are not us.....I think the motto there is...?

Tony

You know what? I reckon we've got just about the most adult, sensible and enjoyable board on 'tinternet! Long may it continue :flying:

Too right, I only popped on here to download some aircraft FS9 many moons ago. Now it's one of my most visited forums.

There are a lot of cliques on UKAR and if you say something that goes against mainstream opinion on the site you tend to get jumped on from a great height. It's still a cracking place to visit for the enthusiast but you just have to learn to avoid the more anti-social keyboard warriors over there when posting in a discussion.

The whole point of a Forum is to excahnge views.

Obviously here were have to try and keep it within the remit of the site but we enjoy the fact that we are all united by a common interest, yet at the same time recognise that we are all very different in how we see things.

We also try to be serious (in fact) without taking it too seriously and hopefully a happy balance results.

Glad it's appreciated

Garry