Bruntingthorpe

GTX · May 10, 2009, 01:31:35 PM

Quote from: Martin H on May 10, 2009, 01:13:18 PM
that would be a little bit more awkward to achive LOL

Bah!!! Technicalities...

Regards,

Greg

Mossie · May 14, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Another pic, borrowed from Airliners.net:

So did Tina just pop back down, or did she have to circuit?

PR19_Kit · May 14, 2009, 12:59:23 PM

Quote from: Mossie on May 14, 2009, 08:33:19 AM
So did Tina just pop back down, or did she have to circuit?

Apparently they got down and stopped before the end of the runway. Gawd knows how, but they did. Max. altitude was 80 ft or so.

Martin H · May 14, 2009, 02:19:03 PM

So far the CAA appears to have kept a low profile, most likly due to the fact they got her back down before the need for a circuit. If she did go around to land, you can bet the CAA would be all over her owner's like a rash.

Mossie · May 15, 2009, 04:35:11 AM

I'm guessing that are procedures in place in case this happens. I imagine an accidental take off has happened before, especially if Taxi speeds are close to those needed to get in the air. As long as the reasons for it are well understood & the people at Brunty are sufficiently humble & taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, the CAA should limit any restrictions to Brunty itself.

JJC · July 03, 2009, 12:16:38 PM

Vulcan AND Victor to the SKY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GTX · July 26, 2009, 11:17:03 PM

Video of incident

regards,

Greg

Mossie · July 27, 2009, 05:36:25 AM

Having a look at that, you can see signs of the Victor wanting to get airborne in the first few hundred yards or so. There's definately quite a wind & I'd say he went into the air a lot earlier than you'd expect a Victor to do so. No bomb load of course (hopefully!) & I imagine they would have just enough fuel for the taxis, so light weight plus wind = a lot of explaining to do to the CAA!

Anyone heard if the CAA have said anything more?

Steel Penguin · July 27, 2009, 06:00:57 AM

just had a look at the caa site, and no sign that i can see, though i am not too shure i looked in all the right places. i half expected at least some information considering it was several months ago, just a mention that it happened and that they were investinagting. ( sort of like ive seen on the rail inspectors site). It could be that they have done a investigation, found that it was a mistake and instructed the owners on how not to do it again. ( i hope, i hope, i hope) and are leaving it at that.

JJC · August 05, 2009, 01:27:58 PM

[start rant] i hope you agree that the CAA are complete to*s*rs

they pee me off big time

its gone OTT with all the rules and regulations especially show performances! i for one am fed up if the victor wants to fly let it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : [end rant]

B777LR · August 06, 2009, 01:51:20 AM

Quote from: JJC on August 05, 2009, 01:27:58 PM
[start rant] i hope you agree that the CAA are complete to*s*rs they pee me off big time its gone OTT with all the rules and regulations especially show performances! i for one am fed up if the victor wants to fly let it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : [end rant]

the regulations are there for a reason though. It wouldn't be nice if that Victor dropped onto a house. That would also cause even more limits on airshows.

Aircav · August 06, 2009, 02:23:31 AM

As the Victor isn't registered as a aeroplane then its not an aeroplane

lancer · August 06, 2009, 08:40:09 AM

Quote from: B787 on August 06, 2009, 01:51:20 AM
Quote from: JJC on August 05, 2009, 01:27:58 PM
[start rant] i hope you agree that the CAA are complete to*s*rs they pee me off big time its gone OTT with all the rules and regulations especially show performances! i for one am fed up if the victor wants to fly let it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : [end rant]

the regulations are there for a reason though. It wouldn't be nice if that Victor dropped onto a house. That would also cause even more limits on airshows.

Perhaps, BUT the CAA or also known as the Campagin Against Aviation makes so many unnecessary regulations as if it was trying to stop all non airline flying in this country.

Geoff · August 07, 2009, 11:03:23 AM

Quote from: Aircav on August 06, 2009, 02:23:31 AM
As the Victor isn't registered as a aeroplane then its not an aeroplane

Then its probably a missile legally.

OK its an unregistered a/c without a CoA - the shat could be suffocatingly deep in either case.

I have been told that if the nose/tail wheel comes up during a taxi then as some lift has been generated its technically "flying" I don't know how true this is but if the CAA want to be a bit autistic about this it could be umm unpleasent.

JJC · August 07, 2009, 11:18:14 AM

Quote from: Geoff on August 07, 2009, 11:03:23 AM
Quote from: Aircav on August 06, 2009, 02:23:31 AM
As the Victor isn't registered as a aeroplane then its not an aeroplane

Then its probably a missile legally.

OK its an unregistered a/c without a CoA - the shat could be suffocatingly deep in either case.

I have been told that if the nose/tail wheel comes up during a taxi then as some lift has been generated its technically "flying" I don't know how true this is but if the CAA want to be a bit autistic about this it could be umm unpleasent.

if thats true then when the buccaneer does fast runs at elvington it is technically 'flying'!

Bruntingthorpe

B777LR