When the flames are overlapping the canopy, that’s as good a time as any to shell out.
The DEW Line quotes British media as saying that the mishap was due to a failure of the landing gear to lower, but that’s plainly untrue. It might be safer to say that the undercarriage failed, and while it’s too early to speculate as to why, he’s coming down like a turd off a tall moose to this non-STOVL pilot’s eyes. You can hear the engine spooling up and he attempts to set a landing attitude but the rate of descent remains stoically unbroken.
It’s good to see that the GBU-12 on the starboard wing pylon was attentive to its duty by not cooking off straight away. Max props to the fire fighters who went in there to cool the thing down.
That can’t be fun.
Update: Thanks to Swiss Bob for the updated vid.
Dumb question here – if it is fully involved like that, is there really any point in trying to put out the fire? Seems like risking people for no gain. Or is it to keep munitions from cooking off?
Fire being put out prevents subsequent secondary damage to the surroundings… shrapnel from an exploding aircraft or any weapons on board would not even slow down going through the tents in the area.
I know nothing about Harriers, but done plenty of flying. Speculation is fun for us sitting back watching post crash, but the pilot is the only one who really knows why it happened. Me? – I think there was something wrong prior to the approach, because the big question is why would anyone have a camera pointing at that particular aircraft unless it was known that something tricky was going to occur?
The simple reply is to reduce toxic fumes
from the carbon composits burning and
to keep the missile from cooking off.
Well that went a little pear shaped rather quickly didn’t it.
Pilot: Gear down, nice to be home etc.
Oh my, I seem to be on my belly
Flames around the seat, bugger this, final flight control please.
Somehow I don’t think he even bothered to check to see if the fire warning and/or the master caution lights were on…
Virg,
He was checking his pocket NATOPS to ensure that he was in the envelope for a successful ejection, making sure all the switches were in the proper position for the AMB, and finally thinking “well at least i won’t have to use the raft and fight off the sharkies”
The pilot was determined to ride it out. Could have had ended in a quick explosion instead of a burnt marshmallow and for that, he was lucky.
Joe-
In my admittedly utterly uninformed view it would be a pinch of guys sent into a sandy piece of crap finally getting the opportunity to do their job and another pinch of making sure nothing went up in flames enough to block the airfield.
With regard to point two I’m reminded of the C-5 in Iraq, tried to land without knowing there was quite a large size hole in the runway.
it was a C-130….
Dammit- I couldn’t quite remember, 50/50 shot and I got it wrong.
In the navy nuc world; that’s known as 50/50 / 90!!
)
Looking at it again look where the nozzles are pointing. Heavy, fast and out of options (the Harrier gliding about as well as an F-4).
i’m amazed at the people running by the scene, and some of them apparently in PT clothes.
you’d think they’d be worried about something exploding: i know i would be, which is why i’d be running the other way if i saw this IRL.
Famous Front Page Photo here: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7407/3447786819z.jpg
I seem to recall there are only so many ejections you can take before the medicos decide your spine’s been compressed enough. Seems to me he got two for the price of one.
It’s a three count, typically.
I wonder if the pilot was doing a steep approach because of the possibility of MANPADs? I remember reading an article in The Hook about VF-154 sending some of its Tomcats to be shore based in OIF and the pilots spoke about how they would have to do a max performance climb to 10,000 feet before reaching the airfield boundary to negate the MANPAD threat on takeoff.
There’s about a 2.5 second delay between visual and audio. That engine was in the process of spooling up while he dropped, why did it go to idle earlier?
Interesting thing on the smoke, it was OK until the tires lit off. After that it was like lights out in a coal mine. Makes me wonder if fire crews could use IR goggles (passive) to see the weapons and other heat sources through the smoke. Has anybody tried that? A concentrated shot of water has to be better at cooling them than spraying randomly into a volcanic plume of smoke, and the cooler water should show up on IR as well.
SOP would be to not have ordinance armed during landing approach, and I didn’t see much evidence of population. Wonder why he didn’t drop ordinance as soon as he figured out he had a problem involving lift vs weight? Gotta be cheaper than breaking the aircraft.
Silly question: If you stay with the aircraft, crash it and start it on fire while landing, what would be left of the aircraft that could be salvaged? Given the fire heat, I’m thinking nothing electronic and nothing made of metal either. Which pretty much leaves, well, nothing left on the aircraft. So why risk your life to stay with it if you see flames?
– Max
Many ARFF Units (Crash Trucks) have thermal imaging built in, and visible in the cab for the driver and turret operator. Even our small midwestern municipal airport has an Oshkosh with this device. In passenger line service, it is considered bad form to run over victims lying on the tarmac as you blunder through the smoke.
Max,
Unless you’re getting toasty or impact is imminent, there is a general reluctance to leave your nice secure, cozy cockpit. I know having had to eject from a Phantom way back when.
I’m with you man! I stayed for a time on the ordnance dumping ground from ODS. There were cluster bomblets everywhere plus all the other crap left over from a battlefield.
I think I’d have let it burn out since the pilot made it out safe. At least it didn’t slide into one of the transports or buildings. That was absolutely the worst landing I’ve ever seen on film. The pilot needs a thorough keelhauling under a carrier.
Looks like the video got yanked off youtube
Mr Lex,
Found a new copy and uploaded it here, feel free to update your embed.
http://www.the-daily-politics.com/home/48-video/1631-raf-harrier-crash-landing-kandahar-may-09-balls-of-steel
Thanks!
Kind of pushes the envelope on “Any landing you can walk away from is a good one”, eh?
Too hot, too fast and probably thinking I can save this. . . until he saw the flames.
Mr Lex, without wishing to be too much of a nerd you can scale down YouTube videos as long as you keep the proportions. I.e this video can be copied to embed at 640×385 but you can half it 320×192 etc. Just make sure you change both sets of numbers.
As a crash crewman, I’ll tell you we have multiple reasons to extinguish the fire even if the aircrew is out and the aircraft is toast.
1. Prevent cookoff of ordnance and damage/casualties to the surrounding area.
2. Prevent damage to the runway itself-if the runway is damaged too severely, it impacts flight ops.
3. Having things burn in the middle of the base creates smoke which is a visual obstruction and breathing hazard, not to mention bad form.
4. To deny the psychological and propaganda boost to the enemy of watching our gear burn.
5. Preserve as much of the aircraft as possible to assist in the mishap investigation.
6. Reduce environmental impact-many of the materials used in modern aircraft can be considered hazmat or hazardous waste.
7. Practice and validation of equipment, tactics, and procedures for the next one.
8. It’s fun.
Ah, the voice of reason chimes in….great points to place for “context” of such events.
Regarding the dutiful GBU-12 and its Mk. 82 bomb warhead not cooking off straight away some thanks may be due the insensitive munitions team at NAWC-WD. The current thermal coated, PBXN-109 filled Mk. 82 (AKA BLU-111/B) will not detonate, deflagrate, or propulsively burn in response to fast cook off fuel fires. They are in the USN but I don’t know if the RAF is using them. They seem to start to burn at about three minutes, which may explain the additional fire at 2:28. For those interested in the how of IM weapons try http://www.imemg.org/res/IMEMTS%202006_Kelley_Becker_paper10A.pdf or
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5550/tues_and_wed_briefings/rattanapote.pdf
The approach is far too hot in the vertical component. The gear suffers tructural failure as a result. The question I have is why does the engine spool up so late, and why did he allow his airspeed to deteriorate to the point that he could shove the throttle to the firewall and wave off.
‘Tis a good illustration of “out altitude, airspeed and ideas.” Unless something went wrong with the engine, and it just started to spool up after it was too late, I don’t see how the investigation has any other outcome than pilot error.
If Mongo’s “three strikes” is true, then this guy has had two in this flight alone. The crash, then the ejection. And the impact may have made it 4 strikes.
That was not intended to be a vertical landing. As an old Harrier pilot (both USMC and RAF), that looked more like a conventional (no nozzles down, or a fixed nozzle variable throttle approach). The problem looks like a faster approach than normal – maybe due to weight and not being able to use the nozzles to slow down) – speeds can approach 160 kts and they aren’t practiced that often due to long runway usage after touchdown. Then when he pulls the nose up just prior to touchdown that tailfin strikes first and the nose crashes through to the ground. That Stress breaks the nose cone off, and collapses the main gear (you see the gear shear off) and the rest is history. Saw this once at Cherry Point in the 1980′s. Unfortunate incident. The throttle is typically way back on a conventional landing, and there is very little spool up time on the RR engines, so don’t think that was the problem. As an old LSO, it looked like a landing gone bad, not much more.
I’m not sure I see ordnance on the airplane. Looks more like drop tanks.
Looks like the pilot is doing a conventional landing which is considered a semi-emergency landing in the Harrier. He came in very fast, sounds like he pulled his power back and nose up to bleed as much airspeed as possible at the last second, realized that he was not in a good situation, and tried to wave it off adding power.
At touchdown on a conventional landing, you are supposed to rotate your nozzles from 10d aft to full “braking stop” which points the nozzles 20d ahead of the airplane. Might explain why the flames start shooting forward of the wing and over the canopy. Might be the engine exhaust doing that via the nozzles.
My first instructor said to ‘keep flying until the last piece comes to a stop!’ I’m thinking that was a little too long in this case
Glad to see the Egress technicians were attentive and did their job well. Hope that pilot bought each one of them a well-deserved bottle……
Maybe that is why I think us old prop jocks were better pilots. No punch outs. Make stupid mistakes and you died. Made lots of 3 to 4 G carrier landings and never broke anything. There is a limit to how hard you can hit the ground. This jock obviously exceeded the limit.
You had to be careful in jets too, at least some of them. Anything over 4.0g in the Hornet and the maintenance support panel would register a “904″ code for hard landing. Jet up on jacks, swing checks and the chance to explain your lack of skills to the maintenance officer…
THIS PILOT IS A GREAT PILOT….BECAUSE HE WALKED AWAY FROM THE EMERGENCY….REGARDLESS OF THE NITPICKERS THAT WILL TRY TO FAULT HIM OR HER….GOOD TO SEE THE PILOT WAS NOT KILLED….AN AIRPLANE CAN BE REPLACED….A HUMAN CANNOT….ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ALL THE TRAINING THAT THIS HAS….AND SAVED HIS LIFE…..GOD SPEED….AND CONTINUE TO LEARN FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE AND POSSIBLE ERRORS….PASS IT ON TO OTHERS TO SAVE THEIR LIVES….BIOYAD!!!!
I rather like working on replacing humans. Little starter pilots are rather wonderful too.
Oh sure, later they eat like horses and get boyfriends/girlfriends and drive one crazy.
SENT PREVIOUS COMMENT….
YOU WISH TO DO THIS COMMENT THING ALL NIGHT….I SENT YOU TWO PREVIOUS COMMENTS…..SO CORRECT YOUR PROGRAM….THIS IS MY LAST COMMENT…
It seemed to me that the fire trucks took an awfully long time to respond. Its almost as if they were in the middle of a poker game or something and were determined to let it get unsalvageable before driving up. Why so long? And then, their water columns seemed to fall short of the fire for quite a few precious seconds. I hope these guys don’t find a civilian firefighting job at my local airport.
Hey BobbyB – My hunch is you are not a firefighter, so I recommend you stay in your lane with opinions and talking bad about people trained to save others. Kandahar is a big airfield. For good reason, the trucks don’t sit next to the runway all day. Also, you have no idea how long it took for the tower to realize the emergency and then notify the fire department to respond. Access to that crash site was tricky as well. Many other factors, but that’s enough for you!
To be more accurate, one truck was not quite on target. You apparently did not see the other 2 trucks behind the smoke cloud that were clearly getting it done.
Tell you what, how about you just leave the armchair quarterbacking to the firefighting community. For that matter, I too hope those military and/or federal civilian firefighters don’t find a civilian job at your airport. Not sure you deserve such dedicated rescuers who put themselves in harms way every day.
I should know, I’ve been one of them for 25 years. Nuff said, now go away.
H-Bomb,
Your moniker gives me a hint about your ego. Sounds like I hit a nerve there, didn’t I?
I’ll stay in the lane that I choose, thank you very much. I still say that if those firetrucks had arrived earlier, whatever it takes to do that, the plane (or part of it) might have been saved. Those are someone’s tax dollars up in smoke there, sir. Please don’t forget that.
No, I’m not a firefighter as you are, but I’m no less qualified to comment on what seemed an inordinate amount of time to respond. Perhaps response plans need to be changed to reduce that response time at a military airfield where it is known that planes may be coming in hot. I respect the job those guys have to do, I just think someone in the org chart dropped the ball long before this Harrier even approached the airfield.
bobby, it’s not as if this guy radioed ahead and said “i’m having problems, please alert emergency crews.” he f’ed up at the last second and came in too hot and flubbed that landing miserably. fire crews are there by the side of the runway to help people with known issues landing not random crashes.
as the other poster replied it is a big airbase and takes a while to respond, especially with no prior notice. having fire crews sit by the runway ALL DAY EVERY DAY is not effective and it will unnecessarily wear on crews and reduce their effectiveness.
think for a moment before you criticize.
Can you expand?
I used to be on active duty and run around a little airbase. No planes ever landed there to my knowledge since the end of WWII. Great base though. Home to the PACFLT helicopter training thingie. Sucker wasn’t more than a mile long but it had a fire rescue crew at both ends. Somebodies were seriously into crew rescue at that place. Those engine companies were kind of unique in my daily view of air transport. Flying out of any other airport in America I somehow failed to notice them at Lindbergh Field or Chicago, DFW, Dulles, Norfolk, Pittsburgh.
If I ever decide that I need to disguise something, I’m going to those guys and asking for the pattern they use on the fire/rescue stations.
Re the one fire truck: perhaps his job was to cool the asphalt, ergo preventing the large hole referred to earlier.
Great comment about the nozzles pushing the fire forward. I’d never have figued that one out.
Might be a good idea to rembember “there but for the Grace of God, go I.” Even the largest egos get shot down once in a while. Just glad its never been my job to assign pilot error before the investigation.
More likely they had difficulty seeing. They were forced to approach from downwind, so when they opened the turrets, the wind was in their face and likely blew the water back on their windshield and prevented them from seeing how far their streams were reaching. Had that happen to me more than once. You always prefer to approach from upwind, but if other trucks get there first, your choices are limited and you have this challenge. Watch the video again and you’ll see them eventually (and carefully) ease up closer after about 35 seconds to where they are more effective. That’s just smart firefighting…so they don’t run over or into anyone or anything. Military does not typically outfit ARFF vehicles with Thermal Imagers.
By the way, back to BobbyB’s comments about how long he thinks it took them. From the time the aircraft impacted the runway to when the fire trucks arrived in the area was 90 seconds, which is outstanding. Once in the area, it then took them approximately 35 to 40 seconds to actually make access to the aircraft and start putting water on it. That’s just over 2 minutes from time of impact to putting water on the fire. Typical timeline: 1. Tower sees or is notified of incident. 2. Tower notifies Dispatch Center. 3. Dispatch Center notifies Fire Department. 4. Firefighters respond to their trucks, suit up and get on. 5. Trucks respond. Authorized standard: 60 seconds for dispatch to take the call and notify fire, then 60 seconds for firefighters to get to trucks, suit up and get on, then 3 minutes to respond to farthest point on airfield for an “Unannounced” aircraft emergency. That’s 5 minutes allowed. They were putting the fire out in 2. How’s that “poker game” grab ya BobbyB????
I blew an engine off Southern California and executed an emergency landing at Tustin. The landing was a no-brainer, but I hadn’t even had time to climbed out of the cockpit before I was surrounded by Marine firefighters. “Ooo frickin’ RAH”. You hardly ever think of them, but when you need them… you gotta love ‘em.
I was a USAF firefighter in the late ’60′s.In those day’s the tower called the crash trucks,the trucks rolled immediately, we put our aluminized asbestos suits on while rolling to the scene. I cannot believe things have changed!
As JAV explained the ARFF priority in responding to downed AC is correct. Keep in mind that the Video has segmented tape stoppage and starting points. We don’t know what the initial Alert Information the ARFF Crews received from the Tower so they may have not been aware that there was an ejection. ARFF has but 1 chance to get it right due to the rapid deterioration of the aircraft in flames.
They have a timed response (for the FAA is 3 minutes from the initial Alert Notification for the 1st Apparatus, not sure about DOD..2 Min.?), and the process involves the initial “Sizing Up” and moving in for attack.
This must be done immediately and there are many factors you have to take into consideration which are too numerous to list. As far as the one ARFF Apparatus on the left of the video that gives the appearance of falling short of the fire with it’s Stream, again, we don’t know what he is seeing from his cab and he may have been laying a foam path as a safety buffer between he and the fire before he moves in closer.
Kudos to the ARFF Crews!
DoD ARFF response (travel time) is 3 minutes for unannounced incidents.
1 minute for pre-announced, which is with trucks standing by along runway until aircraft lands.
Concur – kudos to the ARFF Crews!
Don’t know the Harrier but I have a feeling that’s Oxygen that you see from the area of the broken nose cone just before the fire goes forward…the fire would or did love that!!!
I witnessed 3 Harrier crashes at Cherry Point in 1980, all A-models (I think). One was zero altitude-zero airspeed but level wings, and the pilot walked away. The other was 50 ft altitude and zero airspeed but in a 90 degree bank angle. That was not pretty. The third was on takeoff so probably 150 airspeed and 100 ft with about 60 degrees nose down. That was successful.
I suspect high G ground impact induced stun mode completely incapacitated pilot. Pilot may have momentarily blacked out following impact. Heat of flames may have re-awakened him to reality as he slid to a stop. If he was even aware, he knew instantly on rollout that he was no longer in control of his plane. Flames are incredibly hot up close and I am sure that brought him ’round. Hope he has no spinal issues from the impact and subsequent ejection.
Being an OLD instructor pilot, i would say the landing was a C- overall pink slip for the ride. Shoulda bailed long before the flames got around the cockpit. Go around was not an option.
Cardinal rules of all Army helicopter pilots: (1) Fly (it if you can) but ride your aircraft all the way to the scene of the accident/crash (there is a difference) and, as hard as it may be, wait for all the moving and/or loose parts and pieces to stop moving before un-assing the broke-dick bird – your amd your crew mates’ chances of walking away are greatly improved and; (2) Remember to shoot the KY-28 Encryption electronics device in the heart not the head (especially when a fire-base is in sight before fleeing the unplanned landing site (this includes either being shot out of the sky or running 20 +/- two or three minutes into the 20 minute low fuel warning light – it pleases the signal officer to no end and really makes the A/C recovery team happy with your good judgement); (3) Never squat to piss, it gives other pilots that you are or know an Air Force pilot; and finally, (4) There is no shame for an Army helicopter pilot to be hooked up and winched down to the fan-tail of a moving Navy vessel as long as you remember to inform the deck crew that you can take-off by your own damned self, you don’t think it is wise to be shot off the front-end of any damned boat, and that you’d appreciate an invitation to “Carrier Landing” practice during happy hour at the “O” Club.
Aside of these observations, any landing you can run, walk, or crawl from is, in the end, a successful one.
P.S. Forgive me but remember to key your FM mike switch before the deck crew trys to place the doughnut ring on your cargo hook.
Maybe the pilot should have done what a Zambian Air Force pilot did under similar circumstances… leg it for the perimeter fence, jump it and go to town…. then return in the afternoon saying, “It wasn’t me!”
“But you signed out the aircraft!”
“No…. it wasn’t me!”
He’d been landing it like a helicoptor so long he forgot how to land it like a fixed wing.
The poop in his pants cushioned his ejection landing.
Hmmm, being a 3,000 hour rotorhead with only 1,000 hours of fixed wing time, I am perplexed. I’d love to see the AMB results after all is said and done. As in a previous thread, it looks a lot like a Max performance landing… as if he was flying the “ball” without enough kts. Unless he had compesssor stalls or partial power loss on short final, it looks like he was out of the envelope… way out. In helo-speak, we called it “Power-settling”. (Not enough “Liftees” at the flare). Of course, it is the aviator way to second guess their fellow pilots, so I’ll leave the pore guy alone. Guilty or innocent, he’ll get roasted by the AMB and he’ll probably have to resign his commision. BTW: I don’t agree with the statement “Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing”. We are well past that historical precedent. Keep your turns up.
do not get this one at all.
if he knows that is gear is not locked – why not use your vtol capability.
5 caterpillar tires would of saved lots of money.
or may be martin baker needs advertising !!!
As an old Air Force Crash Rescue person. Couldn’t have handled the fire better. Kudos to all those now called fire protection personnel. Stay safe.
That wat happens when ya give the RAF planes. Just leave the Air Force things to the US.
The engine spool-up isn’t as late as it sounds – remember that sound travels a lot slower than light, so the microphone hears what the camera sees, in this case about 2-3 seconds later judging by the time marks on the video. That may not sound like much but it can make a big difference in such a fast-developing situation (I used to investigate accidents like this for USN/USMC). Also, look carefully and you’ll notice that the flaps are only partially down – maybe not enough for the pylon loading. And to those folks asking about vertical landings, the Harrier (and the upcoming F-35) can’t land vertically with much fuel in the plane or anything much in the way of ordnance; there just isn’t enough engine thrust. Short landings, not vertical ones, are the rule.
I don’t think he had any power. Yes you hear an engine spool up but since there is no sound of the crash I think the sound is coming from another a/c closer to the camera. As others have stated someone knew to point the camera in the first place. AV8′s probably have a glide ration of a lead brick… I’ll bet he rode it as long as he did to save his mates if possible.
Pilot error…..def.
So, what are the regs on building a fire/rescue unit within a certain amount of feet or minutes of a runway? And how many fire/rescue units do you need per feet of runway or amount of aircraft being on the base?
Just proves my theory that the marines have no dam reason to have airplanes except for Helicopters I think if you check the accident stats for the last 50 years they are way above average. Leave the close air support to the navy attack people.