Unfortunately the VC10's career was not without its darker days. Two crashes claimed lives and several other airframes fell victim to terrorism, fortunately without loss of life. Other incidents that have occurred during the VC10's career are also included here to illustrate the fact that the VC10 also saved lives because of its well thought-out safety features and sound structure.
Accidents (hull-loss events):
Information from Aviation Safety Net
Information from Aviation Safety Net
The Long Story
With thanks to Mark Hubbard who included the text in electronic form in his Nigeria Airways VC10 package for Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which can be downloaded here.
"As a recent graduate going out to join an oil exploration team in Nigeria, we (three new graduates, working for the same company) were booked on Nigeria Airways to Lagos on 19 November 1969. When we arrived in London our company representative advised us that there was a delay in processing the visa by the Nigerian High Commission. Because of this we missed the flight, and stayed overnight near London. The following morning we were told of the crash at Lagos. We were all in something of a state of shock at the time! I travelled to Lagos on the BOAC flight on the 20th, presenting my tickets for the previous day's flight much to the consternation of the BOAC check-in staff."
The end of G-ASGN
after being blown up by terrorists
Information from Aviation Safety Net
More about this on the Hijackings page.
Information from Aviation Safety Net
A detailed account of the final flight of G-ARTA can be found at the British Caledonian tribute website through this link.
5X-UVA seen at
Paris Orly Airport on 7 June 1969.
Information from Aviation Safety Net
The Long Story
5X-UVA was the first VC10 out of the five ordered to be delivered to East African Airways. At the time of the accident the aircraft had accumulated 18586 hours with the joint Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ugandan airline, flying between East and Central Africa, Europe and Asia.
Earlier in April 1972 problems with the brakes on the left-hand main gear had resulted in several component changes, unfortunately there were no functional checks of the system after these component changes which would have shown that one of the anti-skid units had a seal fitted that didn't belong in the assembly and which was blocking several ports rendering the unit useless. Two days after this the left-hand rear tire burst during a landing roll and as the anti-skid unit was deemed the culprit this was changed, again no functional check was performed. This would have shown that the two anti-skid units serving the rear wheels on the main gear were cross connected, another result of the earlier component change. The faulty anti-skid unit was therefore still in place on the main gear.
The Haile Selassie 1st International Airport sported a single runway in the direction 07-25. In the months preceding the accident this runway had been resurfaced with asphalt and also lengthened to 3700 meters. To enable the runway extension the ground level at each end of the runway had to be raised, at the far end of runway 07 this resulted in a 10,6 meter drop at the end of the stopway. To get the approach lighting up to the runway level a steel lattice tower was constructed 24 meters past the end of the runway, with other towers supporting the rest of the lighting system. All this work was finished by 7 April and announced in a NOTAM issued on that day but this bulletin made no mention of any revised runway length.
The last grain of sand that would find itself in the works that day was one of the 37 aircraft movements that morning. A locally based Cessna 185 took off with an improperly stowed jacking pad. During the take-off roll this rectangular piece of steel got left behind on the runway surface. From that point on all the ingredients for a serious accident were in place.
The crew for flight EC-720 (Addis Ababa - Rome - London) had prepared for the take-off by performing the normal performance calculations, as no new figure was available for the runway length they chose to allow for half the runway extension, thereby making use of it but staying on the safe side as well. During refuelling the Flight Engineer was inspecting a small hydraulic leak on the left-hand main gear. As the leak was within acceptable margins the decision was made to continue the flight and have the leak fixed in London.
After start-up the aircraft taxied to the runway, while back-tracking to the take-off point they asked the tower to have several dead birds removed from the runway. This was performed by a fire truck, after they vacated the runway the take-off clearance is given at 9:38, one minute later the aircraft is rolling.
Just after using half the runway length the jacking pad punctures the right-hand nose wheel causing the tire to burst. The crew felt a severe vibration and according to the flight engineer they experienced a 'loss of control'. The decision to abort the take-off is made just as the nose starts to rise, it comes down again immediately and the engines are throttled back and selected to full reverse. A few seconds later, with the aircraft braking hard, a second bang is heard as the no. 1 rear main tire on the left-hand side bursts because of the non-functioning anti-skid unit. With one tire and associated brake unit out of action the other seven wheels would now have to stop the aircraft in time. Unfortunately there were more problems with the brakes causing no.2 and no.4 brakes on the left-hand side to malfunction, altogether only 70% of the maximum certified braking energy was available and this meant that the aircraft was still traveling at over 60 knots as it left the end of the runway and became briefly airborne before dropping onto the sloping ground 10 meters below. This and the wing hitting the steel approach lighting tower caused the aircraft to break up and with a major fuel tank ruptured fire quickly broke out. With the aircraft broken in three large sections many passengers and crew are able to evacuate the wreckage but this is hindered by jammed doors on one side and fire on the other side. Unfortunately 43 persons die in the flames, 15 are injured.
The examination of this accident concludes that the decision to abandon the take-off was made in time and was properly executed with enough runway remaining to stop the aircraft. The faults in the braking system caused one tire to burst and provided only 70% of the maximum braking effort, causing the aircraft to overrun the end of the runway.
There are many influences that led to this accident and with any one of them not in place the outcome may have been a lot different. However on this day it caused 43 deaths.
For more about this remaining piece of fuselage (including photos) have a look at the 'Bits & Pieces' page.
Information from Aviation Safety Net
Mr. Tony Johnson e-mailed me and provided some information relating to this incident:
"Your article on the fate of G-ASGO at AMS prompted me to check my logbook – I was third pilot on G-ARVH, having been called from standby, on 4 Mar 1974 and operated to AMS to collect the passengers from 'GO. As we taxied in we saw 'GO being towed on a parallel taxiway – a very sorry sight. During passenger boarding the flight engineer (Phil Newman) saw the passenger baggage being loaded and came onto the flight deck with great concern. The Captain (Dave “Dinger” Bell) and I went to investigate and found that each passenger bag had been placed in a large clear plastic bag along with many litres of water that had entered the baggage when the Schiphol fire services extinguished the fire on 'GO. This presented the problem of unexpected additional weight of the water. It was impractical to empty each plastic bag (it would have taken too long) so the loadsheet was altered to account for the estimated amount of water on board. The return flight to LHR was uneventful."
As the incident happened not too far from where I live I went and looked up some information in the local newspaper archives. From these articles I've pieced together the following story.
This story has been moved to the Hijackings page.
Information from Aviation Safety Net
I received this comment from
The demise of XR806 is also the subject of an e-mail from another visitor:
The aircraft had a problem with the fin tank indicator on the Flight Engineer's panel and it continually showed 0. The engineer tasked to defuel the aircraft, an odious task, elected to perform this from the Flight Engineers panel. He removed all the fuel from the wing tanks, the fin tank showing empty was ignored. She also had wing refueling pods fitted which move the center of gravity rearward and no counter weights in the cabin to counter it, as a result she gently sat on her tail."
As it turns out not all of XR806 was scrapped in 1999 because the forward fuselage has been used for battle damage repair training between 1999 and 2009. For more details have a look at this page:
On this day Standard VC10 G-ARVK was flown in support of its C-of-A renewal, the first to be carried out on a Standard VC10. Chief Pilot for the ARB, D.P. Davies of 'Handling the Big Jets' fame, was on board to oversee this event. During the flight over the Bristol Channel at 12.000 ft the aircraft was put through some fairly violent manouvers, which would never be encountered in passenger service, when a passenger door suddenly opened. This door then left the aircraft, damaging a wing fence and the engine nacelles on the lefthand side as it did so, and fell in the sea. Nobody was near the door when this happened.
As a result of this incident it was decided that the door's anti-g lock, which was found not to be correctly in position, should also be visually checked. All VC10 aircraft were therefore modified with inspection windows in the door trim so that this automatic lock can be inspected for proper engagement.
While flying over the Persian Gulf on its way to the UK, Standard VC10 G-ARVB ran into a violent storm between 5000 and 10000 feet which contained hailstones of very large size. The damage that was done to the airliner was severe, apart from dents in all the leading edges the radome covering the radar antenna of the aircraft separated from the fuselage, hitting the top of the tail. The resulting blunt front end of the aircraft created strange airflows around the nose section, rendering the pitot tubes which are mounted just behind the cockpit on the fuselage sides completely useless. Normally the airflow into these tubes provides the airspeed information, but in this case the airspeed indicators were useless. Obviously Captain C. Ditmas radioed for assistance. To get the airliner down safely a 208 Sqn. Hunter from Muharraq was scrambled to escort the BOAC aircraft. Piloted by Flt. Lt. Ray Taylor it flew alongside the airliner, providing airspeed information over the radio, and thus enabling the VC10 to make a safe landing at Bahrain.
It wasn't the end of the excitement for that day though, as the Hunter suffered a full hydraulic failure, after a second full emergency call-out the Hunter landed safely as well.
Here is what some publications had to say about the incident:
National newspaper: "Aircraft Damaged By “Tennis-Ball” Hailstones.
A V.C.10 airliner arrived safely yesterday after being hammered by
hailstones the size of cricket balls while it was taking off from Bahrein
RAF News, 24th February 1968: "Hunter in VC 10 Gulf drama
In a drama over the Persian Gulf a Hunter took over the guidance of a BOAC
VC 10 to safely land its passengers in Bahrain.
And the last word is for this unknown (but probably local RAF-) publication:
"And by the way, let’s not forget the RAF Hunter pilot of 208 Squadron, Flight Lieutenant Ray Tyler, down there in Bahrain, who having nobly sprung to the help of Chris and his blokes, and seen them safely down on the ground, promptly found himself right up to the ears in the John Innes No. 1 when he lost all his hydraulics, including his TPI. We’ve heard that a Hunter’s practically unflyable without its TPI, but this boyo managed to get back in. We only hope that somebody saw to it that he was liberally dowsed in John Thuillier champagne."
(TPI = Tail Plane Incidence or tail trim)
Actually that wasn't the last word about this incident, as ex-VC10 Flight Engineer N. Boulton contacted me with his memories of this incident. So read on!
"I had operated the Bahrain-Delhi-Bahrain shuttle with G-ARVB (Captain Whittaker) and handed over the aircraft to Captain Chris Ditmus in Bahrain. Our crew were back in the Bahrain BOAC Resthouse having a beer (There were no hotels in Bahrain at that time - The Gulf Hotel was unfinished), when we got a phone call for the Captain and E/O to return to the airport with our aircraft manuals in order to assist the crew if required. In the event 'VB was on the deck when we got there. The radio conversations between the RAF Hunter and 'VB had to be relayed via the Control Tower because the Hunter used UHF and the VC10 VHF and could not communicate directly with each other. The Hunter had lost his hydraulics and had to land with a jammed stabiliser - More drama! When we all got back to the bar Chris Ditmus remarked that with all the vibration and noise "That it was like driving a Glasgow tram car at 300 Miles per hour!"
On all the photographs of the VC10 flight deck that one sees these days, there appears to be a complete lack of the Doppler Navigation Aid that was positioned forward of the throttles on the pilot's centre instrument panel. As far as I remember we used to set up the track and distance for each leg and at 10 miles to go a light (green?) use to come on. As we passed over the fix, the system would automatically change over to the next navigational leg. It was pretty accurate for the 1960s - perhaps 6 miles out when you got to New York from London Heathrow. As I recollect the Doppler also had a read out for speed over the ground. This was important to the crew of 'VB because with no airspeed indications due to the missing radome and severe turbulence over the pitot probes the Captain could use his Doppler speed (bearing in mind wind speed + a few knots for 'Mum'!) together with aircraft attitude as a guide to his airspeed. As far as I remember the Doppler System originated from the RAF - probably V-Bombers where it was called Green something-or-other."
With thanks to R. Lee and D. Gardner for supplying the photos and material for this story, also N. Boulton for his additions.
This story was told to me in an e-mail, unfortunately not all the details are known so if anyone knows more, please send an e-mail through the link at the left side of the page.
On Sunday 29 April 1968 a 10 Squadron VC10 C Mk.1 was operating a trooping flight from RAF Brize Norton to RAF Changi (Singapore) with a stop at RAF Gan. During the take off from RAF Gan one or more tyres on the lefthand undercarriage had burst. Because of this it was decided to land at RAF Tengah (Singapore).
First indication of something strange at this airbase was through a tannoy broadcast around lunchtime, instructing the 20 Squadron crash crew chief to contact ATC immediately. As seen from a vantage point on top of the Transit Block, a strip of foam was laid along the left-hand edge of runway 36, extending for about half the length of the runway. Two passes were needed as the drizzle washed some of the foam away again, the weather not being all that good that day with a heavy overcast around 900 feet.
In addition to the foam, there were two Whirlwind HAR 10 helicopters positioned just off to the left of the runway. These carried firemen with extinguishers and would follow the aircraft as it landed. They would then touchdown as close to the aircraft as possible, disembarking the firemen who would deal quickly with any sign of fire. There were also three lines of emergency vehicles arranged at three points along the right-hand side of the runway. Most of these were fire engines but also included ambulances and, in case it was needed, heavy lifting equipment.
When it came in the aircraft touched down very gently with the left undercarriage bogie on the foam strip. It then seemed to go through the normal stopping motions with reverse thrust and, most likely also, wheel braking. Once it had stopped, the helicopters landed close to it and the firemen were quickly into the area of the wheels. There did not appear to be any sign of fire.
When it was declared safe to do so the passengers disembarked into waiting coaches and the aircraft was towed to a hard standing in the north-west corner of Tengah. A few days later it was still parked there.
1. A Whirlwind positioning while foam is laid along the runway.
1. Rolling out on the wet and foamy runway with onlookers in the
All six photos by L. Bean
Mick Skinner e-mailed me with his memories of this same incident, here they are:
I remember this incident well as I was serving at RAF Changi SASF (Staging A/C Servicing Flight) and was involved in the recovery and restoring the A/C back to flight status. The A/C was XR808. I also have some more photo's clearly showing the tyre damage and the registration taken just prior to the touchdown just to the rear of the Javelin line.
An amusing incident happened the following day as a few of us went from Changi to Tengah to tidy her up, as the Airframe and engine guys had loads to do one of the Inst guys, Setch Setchfield, offered to empty the Toilets into the honeycart for us and unfortunately for him in his haste to get the dirty deed done he misunderstood the sequence of operation and pulled the release handle before the hose was secured, a torrent of effluent hit him full on the chest knocking him off the honeycart which fortunately released the handle and stemmed the flow and the only thing he hurt was his pride and sense of smell (the A/C had stood in tropical heat for some 24 hours). I was re-oiling the engines at the time and laughed so much I nearly fell off the safety raiser. After this his nickname changed from Setch to Sluice!!!
1. XR808 approaching over a line of parked Gloster Javelins, the
aft wheels on the left bogie seem damaged when compared to the righthand ones.
1-2. XR808 rolling out on the runway trailed by a spray of foam.
All five photos by M. Skinner
An old issue of 'Air Clues' recently unearthed a story of a VC10 that got itself off track. Originally published in July 1969 here it is again.
The VC10 pounds powerfully through the inky darkness of the early morning. From 30,000 ft the roar of its engines is heard only distantly by those afloat on the unfriendly seas of the North Atlantic. Perhaps a few pause in their vigil to gaze aloft and marvel at the speed and ease of air travel in comparison with the rough and tumble of the ocean in winter. Others perhaps pause to reflect on the skill of those who navigate so unerringly through the night skies, following so closely the curving track that forms the shortest distance from the old world to the new.
Aboard the speeding aeroplane, the passengers are for the most part sleeping peacefully in the pre-dawn blackness. The cabin is gloomy. Further forward the crew sit shrouded in the eerie glow of the instrument lighting. A sense of timelessness persists, and the scene, one imagines, resembles that in a spaceship bound for a distant planet. This apparent tranquillity and the steady hum of the equipment belie the unceasing routine activity that keeps the ship upon its course.
The navigator takes an astro-fix. As he does so he is interrupted by the captain who says that a return has appeared on the cloud radar—it looks like a coastline. But how can it be, out here in mid-Atlantic? The crew discuss the possibilities. It must be a large amount of ice—but it is surely a long way south?
The astro-fix shows that the aircraft is not on track. The navigator ponders; his 8000 hrs experience telling him that this suspicion growing in his mind cannot be true. The last astro-fix cannot possibly be true—probably something went wrong when the pilot interrupted him. Still, better just check with the Prince Christian beacon on the southern tip of Greenland. Tune it, check the coding. GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!
It must be true! The radar return is the coast of GREENLAND!!!!
Early one Saturday evening last autumn the VC10 had landed at an RAF station in the Midlands from where it was scheduled to transport personnel across the North Atlantic the following morning. After landing, the crew checked in with Ops and Met before taking a meal at the Aircrew Buffet, after which the pilot, co-pilot and navigator went to their Mess, changed and went into the bar.
The crew left the bar early because they had to make an early start next day but the navigator had some difficulty in getting off to sleep because a 'beat group' was making a loud noise in another Mess nearby. Eventually he dropped off and his next recollection was of being woken at 4 o'clock the next morning. At 0430 the crew were driven to the Flight Planning Section, and the navigator remained there while the rest of the crew went to breakfast; the navigator took his meal later. About this time the captain heard the navigator say that he felt tired owing to the beat-group preventing him from getting off to sleep.
At Flight Planning, the navigator found that the North Atlantic Planned Tracks for the day were not available, but the Minimum Time Track was available so he decided to use that. He also decided to use the Gyro/Grid Technique of Navigation, not being aware that it was not command policy to practice Gyro/Grid steering over the North Atlantic except when two navigators were operating together, with one of them holding an A or B category. He was unable to finish all his planning and told the captain that he would calculate the Point of No Return and some other items after getting airborne.
The VC10 took to the air at 0710 and, with the co-pilot flying it, followed airways to Tory Island off the north-west coast of Ireland. The aircraft had been cleared to fly at FL310 after requesting Flight Plan clearance at FL350. Having previously extracted the value of Earth Rate from the tables and added the Residual Transport Wander, the navigator had set the product. -11.8°/hr, on the Rate Corrector of the starboard compass system, and switched over to GYRO.
But the correct figure that should have been set on the Rate Corrector was +11.8°/ hr. This simple error had the effect of precessing the gyro at the rate of nearly 24° per hour causing the aircraft to diverge slowly north of its intended track.
What was happening aboard the aircraft that led to this error not being noticed? The Captain's knowledge of Gyro/Grid navigation was scanty and when he carried out a cross-check of the E2B, Magnetic and Gyro compasses, their relationship appeared satisfactory to him. Because the navigator's first astro-fix gave a plot close to the intended track and the Howgozit showed that fuel consumption was close to that planned, the Captain had little reason to suppose that the flight, so far carried out entirely in darkness, was anything other than normal—until some time before he was due to give a position report at 40°W he saw a 40-mile wide return on the cloud radar, about 100 nm ahead.
It was during the second astro-fix that the navigator's attention was drawn to the captain's sighting on the radar. After some discussion the crew decided that the object could only be a large amount of ice. Indeed it was a large amount of ice, but it was ice attached to the coast of Greenland—for by now the VC10 was approaching a point some 510 nm north of its intended track! But at last the penny was beginning to drop in the navigator's mind. The result of the astro-fix, which to him seemed hopelessly wrong, coupled with the radar-return caused him to try tuning some NDBs. A bearing from the Prince Christian beacon at the southern tip of Greenland confirmed his worst fears and he told the captain the bad news.
The captain took the controls and command of the situation. The aircraft was later fixed overhead the Prince Christian beacon and eventually landed safely at Gander with rather less fuel than intended.
Wing Commander Spry says:
I hope the pilot and the navigator of the VC10 will forgive me for reviving this ghastly episode which I can well understand they are anxious to forget. But I consider that this story should be published as a warning, and in the hope that its appearance may prevent others from falling into a similar trap.
For is it not one of those "there, but for the Grace of God, go I" stories?
This navigator had a total experience of getting on for 8000 hrs. Yet when his log and chart of this trip were examined afterwards by a highly-qualified examiner, an appalling number of errors, omissions and deficiencies were brought to light, not the least being the fact that his astro-fixing was woefully inaccurate.
I could say a great deal about this particular story, a very great deal, but I think that it speaks for itself. Read it again and remember that no matter how good or how sophisticated the aeroplane and the navigation equipment it carries may be—the safety of the aircraft still relies upon the skill and fitness of those who operate that equipment.
A stack of old 'Flight' magazines containing VC10 related articles was kindly donated to me by John Downey, and in the 4 December 1969 issue was this article describing a flight which had to return to Heathrow due to an uncontained engine failure.
BOAC Super VC10 G-ASGK suffered a major mechanical failure on November 27 which resulted in low-pressure turbine blades being shed from number three (starboard-inner) Conway. The aircraft was at about 6,500ft over Reading at about 1115hr when a loud bang was heard in the aircraft and on the ground. Debris from number three engine apparently penetrated number four, causing it to catch fire. The fire-warning light of this engine came on, followed by indications that number three was running down. The fire was quickly extinguished by the automatic system. Resulting from the failure, the l.p. turbine and thrust reverser assemblies separated from the aircraft, but caused no damage on hitting the ground.
The Super VC10 returned to Heathrow and landed at 170kt at a weight of about 327,000lb - some 90,000lb over the design limit landing weight. The aircraft had a full fuel load for the London to New York sector, and there was insufficient time to jettison any of it. The undercarriage was lowered manually. Two tires deflated on landing - the fusible plugs blew - but there were no injuries among the 58 passengers and 11 crew.
The VC10 had flown 6,527hr in service and number three engine was fitted on July 1. The two engines are being removed and will go to the BOAC overhaul centre at Treforest for inspection.
British airworthiness requirements stipulate that any single
failed compressor or turbine blade must be contained within the engine casing.
Multiple blade failures or turbine-disc disintegrations are not required to be
contained. The probability of such failures is considered remote and the weight
penalty of catering for them unacceptable.
The following story was told by PPRUNE user Tagron in a post on the forums there. I don't have access to the original publication but wanted to copy it here anyway. If others have a better recollection or a copy of the safety bulletin which covered this incident, please get in touch.
The scheduled destination of the flight was New York, but bad weather at JFK meant there were lengthy landing delays. After a period of holding the decision was made to divert to Boston. The BOS weather was also deteriorating but this was not reflected in the ATIS broadcast, so the crew were unaware of the developing situation. The first attempt was a non-precision approach (VOR/DME probably) and resulted in a go around.
They then attempted an automatic ILS using the autoland system. Whether it was intended to complete a full autoland is unknown, but in any event there was a system failure which resulted in a second go around.
Then a manual ILS was flown but the weather had deteriorated to the point where nothing was seen, resulting in another go around.
The fuel situation had now become critical and at this point ATC offered the military airfield at Bedford. This was only 12NM (approx) from BOS and was VMC, so the flight was able to land without difficulty. Usable fuel remaining, about 15 minutes.
Long after the event a cabin crew member who had been on that flight claimed that the captain had considered ditching close to the coast. Most likely this was not a formal briefing to the cabin crew but an unguarded remark after the event. It was not mentioned in the safety review report, casting doubt on its significance. But it does serve to highlight how marginal the operation had become as a result of a combination of unforeseen circumstances.
While on a night flight from Hong Kong to Tokyo, somewhere over the South China Sea ,G-ASGL suffered a fuel transfer error that caused all four engines to run down. In order to correct an imbalance the Flight Engineer had all four engines feeding from the number 4 main tank, but forgot about the situation. Later on when he was briefly away from his station the main tank ran dry. Initially no.3 engine flamed out and the crew reacted by securing the engine, shortly after the other three engines also flamed out creating an eerie silence on the flight deck.
The crew responded by initiating a descent, thereby keeping the speed at 290 knots. Without a functioning yaw-damper the aircraft suffered divergent Dutch Roll oscillations with the bank angle approaching 45 degrees. The crew was able to stop the oscillations by partly deploying the speedbrakes.
As the flameouts caused all the generators to drop off line, the ELRAT (electric ram air turbine) was quickly deployed, restoring electrical power to the flight controls. In the meantime a shaken Flight Engineer had returned to his post and started to restart the four engines, so that several minutes later all was back to normal except for the deployed ELRAT.
As the ELRAT was designed for emergency use, the only way to re-stow it was on the ground, because of this the aircraft had to continue its flight with the ELRAT extended. The continued exposure during the rest of the flight caused the ELRAT to overspeed and fail sometime later in the flight. It was determined that the failure was due to 'whirl instability' which was later rectified by modifying the shaft structure of the device. And as was suitably demonstrated by this incident, there were good reasons why a VC10 was not allowed to fly without a functioning ELRAT, therefore the unit had to be replaced or repaired before G-ASGL could be returned to service.
The captain of G-ASGL on that flight, Tony Frish, who passed away on May 8th, 2010, has sent Christmas cards to ELRAT designer Harry Zeffert ever since.
This story was e-mailed to me by Richard Hobby. If anyone else remembers these incidents please let me know. It is quite rare for an airliner to lose several engines at once, probably the only thing that can cause something like this is a fuel problem, but why should three engines quit and one keep on running? This story does give an indication of the amount of excess power available on a VC10, I guess it is safe to say that many an airplane would not survive a three engine flame-out!
Update: See additions below to get some perspective on this story.
"A friend was returning from Niarobi in 1974 on a VC10. Not sure if it was EAA or BA. The aircraft lost power on three engines once airborne on take off and struggled around for an emergency landing. Of course panic struck most of the passengers who 'screamed the whole way round'. The flight was completed the next day, and he was late returning to school.
I mentioned this to a retired BOAC VC10 pilot I met in Canada in the late 1990's and he said he had the same difficulty on take off from Calcutta. BOAC and Vickers engineers expressed doubt that the plane could have been saved under such circumstances. The design parameters suggested it should have been impossible to recover from this condition with a fully loaded aircraft under hot conditions."
In January 2007 retired VC10 Flight Engineer N. Boulton e-mailed me about this story:
"Regarding the supposed single engine flight of a VC10 at Nairobi, my experience would suggest that this would not be possible.
I remember departing from Nairobi for Europe (11 Jan 1968, G-ARVK). A tyre tread on the port main undercarriage came off on take off. (The tyres were 220 MPH/ 204 knots limited ground speed.) This caused a hole in the flaps and debris was ingested into #2 engine causing damage to the engine compressor blades, which became unbalanced. The flight engineer's VME (engine Vibration Measuring Equipment) detected the vibration on #2 engine and once we had achieved a safe altitude of 20,000 feet (there is high ground on track , northbound out of Nairobi Airport-NBO) Captain (Jumbo) Jarvis ordered the #2 engine shut down. We dumped fuel down to maximum landing weight and returned to Nairobi.
Prior to selection of full landing flap I was very much aware that we had 97% power on the 3 remaining engines whilst on the ILS at the outer marker. This was in excess of max continuous power which was around 94.5 % (as I remember). (Max Take off power was 100% N1, 100% N2 and 600 degrees EGT.) On the ground, the fuel cross feed manifold in the wheel well was also found to be damaged and leaking fuel.
In my opinion we would not have been able to make it on one engine. We might possibly have made it on 2 engines if we had dumped down to the stack pipes and restricted the flap settings. The touchdown speed would have been very high. That sort of thing would have been rather hairy!"
D.P. Davies discusses the merits of training flights where two engines are 'failed' in his book 'Handling the Big Jets'. The reason for the discussion is the situation where one engine is shut down on a four-engined airliner, for training purposes, and a second one unexpectedly fails. Nowadays this is something that will only be practiced in a simulator but on those days with jets being a relatively new thing and simulators not yet up to today's standards, the scenario was realistic. To support the option data was produced showing the climb performance of the 707 and VC10 on two of its four engines. The graph for the VC10 is reproduced here.
What this shows is that the VC10 is able to perform a go-around with two engines up to its maximum landing weight (my emphasis). This enables the scenario to be trained at low weights, but keep in mind that anything above the maximum landing weight is likely to produce a negative rate of climb (just extrapolate the lines in the graph)! Therefore the story above, which was sent in, is highly unlikely.
During a flight across the Andes from Chile to Argentina G-ASIX got caught in a patch of clear air turbulence above the mountain peaks. The aircraft was thrown up on to its side at a 90-degree-plus back angle ant then tossed, headlong, nose down towards the peaks a few thousand feet below. (The mountains reaching up to 27,000 feet placed them close at hand.) The severity of the upset caused the PCUs (power control units) on almost every flying control surface to be knocked out of action leaving the crew with an airplane plummeting downwards at speeds approaching Mach 1. With very little control authority the crew managed a recovery, resetting the other PCUs along the way. The airplane landed safely at its destination and after a thorough ground check was despatched on its next flight back home to Gatwick. Only there did detailed engineering inspection reveal a fracture in one of the tail-fin support spars, which required a lengthy repair.
The incident proved the strength of the VC10 airframe as other aircraft in similar situations have lost structural integrity and crashed. On an airliner with wing mounted engines the engine mounting pins would probably have snapped as the aircraft was spun around.
When ZA141, ex-BOAC G-ARVG, was converted into a VC10 K2 tanker it was the first of this conversion project to take to the skies on 22 June 1982. As a new subtype a significant amount of testing was carried out but since a lot was already known about the VC10 design only the corners of the established flight envelope were explored.
One point which was required was the roll rate at VD which is a speed about 10% above the type's VNE or Never Exceed speed. At this speed a roll from 30° bank angle to 30° opposite bank angle was needed, which would be timed to establish the roll rate of the aircraft. This was to be done around 22.000 feet which is the altitude where the maximum Mach number and maximum Indicated Airspeed (IAS) intersect.
At the start of the test the aircraft was at 35.000 feet and commenced a descent to achieve the needed speed. As the VC10 is an aerodynamically clean aircraft the throttles were closed to keep the rate of descent within reasonable bounds. Normally the speed brakes will also be used as roll spoilers to assist the ailerons but the roll rate on ailerons alone was needed, so to avoid roll spoiler activation the speedbrakes were selected fully out at 25.000 feet. The nose was lowered to avoid decelerating below the needed speed and 30° of bank was applied to start the test.
Almost at once a snaking motion started which quickly increased in intensity. Suspecting the spoilers to be the cause of this these were quickly selected fully in again. This stopped the yawing motion but the aircraft was now at a high speed with the nose down and no power. The only way out was to pull out of the dive which was now at a speed above VD. The elevator actuators on the VC10 are powered flying control units (PCU) which are individual units per elevator. Due to the high aerodynamic loads on the control surfaces the elevator PCUs stalled leaving the crew with only the tailplane trim to pitch the aircraft's nose up, which works rather slow compared to an elevator. It worked though and level flight was re-established at 8000 feet over Wales.
After return to base the aircraft was found to have severely wrinkled skin in the fin area as well as some missing engine panels. It was found that a fin strut had snapped which caused the fin to be exchanged for one from the recently retired XX914. Later it was established that the opening in the rear fuselage for the Hose Drum Unit had changed the fuselage dynamics to such an extent that the spoilers caused a yaw divergence which was different from the original unmodified aircraft.
During a VIP flight to Washington a RAF VC10 got into a situation where unusual weather created a near-accident situation; had it not been for the VC10's superior performance characteristics, an accident would most certainly have ensued.
This incident is part of a larger account which can be found in the 'Memories' section by clicking on this link: Fun and Games with Harold.
NOTE :- I would like to make comment with regard to Brian Trubshaws account in his autobiography of the incident with G-ARTA when the aircraft was very nearly lost. I wasn’t sure of the exact period this took place in the development phase, but found it as the last day of 1963 on your web site. Far be it for me to contradict the great man Brian Trubshaw, and he is no longer around to back that version up, but I have one issue with his description some 35 years after the event at the time of his autobiography. With all due respect to him he was in a dire situation and maybe some event got muddled. I remember the event well, although not being on G-ARTA at the time of the incident. Ground crew were not allowed to fly on any aircraft that was going to be subject to stall trials. But I was on another VC10, probably Victor Bravo, returning from trials at Boscombe Down, landing about half an hour after G-ARTA. On our taxi in someone looked out a cabin window and commented, "there’s something wrong with that VC10, there’s an elevator section fully down". All flying control panels are with PCU switched "off" at near to neutral unless switched off with an input applied. On exiting our aircraft we wandered over curious and was told of the events to G-ARTA. By then all crew members had been transported to hospital, some with bleeding ears with the sudden decompression of the escape door being jettisoned.