Channel HS.748s at Portsmouth

[Garry Russell]

A none aviation site page showing the two Channel Airways HS.748s that came to grief in one day

http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Hampshire/ ... h-Airfield

[John]

Blimey I drove past what used to be Portsmouth Aerodrome last night and it hardly seems possible that it was once the site of such excitement

Kind regards

John

[robcarrich]

I flew to Jersey from Portsmouth Airport on one of those channel Airways 748s’ a couple of weeks before these accidents.
I can remember thinking as we arrived at the terminal (shed!) “ where the hell is the runway”, all I could see was a small field. no sign of any aircraft!
All of a sudden in a cloud of dust, grass and noise a large aircraft appeared outside the window.
I was not surprised when this accident happened.

Rob

[PeteP]

I'd just left school and was working on the Hovercraft from Southsea to Ryde before starting in ATC. We carried the evening local papers to Ryde every day and I still remember the bundles wrapped in a poster which said that two aircraft had crashed at Portsmouth. I assumed they were a couple of the local Austers and was amazed when it turned out to be two 748s, one after the other.

It had been a baking hot August and there was a sudden rain storm that day. The first aircraft , G-ATEK, inbound from Paris, skidded off the runway, through a hedge and stopped just short of going into the water of Port Creek. The second aircraft, G-ATEH, inbound from Guernsey, landed on another runway, also aquaplaned and went through the boundary fence and on to the Eastern Road - one of (then) only two roads onto and off Portsea Island. I can tell you from personal experience that road is always busy but, somehow, it found a gap in the cars and no one was seriously hurt in either accident. I seem to recall that Portsmouth City Council, keen to clear the road before the evening rush hour, attempted to pull EH off the road by putting a steel cable around the tail and dragging it off with a tractor which added considerably to the damage. Both aircraft were repaired on-site and eventually returned to Southend.

There were claims at the time that the controller had failed to tell the second aircraft about what had happened to the first. A few years later, on reading the AAIB report on the accident, it turned out to be true. When asked why he had not passed a warning to the second aircraft (landing on a shorter runway and out of wind) he replied that he didn't want to worry the pilot! Now there's thoughtful. Anyway, that accident was responsible for a change to the Manual of Air Traffic Control which following, an AAIB recomendation, added a section about operations on grass runways in wet conditions.

If you want to see a few more photos, go here: http://www.cbfsim.co.uk/cbfs_bb/viewtop ... t&start=10 and scroll to the bottom of the page.
Pete

[Garry Russell]

It was also the beginning of the end for the 748 in Channel service.

Various leases saw the type fade away..

As for these two, both were put up for sale during repairs. One went on without re entering Channel service and the other flew for about a week in basic Channel before going to it's new owner.

Channel did try and blame the 748, citing that HS had not factored in wet grass to the landing requirements when the assessment was made that the runways at Portsmouth were long enough. In the dry they were but not in the wet. Channel said at the time that had HS given them figures for wet grass operations they would not have bought the type.

As an aside, Channel were a Viking operator and bought Dakotas later purely because of Portsmouth. Vikings were unable to operate from there, so it was always tight

Where as the Viscount were a general fleet upgrade, the HS.748 were bought as direct replacements for the last Daks.

Having dropped Portsmouth after this there was little, if any need to keep the type on anyway.

[NigelC]

Would have thought, under BCARs, which the 748 would have been under would have the wet figures as a straight factorization in the perf section of the Flight Manual or as a flight manual supplement.

It just amazes me though that Channel were "surprised" when a 20+ tonne Mtow aircraft has poor landing performance on wet grass. Even I can have stopping problems on wet grass!

[Garry Russell]

G-ATEH had 66 people on board...a lot for a 748.

I wonder how much Channel factored in their higher density seating.

[NigelC]

66? A lot! Just nicely increases the landing weight by best part of a tonne, say 7%. I'm surprised that they were surprised it happened. Are you as surprised as I am surprised that Channel were so surprised about the poor landing perf???

[Garry Russell]

I think Channel were grasping at straws at the time.

They were well aware of Portsmouth as it had always been a special needs operation for them, I doubt there were really surprised.

Quite why they would want to push it with big loads is something they would only know.

I bet there was a bit of in house arse kicking in Southend But there again the world is full of people who poke fires then wonder why they get burned

I remember the day well

The came in that a 748 had come to grief at Portsmouth but there was different stories going around as to which flight it was and the time it happened

Only when the evening news come on did we realised there had been two...we never even considered that it was two crashes that were being banded around

To substantially damage half a fleet of four at one airport in one day...well that has to be unique.

But Channel were unique, sometimes for the wrong reasons.

[thomasburnside]

I dont know if any of you know this but I live in Portsmouth and I dont live far from where it used be. Its a shame Portsmouth Airport isnt around anymore would have loved to have seen what sort of aircraft would land there today.