36 years ago today

[Chris558]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 515787.stm

This was the same Trident involved in a ground collision with an Ambassador, previously.

[TSR2]

I always found it amazing how the aircraft didn't catch fire on impact, give that there must have been a significant amount of fuel on board. Is this because the engines are so far away from the fuel tanks?

[DaveB]

Well Ben.. on this occassion, the aircraft broke in two in the air so depending on where the break was, the tail section may well have been some distance from the tanks when it hit the ground.

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Nigel H-J]

Hi Dave

When the Trident came down, it was still in one piece only breaking up on impact with a nose high attitude. The tailplane, or rather empennage, hitting the ground first and breaking away from the main fusalage.

Nigel.

[Chris558]

Overhead shot here....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... eckage.jpg

Although it does say...

Witnesses said the three-engined plane broke into two as it fell

Seems unlikely, but could it happen due to stress maybe?

[speedbird591]

36 years ago today I had been flying for four weeks and was sitting in a bar in Beirut when somebody came in and told us that a BEA Trident had crashed at Staines. I can still remember the shock because until then, like any young man, I thought I was immortal. It was a watershed for me as it made me confront my own mortality.

There's a link next to the BBC archive News report to a selection of memories from people connected to the accident and one comment is from Julie Key, the Captain's daughter who was 13 when he died. She suggests that there was a conspiracy/cover-up that laid the blame on the crew - when she believes that there was an inherent and previously experienced fault with the aircraft (the droop retracting on its own) and states that the papers appertaining to the accident are to be kept secret for 50 years instead of the usual 30. She uses this to strengthen her argument.

I've just spent a couple of hours reading the AAIB report to see why she thinks this and it makes fascinating reading. http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resource ... G-ARPI.pdf. Despite thorough research into previous reports of the droop lever operating on it's own it was decided that this had never and could never happen. The cause of the accident is unequivocally a stall caused by incorrect climb procedures, too low a speed and the premature retraction of the droop during a turn. There were no faults with the aircraft that contributed to the accident, so most of the inquiry revolved around the question of why a pilot of Captain Key's experience and excellent record allowed such mistakes to happen. And why the stall warning/stick-pusher was over-ridden after activating three times! The condition of his heart was considered the most likely culprit, but we'll never know for sure because this was before the days of cockpit voice recorders.

Finally, one other thing I found in the report concerns the well-publicised reports of rubber-neckers blocking the roads and making access difficult for the emergency services. The report says that the crash site was quite inaccessible and contemporary reports that members of the public impeded access by the rescue services were not borne out by the facts. The reason that the A30 was blocked with traffic was because the police had stopped it - remember that it was a Sunday afternoon and this was the busiest road from London to/from the South as the M3 and M25 were yet to be built.

Ian

[Garry Russell]

I remember a TV programme about this and the subject of the lever moving by itself or accidental selection.

They were in a simulator and they showed it had to be moved against a substantial spring so acidental or operation by itself was unlikely given the deliberate effort needed.

I also read the personal reports and one mentioned a businessman landing close by seeming to indicate there was a break up but looking at the wrekage that would have accurred at very low level.

Reading the personal accounts does put a very different angle on the whole event and it becomes a very human tragedy and not the lost of an aeroplane as we tend to see it.

Garry

[DaveB]

Hi Nigel..

Ok mate.. I must have misread the BBC report ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Nigel H-J]

Oooops!!

my humble appologies Dave, just read that report (had not read it earlier) and see that witnessss had seen it break up in flight!

Had watched some years ago a documentary on this awful crash and cannot remember any comments regarding a break-up in flight prior to impact as the programme was merely investigating the actions of the crew leading up to its' demise.

Maybe I should read through before putting my fingers to the keyboard!! :roll:

One question regarding this crash, if the aircraft was in the stalled condition and losing height rapidly, what would have caused the break-up of the aircraft unless of course in the descent considerable forces were being imposed on the airframe by continually pulling back on the controls?

Regards
Nigel.

[DispatchDragon]

Gents

That's a Monty Orangeball type report -- Read the AAIB reports the aircraft was in a nose high flat descent (very much
like the deepstalled 1-11 before it. - The tail section (being a fairly heavy piece of kit) broke on impact as that area (aft of
trailing edge struck the ground first. As to Captain Keys daughters allegations - I will not comment on the invalidity
(is that a word?) Ask Peter if the Trident was unsafe....I figure he has a few hours on them -- Finally my heart goes out
to al those on that day so long ago.

Leif