As someone pointed out earlier, the pilot had the rest of his display cancelled by the flight safety team who monitor the display. The pilot may well have been in full control, although I doubt he intended to be 10ft off the ground as he pulled out of the descent, but even if he was, he was much lower than the minimum safe altitude for that manoeuvre. Figures vary for different aircraft types. Slower aircraft are usually permitted to fly lower and closer to the crowd line but the lowest altitu
The pilot was either not in full control or was a complete plank. At the time, the specified minimum height for public displays was 250 feet, with waivers to 150 feet only by special permission from someone very high up in MAA. No sane pilot would deliberately ignore the legal limits for his display, because the outcome is always instant cancellation of the display and a very high probability of suspension or loss of display licence. The only reasonable conclusion is that the pilot failed to pull out of the tail drop early enough and was very lucky not to have a multi-million pound repair bill to complement his mortgage.
On Julty 15th 2005 the pilot of Typhoon T.1 ZJ809, sgn Ldr Matt Elliott, came within seconds of crashing the aircraft while practicing his display routine at the RIAT Fairford.The pilot later admitted to making a mistake during the routine following a run in to the vector roll and slow pass by bleeding off too much speed.In order to recover the situation he applied full power at an altitude of 50' and came within about 20' of ground.He was ordered to abord and land 5 min later.
I used to play golf with a chap who was doing pilot training in Rhodesia and he related to me that on one night-flying exercise he had tuned the radio into a local station, happily listening to the music. On his final touchdown there was a loud THUMP and clouds of dust. He hadnt lowered the gear. After that his nickname was Wheels Up .
ctdesing He broke the rules of the airshow limitations and was immediately grounded for it... Bad shit happens at airshows all the time, that's why they have strict rules on altitude and distance from crowds, but pilots can still make mistakes and come close to pancaking themselves, just like this guy almost did. Minimums at this period (2006) was 50' for rotary aircraft and 100' for fixed wing and that's ABSOLUTE minimum! Airbosses will brief all pilots before the show, what they will allow as minimum and that's usually 50 to 100 feet above the standard minimum of 100', this guy was estimated to be below 25' AGL.
This was indeed a near miss, the display was cut short after the incident, anyone that's heard the communications between the tower and typhoon will confirm this.
@@GWAYGWAY1 Full legal and regulatory authority and responsibility lie solely with the FDD (Flying Display Director) and s/he is required to act immediately in the event that any pilot breaches the published display plan. In this incident, that is exactly what happened.
@IG m0ldova its not prohibited to have fun (or at least I hope it isnt!), but be responsible. if he just climbed to a safer altitude to perform that maneuver, he probably wouldnt be asked to abort the display.
I was expecting a non-event from the title, but a look at the video and some quick research shows this was a real and publicised incident. A manoeuvre with an angle of attack that high, that low to the ground, with his energy vector pointing straight at the ground is indeed a very serious incident. It would never be a planned part of a safe flying display. Heartstopping for all involved I imagine, and the subject of a fairly "frank" debrief.
Just shows how much thrust there is in those engines! He wasn't in a position to apply thrust until the plane spun around enough to point back upwards, but once those engines fire up...
@stoikes I totally agree. There's no way a manoeuvre like that could be judged so accurately to come within a couple of feet from the ground, nor would they be allowed to. The skill of these pilots is amazing but that was obviously misjudged
If you think that was intentional 1. Youre 12 2. You know nothing about flying 3. You think aircraft in games and movies are realistic 4. You know nothing about the rules of an Airshow performance
Please, I have been stalling atleast 5 times a game in War Thunder. And, I have to agree and disagree with you. 99%, that was luck and got it out of stalling just in time. 1% that was talent.
Actually that was exactly what I thought during the whole video... he is too low by at least 100-200ft. Now that you said he misconfigured his altimeter make sense because It was not just at the end, it's during the whole show that he was clearly too low.
Yeh I’m pretty sure those ej200 engines have a thrust to weight ratio of about 9.1:1 with full reheat. Not sure what dry thrust to weight ratio is though
Absolutely incredible!!! I reckon if I saw this display in its entirety in person, I'd wind up completely speechless. Thanks for posting this, frankodub!
+Cartoonman154 Talking to? what for? he miscalculated.... higher ranked peopme make worse miscalculations yet they dont "Have a good talking to" this pilot should be commended for saving it.
if you care to look at the loop he performed just before its clear that he made a mistake because at the apex he is not high enough, he would have had a dressing down believe me - pilot error. LUCKY MAN.
Nope. G-suits have a pneumatic buttplug extension which is inserted when the suit is donned. For pilot comfort it only inflates at moments of high-G, and when pulling out of a low altitude manoeuvre. The technical term for the latter logic trigger is "tactical situations likely to lead to involuntary dilation of the anal sphincter and subsequent leakage of colonic contents." This sounds like a joke, but when you realise that under a 7g load, a 1kg stool increases its effective weight by 7 times, to weigh over a stone - without the plug, pilots would require a colonic cleanse before every display. You haven't heard of this feature because the macho male culture still present within the military considers rectally-retained equipment to be 'unmanly.'
a wide delta wing improves ground effect cushoning the plane while it comes close to land. Saw an old Franch Mirage at an airshow in Kleine Brogel Belgium pulling the same acrobatics
This was an intentional manoeuvre. Whilst visiting RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, England, I’ve seen it performed many times by the display season’s performing pilot practicing their routine. Perhaps not as low as that though!
You are right, he was too close to the ground, closer than allowed. Of course the pilot didn't mean to do that, he even admitted to making a mistake. But what people don't understand is how much the Typhoon can actually pull. The pilot didn't desperately pull the controls all the way to try to save the plane. He noticed he was low, but he had a lot of margin, so he stopped pulling. If he was piloting another jet (maybe not F22, maybe) he'd eject in that situation.
@@crazycontraptions1249 ah yes, because everyone here is a avionics expert and we all instantly recognized all the details. Please bro, stop. ICEGTN gave us comment lookers a nice tidbit of info.
Ejecting whilst travelling nose down at 100 feet is MUCH more dangerous than staying with the aircraft. The pilot was more than 200 feet below the legal minimum height and came within 20 feet of the ground. He was not thinking about margins, he was thinking about curtains.
@@cookiecracker2 ah yes except avionics refers to electronic systems in an aircraft like communication and navigation. It has nothing to do with the engines or control surfaces on an aircraft.
Oh no! More people fantasising about Eurofighter! Every time this jet appears we get legions of people defending it and it's pilots no matter what. Look at these comments below. People saying they spoke to the pilot. It was at RAF Cosford etc..... The aircraft was doing a practice display on a Friday, before the 2 main display days of RAF Fairford's Air Tattoo (RIAT). The investigation concluded nothing more than pilot error. Incorrect altimeter settings resulted in the pilot rolling out of his loop far too low. There was no judgment in it at all. The aircraft and it's engines saved him by pure luck. People who worked there that weekend were saying the engine nozzles were approx 9ft off the runway, on which there were scorch marks. This was almost a pancaked Eurofighter. He was immediately contacted by ATC and told to land. Reports at the time say he was badly shaken by it. I was at RIAT on that Sunday. It was a talking point with many people. Regardless of any other comments, nobody is allowed to display that low.
Scorch marks? I can tell you have been around aviation a short while.... I am sorry. but as an aircraft mechanic I have never ONCE seen scortch marks from ANY afterburner on ANY runway from ANY aircraft in the USAF inventory. I have done countless FOD walks and have never seen anything more than the occasional ding and gauge, and tire marks on the runway.
That's what people at RAF Fairford said. I have no idea what the actual damage/marking was. Anyhow, that's not the issue. The point of fact is that this is a pilot executing a loop without sufficient altitude. Very similar to the incident with the Thunderbirds, except that sadly ended in an ejection and loss of aircraft. Incidentally, the USMC, the RAF and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, now have a fighter that is burning holes in carrier decks and concrete runways. It's called the F-35B.
F-35 is a different situation as that is redirected straight down for a long period of time. Not just a rotation, or an abrupt pull on the stick at speed. Anyhow, I do agree it was too low, but I have seen that rather well handling EF pull off some amazing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if it had a level of pilot cockiness involved on the downline. Paying attention to some of the other maneuevers, it seems he held the downline in that loop longer, and up to a higher speed than he absolutely needed. Keep in mind, the EF was designed as a canard/delta configuration for this reason. Canard deltas can achieve absurd maneuverability in post stall flight.
Yes it was designed as an unstable airframe for the flight computer to wrestle with. Although, recently it has come to light that the Europhoon does not outperform the F/A-18 in a slow turning engagement. It bleeds energy at a greater rate and has inferior high angle of attack margins. This, to me anyway, is quite shocking considering how old the F/A-18 / Super Hornet is. Incidentally, Britain was offered sole partnership on F/A-18 before it hit the drawing board, how stupid are we? By far the best naval jet to compliment the superb Harrier.
Yup totally agree. Major difference, and only benefit to the EF is that even though it bleeds speed and can not maintain the same radius turn, it can maintain more control, at high alpha due to is configuration. The F-18 has great high alpha, moderate to high speed handling due it's forward stakes (vortex generators) which provide extra lift over the root of the wing. As it slows, this effect becomes less and less allowing the wing to stall and causing flight controls to be less responsive. Now although the EF loses speed, it does have the ability to maintain control at high alpha (as mentioned), so in a case like the video, theoretically, the pilot could actually pull out sooner than if it were an F-18 because it is not bound to speed in the same manner. This is what Sukhoi rapidly noticed when the unveiled the Su-37 it acts both similarly to the F-18, as well as the extra control authority of the EF, before even fwctoring its TV. Soon after, their newest aircraft (PAK) has reverse - canard acting VG'S (if that makes sense), and their entire purpose is to force air over the root of the wing like a massive leading edge flap. (At high alpha the leading edge drops, forcing air over the top of the wing.)
If the airforce allows someone to fly an eurofighter at such a show, he must be one of the best pilots around. So he knows exactly what he is doing i think.
Only the power of those engines saved his ass from running out of that all-important "sky beneath you". At 1:14 you can clearly see the engines run from full military power to afterburner (or reheat as the Brits call it).
Also about stalling, the angle at which the wing stalls is constant and doesn't change unless the shape of the wing changes (flaps, slats and stuff like that) only the stall speed changes depending on the wing load but this is performance data available for every plane in the form of a graph.
i have spoken to the pilots involved in this, (worked at raf leuchars on typhoon) and he was bollocked by his comanding officer for this. it was NOT part of the display, he was flying TOO LOW and the stunt at the beginning is NOT supposed to happen. this display is still talked about as one of those "oh fuck" moments in the history of the Typhoon and the RAF.
It is clearly for show. I think he got a bollocking for showing off, not putting the a/c in danger - he even backs right off alpha demand towards the end and with RSS there is no need to engage reheat 30 degrees nose down. I think his commander officer maybe didn't have much understanding of Eurofighter RSS & FAFCS :-) The RAF is the end user - you think they know everything about what they buy ;-)
No but they know what they teach the pilots and what is "allowed" within the confines of civil aviation law... (civil as its a non military excercise).
Jake Maletesta I flew in the back of typhoon EY on August 12th last year. I flew from Leuchars to grimsby then grimsby to perth... Look up my Facebook fella and you'll see me in my flying suit.
No, to eject at the at the point where he knew the he was too low would have killed him and destroyed the jet, it was his desision that saved the jet and his life
i think there must have been a strong smell of adrenaline in that cockpit, a little too close for comfort there but very well excecuted and showing off the versitility and maneuverability of this plane
I have seen many airshows here in the States, Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Canadian Snowbirds, and my impression is that is was a miscalculation on the pilots part. He was about 1/2 second from contacting the ground. I can't imagine a pilot planing that close of a tolerance, RAF pilots are smarter than that. BTW, why don't the Red Arrows fly Eurofighters instead of those anemic Hawks? I would love to see a Eurofighter at an airshow here. C'mon you guys, fly some over here to California, you've flown Tornado's here.
It's also because they are so symbolic of the Red Arrows, the RAF actually have a Typhoon display team as part of 29 squadron, that's who were in this video.
There is no way that manoeuvre was deliberate. Pilots get it wrong like the rest of us. I remember an OCU Phantom display pilot getting it tragically wrong and hitting the runway at Abingdon in 1988. His nose was up at the bottom of a loop but the sink rate was colossal and the jet piled in with the tail impacting first. I reckon the pilot of this Typhoon just had enough power available to avoid the same fate. He probably had a low fuel state that would have helped.
If a Typhoon customer required it, I'm sure it would be developed further and test flown. The Typhoon's 'carefree handling' protection might be a problem, depending on how TVC is intended to be used. If it's only intended to be used within the Typhoon's current flight envelope it might be quite an easy mod, but if it's also intended to allow control at very low airspeed, the current 'carefree handling' system (stall protection, etc) may need redeveloping, adding to the time and cost required.
I agree with everything you say. You can hear that he turns the afterburner off and throttles back on the decent then puts it at a high angle of attack and puts the afterburner back on.
Typhoon FlyAway Price - £64.8 Million/$102 Million Raptor Flyaway Price - £95 Million/$150 Million Both from Cited Sources, from the respective airforces. Both are awesome, I love the two of them so much. But just correcting the one little fcat there, it may not be the "four typhoons to one raptor" as the guy stated, but the Typhoon is massively cheaper, especially when you factor in the development and maintainence costs for the Raptor vs the Typhoons. As I said though, both rock!
Well to add ones tallywackle into the mix, id say he did a spiffing job, sorting the smash, grabbing the onlookers and getting some shorts in his shit....great job old boy, pop the kettle on, I'm off to knock one orf....
DAMN good flying and a little luck. And I thought the Russians were the only ones to pull all the stops in a demo fight. Sure got the crowd's attention.
When the Arrows flew the Folland Gnat, I was standing on a 30' high building. The airfield was 15' higher than ground level where I was. I can tell you that a Folland Gnat is fucking *huge* when it's flying *up* at you from pulling out of a loop over ground a mere 15' below you! Dave.
There is footage on TH-cam of Ray Hanna flying a Gnat at less than 20 feet. The joke was always that it was cheaper to use a lawnmower to cut the grass.
The Typhoon's EJ200 engine has been bench tested with a thrust vectoring nozzle but, AFAIK, there are no plans (or the required development funding) in place to test fly it, let alone introduce it into operational service.
The pilot could have experienced spatial disorientation that is usually fatal or else a near blackout that he was lucky to recover from. Before the last barrel roll and loop before the dive there is a kind of a sudden decrease of his throttle that could transpire a hesitation from the pilot due to potential / desperate search for a reference during the aerobatic.
I saw a hunter at a display a few tears ago. He overcooked his barrel roll and his wing tip clipped the top of a tree. He continued his display with no further issues.
xxyyanush, at 1:14 it looks like the Jet Engines burning with black smoke. Probably a little hesitation in Thrust. It would be intersting if Pilot had Control, or the Flight System with the Computers took over/override?
Yep.Thats why you couldn't build your SST, why your Government insisted we cancel our TSR2 (which was far superior to anything you had on the drawing board) or you wouldn't let us buy Phantoms (which we fitted PROPER engines to), and also why you couldn't build a VTOL aircraft so had to buy our Harriers, which we've now mothballed.
I may be wrong, but I'd like to think it's intentional. The plane was in perfect alignment with the runway when it reached to the lowest point and climbed out. It's too perfect to be accidental.
STEVE FOSTER 2 years ago I saw this happen during the rehearsals a day before the RAF Fairford Air Tattoo in 2007, as each pilot was required to 'validate' their displays before the safety team. I was listening on air-band and the ATC congratulated the pilot for his cool thinking in pulling a fantastic recovery, but called him down to meet the safety team for a chat! The problem was apparently caused by the aircraft entering the loop too slowly for a proper pull-out. On the day there was speculation about pilot error, or a bird-strike during the preceding low-slow pass affecting the engine performance, Apparently the pilot immediately admitted to being at fault, However it was later said that it was caused by the wrong Flight Control System computer 'fly-by-wire' software release being loaded for the intended display which rings true since the FCS is intended to prevent the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope, and it clearly didn't. (Typhoons were only just coming out from the test phase at the time) So in fact it was actually the pilots flying skill backed by a powerful and agile aircraft that saved the day. Later that afternoon the pilot came out and flew the display again, gaining his display validation with a brilliant and faultless flight that drew applause all round. I reckon that took real guts because he had to repeat the same maneuver as had nearly killed him, and the ATC rightly congratulated the pilot again. So what we see here is a brave and skillful pilot flying a superb aircraft to avert a disaster. I hope that refutes some of the less intelligent comments made below.
Just so everybody knows, this was in no way a "near crash". I'm extremely clever and know everything about aviation and this video (even though I've never flown a plane in my life), so take it on good authority: the pilot was just performing a routine manoeuvre. The joke is on all you groundies (that's what we aviation experts refer to non-pilots as), who panic when you see this. Believe me, it was perfectly executed and planned. Manoeuvres like this are planned down to the last inch, and this was all part of the flight plan. So keep your groundy opinions to yourselves, unless you want to sound utterly ridiculous to those of us who actually know about aviation.
+465marko Absolute garbage.. this was a screw-up of monumental proportions. Go and do some reading about ceiling and base heights at airshows.. this was a massive screw up. People have been killed at airshows because of this. It absolutely WAS a near crash.
+465marko And again, I agree with you, but it's slightly hypocritical, albeit beautifully ironic, to say "unless you want to sound utterly ridiculous" and the words "groundy opinions" in the same sentence.
STEVE FOSTER 2 years ago I saw this happen during the rehearsals a day before the RAF Fairford Air Tattoo in 2007, as each pilot was required to 'validate' their displays before the safety team. I was listening on air-band and the ATC congratulated the pilot for his cool thinking in pulling a fantastic recovery, but called him down to meet the safety team for a chat! The problem was apparently caused by the aircraft entering the loop too slowly for a proper pull-out. On the day there was speculation about pilot error, or a bird-strike during the preceding low-slow pass affecting the engine performance, Apparently the pilot immediately admitted to being at fault, However it was later said that it was caused by the wrong Flight Control System computer 'fly-by-wire' software release being loaded for the intended display which rings true since the FCS is intended to prevent the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope, and it clearly didn't. (Typhoons were only just coming out from the test phase at the time) So in fact it was actually the pilots flying skill backed by a powerful and agile aircraft that saved the day. Later that afternoon the pilot came out and flew the display again, gaining his display validation with a brilliant and faultless flight that drew applause all round. I reckon that took real guts because he had to repeat the same maneuver as had nearly killed him, and the ATC rightly congratulated the pilot again. So what we see here is a brave and skillful pilot flying a superb aircraft to avert a disaster. I hope that refutes some of the less intelligent comments made below.
That's one of the main factors in any modification - does the benefit justify the cost. Hopefully someone will decide it does and once it's certified for service, retrofitting it to older aircraft should be pretty straightforward. 5% better fuel economy would be more beneficial to extending range (bombing), or time on station (air defense), than saving money, so it would definitely be worth doing, if the price was right.
i am pretty sure in this instance that if the pilot was planning on landing the plane the landing gear is a bit more important than the AOA. also he meant this. flared half way through and fighter pilots are taught to recover using full AB. no AB here
almost the exact same maneuver is performed daily by many pilots in both jets and stunt plane. Sometimes things go wrong but that can happen in every phase of flight.
He did exactly what he was trying to do, you can tell by the attack angle of the nose. Good judgement though csure didn't use intraments after nose went down I am sure he allowed a few feet for safety. Good pilot
(English WW2 war reporter voice) "Leftenant Nigel Sebastian! Turn around and land your plane immediately and thus prepare your bottom for many many swats directly from your Queen!"
There was an official enquiry. The pilot, Sqn Ldr Matt Elliott, 'jumped the gate' -- failed to check altitude, speed and position before proceeding to the next manoeuvre, and executed the downloop without sufficient height in hand. He recovered very well, holding off the throttle till he was nose-up, and the Typhoon responded brilliantly, but it was nearly a nasty accident.
He was not, it is easy to see he was at maximum angle of attack, also you can hear the difference of sound the engine makes, showing the pilot tried to escape hitting the ground. He was in control of the plane, but not of the maneuver, and must have found himself lucky
Actually as it was the Hawker Harrier that the AV8 was designated as that started the viffing, not the USMC etc. It was very effective against the Argentinian Air Force during the Falkland Conflict in 1982. It was in use by the RAF in the 1960's and the US had them in the 70's onwards.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Debriefing: "Yeah I totally meant to that..."
Do*
@@sosig8332 you must be the coolest guy at the party
@@damianpiotrowski7944 damn right he is
@@damianpiotrowski7944 at least I'm not the one who steals jokes
@@damianpiotrowski7944 While you are the most willfully ignorant. Fuq off you plastic bag filled with expired mayo.🖕🖕💩🤷♂️🤦♂️🙄
Pilot: shit shit shit shit shit, YESSSS
+neil matthew palapala Scheiße, Scheiße, Scheiße, Scheiß...jaaaaaaaaaaa...
:D
I hope the typhoon jet is OK
...... yyYUSSSSS!
As someone pointed out earlier, the pilot had the rest of his display cancelled by the flight safety team who monitor the display. The pilot may well have been in full control, although I doubt he intended to be 10ft off the ground as he pulled out of the descent, but even if he was, he was much lower than the minimum safe altitude for that manoeuvre. Figures vary for different aircraft types. Slower aircraft are usually permitted to fly lower and closer to the crowd line but the lowest altitu
The pilot was either not in full control or was a complete plank. At the time, the specified minimum height for public displays was 250 feet, with waivers to 150 feet only by special permission from someone very high up in MAA. No sane pilot would deliberately ignore the legal limits for his display, because the outcome is always instant cancellation of the display and a very high probability of suspension or loss of display licence. The only reasonable conclusion is that the pilot failed to pull out of the tail drop early enough and was very lucky not to have a multi-million pound repair bill to complement his mortgage.
@@hb1338 bro why are you commenting on an 11 yo comment?
@@shootiNg_MoroN this is the comments section
@@shootiNg_MoroN he is the hero we deserve
@@shootiNg_MoroN Why does the age of a comment make it less relevant? Ask yourself that tonight.
On Julty 15th 2005 the pilot of Typhoon T.1 ZJ809, sgn Ldr Matt Elliott, came within seconds of crashing the aircraft while practicing his display routine at the RIAT Fairford.The pilot later admitted to making a mistake during the routine following a run in to the vector roll and slow pass by bleeding off too much speed.In order to recover the situation he applied full power at an altitude of 50' and came within about 20' of ground.He was ordered to abord and land 5 min later.
It has been 10 years, but that must have been a really close call thanks for the information
*aborT
I'm glad he didn't pass out.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….
Intresting…
@@JanHoellwarth Chicken dog
I used to play golf with a chap who was doing pilot training in Rhodesia and he related to me that on one night-flying exercise he had tuned the radio into a local station, happily listening to the music. On his final touchdown there was a loud THUMP and clouds of dust. He hadnt lowered the gear. After that his nickname was Wheels Up .
LMAO ''Wheels Up''
which plane was he flying?
@@sidv4615 Harvard , if the war hadn't ended his next step was P-47 Thunderbolts
Lies. After that his nickname would be, your flying career is over and you’re grounded
@@windshearahead7012
Not in the war it wouldn't be.
Thrust overcomes inertia...lucky bastard.
airshow doesn't come to your mind.
ctdesing He broke the rules of the airshow limitations and was immediately grounded for it...
Bad shit happens at airshows all the time, that's why they have strict rules on altitude and distance from crowds, but pilots can still make mistakes and come close to pancaking themselves, just like this guy almost did. Minimums at this period (2006) was 50' for rotary aircraft and 100' for fixed wing and that's ABSOLUTE minimum! Airbosses will brief all pilots before the show, what they will allow as minimum and that's usually 50 to 100 feet above the standard minimum of 100', this guy was estimated to be below 25' AGL.
This was indeed a near miss, the display was cut short after the incident, anyone that's heard the communications between the tower and typhoon will confirm this.
The safety officer or committee will order any display to cease if there has been ANY infringement of the display rules or parameters.
@@GWAYGWAY1 Full legal and regulatory authority and responsibility lie solely with the FDD (Flying Display Director) and s/he is required to act immediately in the event that any pilot breaches the published display plan. In this incident, that is exactly what happened.
@IG m0ldova its not prohibited to have fun (or at least I hope it isnt!), but be responsible. if he just climbed to a safer altitude to perform that maneuver, he probably wouldnt be asked to abort the display.
@@Justapilot_9700 if having fun means risking millions of dollars than yes, its definitely illegal
@@Justapilot_9700 joke went right over your head
I was expecting a non-event from the title, but a look at the video and some quick research shows this was a real and publicised incident. A manoeuvre with an angle of attack that high, that low to the ground, with his energy vector pointing straight at the ground is indeed a very serious incident. It would never be a planned part of a safe flying display. Heartstopping for all involved I imagine, and the subject of a fairly "frank" debrief.
delta wing has good ground effect!! saw the same manouvre done by a mirage 2000 at the belgian air show of 2006
I can imagine the pilot going like "Cmon pull up PULL UP PULL UPP UGHHHHH"
Just shows how much thrust there is in those engines! He wasn't in a position to apply thrust until the plane spun around enough to point back upwards, but once those engines fire up...
If he had entered the dive 5 knots slower, all the thrust in the world would not have saved him.
An Eurofighter just crashed here in Italy and TH-cam *totally randomly* suggested me this...
@stoikes I totally agree. There's no way a manoeuvre like that could be judged so accurately to come within a couple of feet from the ground, nor would they be allowed to. The skill of these pilots is amazing but that was obviously misjudged
If you think that was intentional
1. Youre 12
2. You know nothing about flying
3. You think aircraft in games and movies are realistic
4. You know nothing about the rules of an Airshow performance
Yeah, people here dont know what a stall looks like
Please, I have been stalling atleast 5 times a game in War Thunder. And, I have to agree and disagree with you. 99%, that was luck and got it out of stalling just in time. 1% that was talent.
Actually that was exactly what I thought during the whole video... he is too low by at least 100-200ft. Now that you said he misconfigured his altimeter make sense because It was not just at the end, it's during the whole show that he was clearly too low.
Static Sleet clearly you are 12 then
No 3. I don't think, I know aircraft in games and movies are realistic. DCS, Sky Fighters :P
Lucky that jet has a very impressive thrust/weight ratio.
Yeh I’m pretty sure those ej200 engines have a thrust to weight ratio of about 9.1:1 with full reheat. Not sure what dry thrust to weight ratio is though
"PULL UP" "LOW HEIGHT"
Imagine seeing that from the cockpit
Get that pilot a new pair of trousers.
Absolutely incredible!!! I reckon if I saw this display in its entirety in person, I'd wind up completely speechless. Thanks for posting this, frankodub!
12 year old comment, wow...
@@brizzled5193 15 hour old comment
wow
@@alex_s168_p 15 minute old comment HOLY SHIT BRO THIS IS SO RARE I CAN'T BELIEVE IT
I think the pilot will need a new set of ear drums after he had had a good talking too.
+Cartoonman154 Talking to? what for? he miscalculated.... higher ranked peopme make worse miscalculations yet they dont "Have a good talking to" this pilot should be commended for saving it.
GHOST I'm just joking around.
if you care to look at the loop he performed just before its clear that he made a mistake because at the apex he is not high enough, he would have had a dressing down believe me - pilot error. LUCKY MAN.
Pilot needs new underwear after that :D
"Down the trousers" as they say.
Nope. G-suits have a pneumatic buttplug extension which is inserted when the suit is donned.
For pilot comfort it only inflates at moments of high-G, and when pulling out of a low altitude manoeuvre. The technical term for the latter logic trigger is "tactical situations likely to lead to involuntary dilation of the anal sphincter and subsequent leakage of colonic contents."
This sounds like a joke, but when you realise that under a 7g load, a 1kg stool increases its effective weight by 7 times, to weigh over a stone - without the plug, pilots would require a colonic cleanse before every display.
You haven't heard of this feature because the macho male culture still present within the military considers rectally-retained equipment to be 'unmanly.'
@@forestdenizen6497
Source? I’ve never heard of this before and now I’m interested.
a wide delta wing improves ground effect cushoning the plane while it comes close to land.
Saw an old Franch Mirage at an airshow in Kleine Brogel Belgium pulling the same acrobatics
This was an intentional manoeuvre. Whilst visiting RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, England, I’ve seen it performed many times by the display season’s performing pilot practicing their routine. Perhaps not as low as that though!
You are right, he was too close to the ground, closer than allowed. Of course the pilot didn't mean to do that, he even admitted to making a mistake. But what people don't understand is how much the Typhoon can actually pull. The pilot didn't desperately pull the controls all the way to try to save the plane. He noticed he was low, but he had a lot of margin, so he stopped pulling. If he was piloting another jet (maybe not F22, maybe) he'd eject in that situation.
you don't say
@@crazycontraptions1249 ah yes, because everyone here is a avionics expert and we all instantly recognized all the details.
Please bro, stop.
ICEGTN gave us comment lookers a nice tidbit of info.
Ejecting whilst travelling nose down at 100 feet is MUCH more dangerous than staying with the aircraft. The pilot was more than 200 feet below the legal minimum height and came within 20 feet of the ground. He was not thinking about margins, he was thinking about curtains.
@@cookiecracker2 ah yes except avionics refers to electronic systems in an aircraft like communication and navigation. It has nothing to do with the engines or control surfaces on an aircraft.
@@fullsendmountainbiker5844 fair point, my mistake.
Fully in control.... its a Typhoon, its just warming up 😉
Oh no! More people fantasising about Eurofighter! Every time this jet appears we get legions of people defending it and it's pilots no matter what.
Look at these comments below. People saying they spoke to the pilot. It was at RAF Cosford etc.....
The aircraft was doing a practice display on a Friday, before the 2 main display days of RAF Fairford's Air Tattoo (RIAT).
The investigation concluded nothing more than pilot error. Incorrect altimeter settings resulted in the pilot rolling out of his loop far too low. There was no judgment in it at all. The aircraft and it's engines saved him by pure luck. People who worked there that weekend were saying the engine nozzles were approx 9ft off the runway, on which there were scorch marks. This was almost a pancaked Eurofighter.
He was immediately contacted by ATC and told to land. Reports at the time say he was badly shaken by it.
I was at RIAT on that Sunday. It was a talking point with many people. Regardless of any other comments, nobody is allowed to display that low.
Scorch marks? I can tell you have been around aviation a short while.... I am sorry. but as an aircraft mechanic I have never ONCE seen scortch marks from ANY afterburner on ANY runway from ANY aircraft in the USAF inventory. I have done countless FOD walks and have never seen anything more than the occasional ding and gauge, and tire marks on the runway.
That's what people at RAF Fairford said. I have no idea what the actual damage/marking was.
Anyhow, that's not the issue. The point of fact is that this is a pilot executing a loop without sufficient altitude. Very similar to the incident with the Thunderbirds, except that sadly ended in an ejection and loss of aircraft.
Incidentally, the USMC, the RAF and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, now have a fighter that is burning holes in carrier decks and concrete runways. It's called the F-35B.
F-35 is a different situation as that is redirected straight down for a long period of time. Not just a rotation, or an abrupt pull on the stick at speed.
Anyhow, I do agree it was too low, but I have seen that rather well handling EF pull off some amazing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if it had a level of pilot cockiness involved on the downline. Paying attention to some of the other maneuevers, it seems he held the downline in that loop longer, and up to a higher speed than he absolutely needed. Keep in mind, the EF was designed as a canard/delta configuration for this reason. Canard deltas can achieve absurd maneuverability in post stall flight.
Yes it was designed as an unstable airframe for the flight computer to wrestle with.
Although, recently it has come to light that the Europhoon does not outperform the F/A-18 in a slow turning engagement. It bleeds energy at a greater rate and has inferior high angle of attack margins.
This, to me anyway, is quite shocking considering how old the F/A-18 / Super Hornet is.
Incidentally, Britain was offered sole partnership on F/A-18 before it hit the drawing board, how stupid are we? By far the best naval jet to compliment the superb Harrier.
Yup totally agree. Major difference, and only benefit to the EF is that even though it bleeds speed and can not maintain the same radius turn, it can maintain more control, at high alpha due to is configuration. The F-18 has great high alpha, moderate to high speed handling due it's forward stakes (vortex generators) which provide extra lift over the root of the wing. As it slows, this effect becomes less and less allowing the wing to stall and causing flight controls to be less responsive. Now although the EF loses speed, it does have the ability to maintain control at high alpha (as mentioned), so in a case like the video, theoretically, the pilot could actually pull out sooner than if it were an F-18 because it is not bound to speed in the same manner.
This is what Sukhoi rapidly noticed when the unveiled the Su-37 it acts both similarly to the F-18, as well as the extra control authority of the EF, before even fwctoring its TV. Soon after, their newest aircraft (PAK) has reverse - canard acting VG'S (if that makes sense), and their entire purpose is to force air over the root of the wing like a massive leading edge flap. (At high alpha the leading edge drops, forcing air over the top of the wing.)
watched it back a few times, tensed up every time it nearly hit the ground!
If the airforce allows someone to fly an eurofighter at such a show, he must be one of the best pilots around. So he knows exactly what he is doing i think.
he admitted to it being a mistake
If he had crashed in huge fireball some would still insist he was perfectly in control but had a slight altitude problem.
Only the power of those engines saved his ass from running out of that all-important "sky beneath you". At 1:14 you can clearly see the engines run from full military power to afterburner (or reheat as the Brits call it).
***** nope. Reheat. Dry throttle and reheat.
Also about stalling, the angle at which the wing stalls is constant and doesn't change unless the shape of the wing changes (flaps, slats and stuff like that) only the stall speed changes depending on the wing load but this is performance data available for every plane in the form of a graph.
@Me Again What about that is wrong?
Except that the plane was at no point anywhere near to stalling.
That pilot has balls, staying with his jet for that save!
Staying with the aircraft was a lot less risky than ejecting at low level with the nose pointing at the ground.
A really fantastic aircraft the Typhoon. It can do this sort of manoeuvre with ease, but for display purposes, it was a bit low.
i have spoken to the pilots involved in this, (worked at raf leuchars on typhoon) and he was bollocked by his comanding officer for this. it was NOT part of the display, he was flying TOO LOW and the stunt at the beginning is NOT supposed to happen.
this display is still talked about as one of those "oh fuck" moments in the history of the Typhoon and the RAF.
It is clearly for show. I think he got a bollocking for showing off, not putting the a/c in danger - he even backs right off alpha demand towards the end and with RSS there is no need to engage reheat 30 degrees nose down. I think his commander officer maybe didn't have much understanding of Eurofighter RSS & FAFCS :-) The RAF is the end user - you think they know everything about what they buy ;-)
No but they know what they teach the pilots and what is "allowed" within the confines of civil aviation law... (civil as its a non military excercise).
albal21 You are so pro, why the gov isn't hiring you.
***** I spoke to the pilot that took me for a pax trip about it and he just shook his head.... Not a highlight of this pilots career tbh.
Jake Maletesta I flew in the back of typhoon EY on August 12th last year. I flew from Leuchars to grimsby then grimsby to perth... Look up my Facebook fella and you'll see me in my flying suit.
There's enough of power from the engines so that the pilot can do this in a targeted manner.
he decided his life was worth less than the machine? :P
thats what you learn in Training :D
heinzl3596 kind of is to be fair, don't want them north Koreans to get ahold of your typhoon!
No, to eject at the at the point where he knew the he was too low would have killed him and destroyed the jet, it was his desision that saved the jet and his life
Inside his cockpit: ALTITUDE! ALTITUDE! ALTITUDE! ALTITUDE
i think there must have been a strong smell of adrenaline in that cockpit, a little too close for comfort there but very well excecuted and showing off the versitility and maneuverability of this plane
holy shit! he almost ran out of Bernoulli's... sometimes having a lot of smash on tap will get you out of a smoking hole....
I have seen many airshows here in the States, Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Canadian Snowbirds, and my impression is that is was a miscalculation on the pilots part. He was about 1/2 second from contacting the ground. I can't imagine a pilot planing that close of a tolerance, RAF pilots are smarter than that. BTW, why don't the Red Arrows fly Eurofighters instead of those anemic Hawks? I would love to see a Eurofighter at an airshow here. C'mon you guys, fly some over here to California, you've flown Tornado's here.
Red arrows use a hawk t1 they do because of the manuverabilitly and the fact that its been in service for such a long time
Hawks are a fuck ton cheaper to fly than Typhoons.
Typhoons are nearly £100 million more expensive than Hawks
It's also because they are so symbolic of the Red Arrows, the RAF actually have a Typhoon display team as part of 29 squadron, that's who were in this video.
he survived because of wing in ground effect, very lucky
I'm pretty sure the manoeuvre was planned, but I'm equally sure he got a little closer to the ground than he intended.
The manoeuvre was not executed as planned - his entry speed into the dive was too low.
There is no way that manoeuvre was deliberate. Pilots get it wrong like the rest of us. I remember an OCU Phantom display pilot getting it tragically wrong and hitting the runway at Abingdon in 1988. His nose was up at the bottom of a loop but the sink rate was colossal and the jet piled in with the tail impacting first. I reckon the pilot of this Typhoon just had enough power available to avoid the same fate. He probably had a low fuel state that would have helped.
RIAT FAIRFORD??
Typhoon is so maneuvrable and light! I first though that it was an RC model
If a Typhoon customer required it, I'm sure it would be developed further and test flown. The Typhoon's 'carefree handling' protection might be a problem, depending on how TVC is intended to be used.
If it's only intended to be used within the Typhoon's current flight envelope it might be quite an easy mod, but if it's also intended to allow control at very low airspeed, the current 'carefree handling' system (stall protection, etc) may need redeveloping, adding to the time and cost required.
I agree with everything you say. You can hear that he turns the afterburner off and throttles back on the decent then puts it at a high angle of attack and puts the afterburner back on.
Typhoon FlyAway Price - £64.8 Million/$102 Million
Raptor Flyaway Price - £95 Million/$150 Million
Both from Cited Sources, from the respective airforces.
Both are awesome, I love the two of them so much. But just correcting the one little fcat there, it may not be the "four typhoons to one raptor" as the guy stated, but the Typhoon is massively cheaper, especially when you factor in the development and maintainence costs for the Raptor vs the Typhoons.
As I said though, both rock!
143 Million for the Raptor - Source: TO - 1F-22A-1 Flight Manual
Super great pilot he had the skill and the balls he knew to not press the throttle and wait until he can get that front end up high enough to push it
wow another one of those experts in aviation, youtube has alot of you guys
Well done. Now go to the nearest church, light a candle and give 1 million thanks.
That’s the beauty of having mini-wings/keels forward of the cockpit
he was so in control here. just toying with the on lookers ;)
that's a doodle in which having a high thrust engine really matters, and of course having two of them ^_^
An American pilot would have ejected.
Irk and then walked over to the spectators and shot a black man
and you would have died.
+Steve Wagner Nope.
No American pilots can actually fly better than the lesser nations.
Really? name me a lesser nation, and why woud it be lesser?
I agree with the poster. That was too close for comfort. The power of the Typhoon baled the pilot out there.
Quite a few pilots tried something similar and didn't pull it off. This guy either knew his aircraft VERY well or got lucky. Only he/she knows.
she???....rofl.....
@@steven-el3sw Women exist in case you didnt know
Beautiful and powerful aircraft with a skillful pilot performing a dangerous maneuver. That should have been the title.
That was totally under pilot's control
BS
idk maybe but to my eyes it looked fine. who knows maybe im wrong.
cheers
***** there are strict minimum altitudes at airships etc.. This guy nearly ate dirt ;)
Maverick going below the flight deck🫠
Well to add ones tallywackle into the mix, id say he did a spiffing job, sorting the smash, grabbing the onlookers and getting some shorts in his shit....great job old boy, pop the kettle on, I'm off to knock one orf....
DAMN good flying and a little luck. And I thought the Russians were the only ones to pull all the stops in a demo fight. Sure got the crowd's attention.
When the Arrows flew the Folland Gnat, I was standing on a 30' high building. The airfield was 15' higher than ground level where I was.
I can tell you that a Folland Gnat is fucking *huge* when it's flying *up* at you from pulling out of a loop over ground a mere 15' below you!
Dave.
There is footage on TH-cam of Ray Hanna flying a Gnat at less than 20 feet. The joke was always that it was cheaper to use a lawnmower to cut the grass.
The Typhoon's EJ200 engine has been bench tested with a thrust vectoring nozzle but, AFAIK, there are no plans (or the required development funding) in place to test fly it, let alone introduce it into operational service.
The pilot could have experienced spatial disorientation that is usually fatal or else a near blackout that he was lucky to recover from.
Before the last barrel roll and loop before the dive there is a kind of a sudden decrease of his throttle that could transpire a hesitation from the pilot due to potential / desperate search for a reference during the aerobatic.
I saw a hunter at a display a few tears ago. He overcooked his barrel roll and his wing tip clipped the top of a tree. He continued his display with no further issues.
xxyyanush, at 1:14 it looks like the Jet Engines burning with black smoke. Probably a little hesitation in Thrust. It would be intersting if Pilot had Control, or the Flight System with the Computers took over/override?
Aerobatics at low altitude and low airspeed in an airframe that heavy is a disaster in waiting.
i think it was a miscalculation that could have been costly
Pilot: Nailed that routine..😬
Flight safety team: Get the fuck on the ground now!!!!
lol he beern playing BF4 too much
Under computer control or not. If that happened during an airshow, the pilot
would be told to terminate their display and land immediately.
That was f***ing low but deliberate.
“What’s that smell coming from the back of your flight suit?”
Yep.Thats why you couldn't build your SST, why your Government insisted we cancel our TSR2 (which was far superior to anything you had on the drawing board) or you wouldn't let us buy Phantoms (which we fitted PROPER engines to), and also why you couldn't build a VTOL aircraft so had to buy our Harriers, which we've now mothballed.
1:12 Altitude, altitude, altitude, altitude... PULL UP, PULL UP, PULL UP
I may be wrong, but I'd like to think it's intentional. The plane was in perfect alignment with the runway when it reached to the lowest point and climbed out. It's too perfect to be accidental.
STEVE FOSTER
2 years ago
I saw this happen during the rehearsals a day before the RAF Fairford Air Tattoo in 2007, as each pilot was required to 'validate' their displays before the safety team. I was listening on air-band and the ATC congratulated the pilot for his cool thinking in pulling a fantastic recovery, but called him down to meet the safety team for a chat! The problem was apparently caused by the aircraft entering the loop too slowly for a proper pull-out. On the day there was speculation about pilot error, or a bird-strike during the preceding low-slow pass affecting the engine performance, Apparently the pilot immediately admitted to being at fault, However it was later said that it was caused by the wrong Flight Control System computer 'fly-by-wire' software release being loaded for the intended display which rings true since the FCS is intended to prevent the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope, and it clearly didn't. (Typhoons were only just coming out from the test phase at the time) So in fact it was actually the pilots flying skill backed by a powerful and agile aircraft that saved the day. Later that afternoon the pilot came out and flew the display again, gaining his display validation with a brilliant and faultless flight that drew applause all round. I reckon that took real guts because he had to repeat the same maneuver as had nearly killed him, and the ATC rightly congratulated the pilot again. So what we see here is a brave and skillful pilot flying a superb aircraft to avert a disaster. I hope that refutes some of the less intelligent comments made below.
i can imagine the pilots hand a split second away from pulling the ejection handle
It didn't "nearly crash", it did exactly what the pilot intended it to do.
I'm sure he didnt intend on flying below 100 feet as instructed, by law
Nah, that was not safe.
He was over the landing field. There is no problem with the law. It was planed. It is an normal EF Typhoon show-flying I see very often.
Daniel Zisgen Dream on
Daniel Zisgen He sought of stalled the aircraft while going through the loop
Ngl, i would’ve been proud of that, that looks absolutely sick
Just so everybody knows, this was in no way a "near crash". I'm extremely clever and know everything about aviation and this video (even though I've never flown a plane in my life), so take it on good authority: the pilot was just performing a routine manoeuvre.
The joke is on all you groundies (that's what we aviation experts refer to non-pilots as), who panic when you see this. Believe me, it was perfectly executed and planned.
Manoeuvres like this are planned down to the last inch, and this was all part of the flight plan.
So keep your groundy opinions to yourselves, unless you want to sound utterly ridiculous to those of us who actually know about aviation.
+465marko Absolute garbage.. this was a screw-up of monumental proportions. Go and do some reading about ceiling and base heights at airshows.. this was a massive screw up. People have been killed at airshows because of this. It absolutely WAS a near crash.
1BassJohn You clearly know nothing about aviation, groundie. Stick to your ground facts and land travel and leave the flying to the pros like me.
+465marko I agree with you, but don't say "I'm extremely clever and know everything about aviation"...
Have you ever heard of modesty?
+465marko And again, I agree with you, but it's slightly hypocritical, albeit beautifully ironic, to say "unless you want to sound utterly ridiculous" and the words "groundy opinions" in the same sentence.
You groundwalkers make me laugh..
I guess he was going to wait until he heard the bottom of the plane scraping the runway before ejecting...
Click bait. The typhoon does not nearly crash, it performed a tactical manoeuvre which the pilots have to learn...
Wrong. That kind of maneuver is not thought and definitely not demonstrated to the public at that kind of altitude.
STEVE FOSTER
2 years ago
I saw this happen during the rehearsals a day before the RAF Fairford Air Tattoo in 2007, as each pilot was required to 'validate' their displays before the safety team. I was listening on air-band and the ATC congratulated the pilot for his cool thinking in pulling a fantastic recovery, but called him down to meet the safety team for a chat! The problem was apparently caused by the aircraft entering the loop too slowly for a proper pull-out. On the day there was speculation about pilot error, or a bird-strike during the preceding low-slow pass affecting the engine performance, Apparently the pilot immediately admitted to being at fault, However it was later said that it was caused by the wrong Flight Control System computer 'fly-by-wire' software release being loaded for the intended display which rings true since the FCS is intended to prevent the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope, and it clearly didn't. (Typhoons were only just coming out from the test phase at the time) So in fact it was actually the pilots flying skill backed by a powerful and agile aircraft that saved the day. Later that afternoon the pilot came out and flew the display again, gaining his display validation with a brilliant and faultless flight that drew applause all round. I reckon that took real guts because he had to repeat the same maneuver as had nearly killed him, and the ATC rightly congratulated the pilot again. So what we see here is a brave and skillful pilot flying a superb aircraft to avert a disaster. I hope that refutes some of the less intelligent comments made below.
That is such an awesome aircraft I’m not sure that was as dangerous as it looked I don’t even think he put full afterburner on that climb out
That's one of the main factors in any modification - does the benefit justify the cost. Hopefully someone will decide it does and once it's certified for service, retrofitting it to older aircraft should be pretty straightforward.
5% better fuel economy would be more beneficial to extending range (bombing), or time on station (air defense), than saving money, so it would definitely be worth doing, if the price was right.
Can’t believe this happened 15 years ago.
i am pretty sure in this instance that if the pilot was planning on landing the plane the landing gear is a bit more important than the AOA. also he meant this. flared half way through and fighter pilots are taught to recover using full AB. no AB here
Incredible airframe:
“Don’t worry Hooman, I have control” vtec kicking in yoooooo
almost the exact same maneuver is performed daily by many pilots in both jets and stunt plane. Sometimes things go wrong but that can happen in every phase of flight.
He did exactly what he was trying to do, you can tell by the attack angle of the nose. Good judgement though csure didn't use intraments after nose went down I am sure he allowed a few feet for safety. Good pilot
ayo, bro watch yo jet, BRO WATCH Y-
If this was an F-22 or F-35 it would be a terrible end to this pilot
after the maneuver the only thing the pilot hears in his headphones is " knock it off, RTB"
(English WW2 war reporter voice) "Leftenant Nigel Sebastian! Turn around and land your plane immediately and thus prepare your bottom for many many swats directly from your Queen!"
Well publicised and documented incident. The pilot did inadvertently drop below the minimum display altitude and was reprimanded.
There was an official enquiry. The pilot, Sqn Ldr Matt Elliott, 'jumped the gate' -- failed to check altitude, speed and position before proceeding to the next manoeuvre, and executed the downloop without sufficient height in hand. He recovered very well, holding off the throttle till he was nose-up, and the Typhoon responded brilliantly, but it was nearly a nasty accident.
Yep. He was one lucky boy.
This would have resulted in an ‘interview without coffee’
Marched in, hat on, salute, remain at attention. A very loud one way conversation would follow.
This pilot will never fly an airshow again.
The ceiling was 2000 ft
He was not, it is easy to see he was at maximum angle of attack, also you can hear the difference of sound the engine makes, showing the pilot tried to escape hitting the ground. He was in control of the plane, but not of the maneuver, and must have found himself lucky
Actually as it was the Hawker Harrier that the AV8 was designated as that started the viffing, not the USMC etc. It was very effective against the Argentinian Air Force during the Falkland Conflict in 1982. It was in use by the RAF in the 1960's and the US had them in the 70's onwards.
USMC used to viff-jump their Harriers in order to dodge missiles, and then wondered why they broke so many airframes.