My wife says she doesn't understand how pilots can multitask so skillfully, driving engineering marvels with high precision while under stress, yet still piss on the edge of the toilet.
Man, that Harrier pilot was determined. + Plane in trouble - no problem. + Crash land on runway - no problem. + Skidding across the tarmac while plane disintegrates - no problem. + Engine on fire - no problem. + Fire reaches cockpit and engulfs pilot - oh well, I guess it's time to eject!
You are very correct. Martin Pert, now Squadron Leader, is indeed Red One at the moment, having previously taken the Red 2, 4 and 8 position in previous seasons. Met him when I was on RAFAT ground crew, (he was on a different squadron/role) and he is a consummate professional, and a gentleman to boot. He knows how to fly I can assure you.
....as you mentioned the load out certainly didn’t help. But what you never factored was the temperature, high altitude and humidity of the day in KAF (though I suspect that the humidity was low). This makes for a high density altitude, which substantially reduces the performance of the aircraft. While this is a performance factor in all aircraft, helicopters and in this case STOL and VTOL aircraft are particularly sensitive to these conditions and can get themselves into a speed/height/sink rate regime that does not allow for successful aircraft recovery. This is also shown by many videos in helicopters such as the Apache that flew into a mountain field in Afghanistan and a California police helicopter that “settled with power” into a mountain basin. It’s a very real and known phenomenon and unfortunately in this case, the performance curve of the aircraft intersected with the ground. The only way to escape is to attempt to fly forward out of the sinking condition but sadly the recognition of it and decision to to recover from it are often made too late. Source: flown em all.
No Drama Lama nothing as sexy as an Apache or Harrier, but in various points of my career I have been fully qualified on jets, helicopters and transport aircraft.
When I was stationed at NAS Rota Spain in the mid 80s, the Spanish Navy crashed a Matador (what they called Harriers). The pilot was hovering and ejected when he rolled to about 45 degrees. He was fine. There isn't much left after a Harrier burns. We had the fire out in about 20 minutes, but spent the rest of the day putting out the brush fires it started.
The worst part of that "landing" to my eyes was how loaded that bird was. He had bags and GBU's when he hit the deck, I'm amazed nothing on a wing pod fell off nor ignited.
Also take into account the elevation of the airfield at Kandahar - 1,015 metres - plus the temperature on the day. These would be "hot and high" conditions, very unlike what you might expect at sea level, reducing the performance of the engine and the lift from the wings. All of which would make controlling the sink rate of such an approach much more difficult.
Cracking vid.... I was on the team who investigated and then recovered the Harrier. Taking the stores and whizzbangs off was extremely difficult because of the crash and fire damage... I remember it being very hot and working in a Noddy suit and face mask for hours at a time absolutely dehydrated us. The Reapers would stop outside on the taxi way and take a look inside. We would give them what for!!!!! Keep up with the brilliant work!!!!!
I read the official accident investigation report and prior to them RTB, ATC were giving out conflicting instructions and in one case getting two separate aircraft c/s mixed up. This added to the delay in landing and it was actually determined that the missile warning may have been 'spoofed' by other factors. Regardless, as he was attempting to execute the short final, ATC continued to give confusing instructions. He intended to ride the jet all the way in but when sheets of fire covered his entire canopy he decided to abandon the aircraft. The fire was also a problem as the firecrews were alarmed about the stores igniting, and even when the fire was extinguished, a composite team of US & Brit EOD staff officers dealt with the damaged stores with an RAF Armourer.
As a former pilot out of KCAE Columbia SC, I heard the outside ramp speaker ATC talking to some Harriers up from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort MCAS. She "tower" was very adamant about NOT hovering but gave them the option to land or touch and go. They elected full stop. Again she said NO HOVERING. Well they did and not only did it FOD out the runway for 30 minutes but caught the TDZ area rubber and nearby grass on fire! After that we never saw Harriers again.
I watched the "successful" crash cap did over twice, then compared it over again with the original incident, and there's even more in common than cap gave himself credit for. The original sound/video was not sync (distance?) And you can clearly hear the pilot only gave full power 2-3 seconds before impact. Cap was low power until then too. You also see both real+sim, harrier enters an accelerated stall during the flare and from the problem first being aware (power to max) --> crash is only 2-3 seconds, also both cases. Excellent work, arguably the most true-to-life DCS recreation yet.
That is a standard Harrier landing for my mate Drator. We met Martin in Canada He (and the other Arrows) were very good with my son and daughter. Impressed with their questions and very patient with the fans.
Having read the accident report (we keep them in our toilet for some light reading when #2) there are some areas you have failed to mention. Elevation, OAT (Temp), Humidity or lack of (less dense air = less thrust), distraction with the attack, which if i remember correctly was not a warning of an attack on the harriers, it was a ground attack warning, which kept all the aircraft in the air longer whilst the airfield was checked for mortar/rocket impacts. DCS simulates this stuff very accurately, so unless you set the OAT to 45degC, and used a higher elevation airfield it would make a huge difference. You have also misunderstood the 6500ft above "usual" also, as has the aviation-safety site. This was carried out on purpose by design as a tactical decision to avoid SAFIRE, and was the routine flight profile into the airfield. It may have been 6500ft above a standard publish circuit height, but having been into and out of KAF on a number of occasions you would be a lunatic to fly though at "normal" cct ht. The steep approach path also means its harder for enemy combatants to engage with small arms. Another thing is fuel weight, you are absolutely carrying too little, and 1400kg is nowhere near enough diversion fuel for the next available airfield allowing for a second approach + divert which would have been in the aircraft at the time. Sadly it appears that the incident report is not available online publicly and I am not willing to repeat more in depth detail from it as a result.
We just finished servicing that jet at Cottesmore about a week before Red One piled it into the runway. Scared the crap out of us when we walked in one morning to find a double page spread of that crash on our desk. Hover stop is just a fixed physical stop on the nozzle control lever.
Before 12:45 you could have gave it the full beans to arrest the stall. I've tried this many times and have always been able to land unless my engines got damaged.
One of my coworkers was a USAF flight nurse based @ Kandahar. He described that tight circling drop from altitude as the standard approach for landing. He rode that approach down every time they went out on a C130. Said it was a wild ride and you never got complacent. The nature of the enemy did not allow for more leisurely approaches or complacency.
Aztec01 its a different thing in the Herc, those big props give an almost instantaneous power response, and all you end up having to manage is your energy. 4 big prop discs do a great job keeping the speed somewhere sensible and tactically you can touch down mid field so your descent is almost entirely within the defended airfield-complex boundary.
@@777driver7 Which is why back in the 60's an KC-130 was launched and recovered 25 times aboard the USS Forrestal incrementally increasing the a/c weight up to 124,000 pounds. Get the wheels on the deck, reverse pitch apply power, it didnt use the arresting wires for landing, nor the catapult for launching. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet at 124,000 pounds it took 745 feet to take off. Amazing birds.
I was a air traffic controller that worked at kaf in late 2009. This happened before I got there. But the guys told me about it. Mind you I was in Afghanistan for a total of 2 years and at kaf for about 6 months. Almost all arrivals helps and jets would deploy their chaff...the radars used to put out soon much radiation it would set them off....helps would fod out the taxiways runways all the time. In the 6 months I was there I seen about 6 crashes. High alt and hot temps with dust in the air wreaks havoc. All over Afghanistan at night Helios spooling up you would see the rotors glowing with the naked eye..imaging what's going on in the engines. Oh and a ride bit. The control tower before they built the new one was in the infield. If you flow it down it passes off his left...he held on to her until he knew he wouldn't hit the tower then ejected...fucking legend!!!
Hi Cap. You did set the water switch on for first attempt, but it still didn't actually use any since the counter stayed full at 500 lbs in the tank / no flashing usage light. On the second attempt it appears that you forgot to turn the water on. But even with the switch on, I know that water is only actually used automatically when the engine conditions exceed max tolerance, which means sometimes not even at full throttle. By personal observation I assume this has something to do with atmospheric conditions, airspeed and weight, but I'm not sure. Anyone know precisely?
Water injection in the Harrier is to cool the turbine blades juuuust a little bit, allowing the engine to run at a higher power setting for a limited time. Anecdotally, it'll drop the jet pipe temperature by about 23*C. About 3% more RPM/Fuel's worth. Cooler ambient temperatures allow the engine to produce more thrust for a given power settings and lower weights give a better thrust/weight ratio, again meaning lower power settings needed. Air speed is a factor only in so far that when there is any, the wing is providing some of the lift, so the engine isn't having to support the entire weight of the aircraft (contrary to the video, 90/100kts is not basically a hover. The wing is providing substantial lift at those speeds. Not enough to completely support the aircraft, but the engine is far from doing all the work. At 90kts, a Harrier will be able to take off and climb with around 50 degrees of nozzle). Water injection is generally only needed during an actual hover, when the engine is doing all the work. So it's not really a typical part of STOL operations, but is common during ship operations which are always STOVL, especially anywhere warm. Its where the myth comes from that the Harrier can only hover for 90 seconds, the time the water supply lasts, but in cooler ambient temperatures (such as UK airshows) Harriers have done demo routines that involve 4+ minutes of hovering. To be clear, the water wasn't *required* for the engine to run at those power settings, there's no automated system to keep you from exceeding the temperature restrictions, but doing so 'dry' it would cause significant amounts of engine fatigue.
When on the Kearsarge in 99 during the bombing in Kosovo we had a Harrier come in and bail into the Med. I was in formation right by the elevator in the hanger. Got to watch the whole thing! General Quarters! General Quarters!
Why would the pilot not do another lap around the field to drop height and speed before coming in for landing? Is there an actual reason for that or is it not an option at all?
According to Aviation-Safety.net, the second plane's "turn onto finals was too short and 6,500 ft higher than normal." The Harrier's rate of descent was too high, and just before landing the pilot went to full power, probably to pull up, circle back around, and try landing again. Unfortunately, the airplane's tail struck the ground, and the plane hit the deck. The landing collapsed under the weight of the aircraft on impact, and the plane skidded for 4,000 feet.
His sink rate wasn't *_too_* bad and at least he had a cushioning what with the gun and whatnot. It was probably obvious to him the airframe was going to be a loss but that he'd survive the landing. Probably helped he was very low on fuel, given his wingman had to land first due to remaining fuel stores. You can get away with a lot of force and skidding on modern aircraft. More so than you'd think. Just go back and look at the YF-22 "crash" where it seesawed into the pavement and skidded in a fireworks display yet didn't turn into an explosive fireball. A-10s can do similar landings and in fact the gear even slightly stick out when retracted so even if the hydraulics for the gear aren't working and they won't drop free under gravity you can still do a belly landing. The problem is when you start coming in at too high of a sink rate or you're at an angle and are impacting *_into_* the ground instead of off of it.
I normally think of commando units operating way out in the middle of nowhere. The missile alert makes me wonder if there have ever been snipers, JTAC's or CCT's hiding just outside of the base as a method of countering some jackass with a MANPAD.
That was great as you replicated it well. Can you get into that situation and find out how and when to get out of it? Presumably when there's still airspeed there are options, but can you find the point the pilot was entirely committed to his landing and unable to do anything else?
Hot and high, heavily loaded with a high ROD in a VERY draggy jet and most definitely behind the steep GR9 low speed drag curve, he may have gotten away with it back in the day at Wittering/Cottesmore....but not at Kandahar. An avoidable accident but not a career ending cockup it seems.
I was on deployment at Kandahar when this happened. He came in just to hard and fast. I believe he said he was going to ride it out but when the flames lapped around the cockpit it was time to bang out. I remember seeing the airframe the following evening dismantled wrapping in black plastic ready to go back to the UK.
If you have a loaded carrier deck, can you recreate the USS Forrestal incident ? It would be interesting to see how many of GR planes bunched together would do when an errant rocket hits a couple of them
It's often written in the media that 'the heroic pilot steered the aeroplane away from the other aircraft/primary school/puppy farm/whatever prior to crashing/crash landing/ejecting. In nearly every instance this is utter bollocks. You're taught from early on in your flying training that in the event of an emergency you steer the aeroplane toward the area that looks the least likely to kill you if you have to land on it. You have no idea whether the building you were heading towards is a primary school, you're just trying to avoid the building that will kill you if you hit it, and touch down on the parkland next door. In this instance it's vanishingly unlikely that the Harrier pilot was still steering his gearless aeroplane over a kilometre into his belly skating session in order to avoid some other aeroplanes waiting to takeoff (who, incidentally won't have been on the runway and in his path anyway because the controller won't have cleared them onto a runway that he had only moments ago cleared two Harriers to land on). The pilot will have ejected when he did because fire was surrounding the cockpit. He absolutely won't have stayed with it because he was heroically waiting to ride it to the ground and then steer it away from the aircraft waiting to takeoff. He didn't eject just prior to hitting as by that stage his rate of descent combined with his height would have put him outside the seat operating envelope and he would have hit the ground in his seat before the chute had deployed/developed. Then he was left skating down the runway at probably 100+ knots, wondering if he was going to slide off the side, which would have prompted immediate ejection in case the aircraft rolled in the dirt. If there was no fire around the cockpit before he stopped then I guarantee you he would have stayed in the aeroplane until it stopped, as ejection is a dangerous business and it's a damn sight safer to climb out of a slightly burning aeroplane on the ground than it is to eject from one.
Hmmm, two full seconds of cockpit totally obscured by flames travelling forwards into hundred plus knot headwind, 00:38 probably a good time to leave...
SA-18... I have to presume that harriers in 2009 had ir missle launch warning sistem? And as i checked, i don't think manpads other then the "stinger" were ever in afghanistan.
Yeah, he said "Russian Stinger", but I believe good old American Carter and Reagan administration era Stingers are still the only surface to air threat in Afghanistan.
@@Greasyspleen I know Cap to be really on point with his terminology, so i was jus bamboozled with that statement. My thought is that wingman was locked on by friendly radar or panicked without reason. So just a human mistake.
A long time ago in Iraq, I was told that helicopters coming in to land were dropping flares on final because they picked up the base's ATC radar and momentarily confused it for a hostile radar locking them up. I have no idea whether that's accurate. However, I question whether insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan could keep a radar of any useful size operational for very long. Nothing says "COME KILL ME NOW" like an emitting radar dish.
See this for the events from the actual pilots perspective ... theaviationgeekclub.com/red-arrows-leader-remembers-the-moment-he-ejected-after-a-crash-landing-in-a-harrier-ten-years-ago/
notice how the nose lift in about 3 seconds or so before touch down,...that was the cause,wrong angle...a fighter pilot bret is sitting here next to me.he olso noticed it.
Just to make it even worse...Kandahar airfield is at 3388’ ASL, looks like summer so say 30*C, my E6B gives an effective (density) altitude of 5487’ ASL. He was even more SOL than you estimated.
how about UFO incidences? like the USS Nimitz encounter 2004 (F-18 vs Tic Tac) or Iran, Tehran 1976 ( F-4 vs UFO) for e.g.? can you guys some how recreate that? Somehow use a Mod or something? seriously asking...for a friend.
Fleet Defender (F-14 sim): one one mission you are doing a recce on Halloween, near Bermuda Triangle. Sometimes you intercepted a lost flight of WW2, sometimes nothing unusual, sometimes an UFO. Wings over Europe also has a classified mission (mod) where you fly in the 1960's and intercept with your F-104 Starfighter a spaceship from the future. A very famous spaceship btw.
@@grimreapers Thanks Cap for the reply. I was wondering what the radar data and flir images would look like on DCS. Since TTSA has released a low quality and incomplete video of the "tictac" and the "gimbal" UFO, it would be interesting what the simulation has to offer. btw the views would go through the roof. imagine all those people wating for ttsa to release more. you can give them a glimpse already. just sayin'.
I read this a little differently. You are ignoring that he travelled 4000 feet on the ground. Neither of your computer models travelled anywhere near that therefore I assume he was carrying far more forward speed than you are allowing for. Would that have made any differences? Maybe, maybe not. If he was going for a rolling landing which would be more in line with expedite the landing and get off the runway, he should have had some options for doing a go around. In the audible the engines spool up to full power then roll back before full power is applied again....Why did he only realise in the last seconds that he was carrying too much vertical speed? I like Dan Rossi comments speculate that the initial bust pof power was intended to attentuate the vertical speed but the atmospheric conditions got in the way. Alternatively he either got the vertical speed totally wrong and maybe go around wasnt an option. Did he have insufficient fuel to make a go around? He let his wingman go first because he was low on fuel.
Cant recreate this, DCS just blows shit up on crash. Who comes in for a landing circuit at 6500ft? I know he was rushing to land, but that is ludicrous. I mean sure, we all do in DCS, but IRL?
Might have been better if he had done it like your first try. The plane is a total wreck. BTW; I would love to see some more Harrier play (I just bought the plane).
2750 fpm of sink rate is deadly... does anyone know the general max survivable sink rate in RL.. . perhaps in a helicopter rotor separation scenario... lmao.
@@scarecrow1323 Alright, so check out the report for the crash of C-GZCH (Report A09A0016). They impacted *water* at "somewhat less than 5100 fpm", leaving 17 dead and 1 survivor. The dead, according to the report, had drowned. It states "the most significant passenger injuries were lower limb fractures" but that all the fatalities were due to drowning. So... obviously there's 1,000 factors at play. Orientation on impact is obviously one thing but it looks like, under the right circumstances, you can survive an impact of 5,000+. Surprisingly, not a whole lot of info floating around but if I had to take an educated guess, I'd say that a survivable impact nearing 10,000 fpm is *possible* but unlikely. Anybody else got anything to add, I'm all ears. Interesting as fuck.
@@jmullentech yes that friggin awsome. good job dude. I was thinking of equating to a max G force impact that an F1 driver could take.. I'm sure there's a formula to covert fpm to G force or whatever.... but I also know that considering as humans we are comparatively sensitive to impacts but can take spinning G forces of up to 20G in some racing accidents. crazy stuff our bodies can handle. I love it.
Can't directly convert feet per minute (velocity) to g (acceleration). The velocity isn't what kills you, it's how quickly it changes to zero that gets you. Crash survivability isn't a hard & fast thing, there's simply various points that most people will survive. You can also endure a higher peak impulse if the time is short enough, not real numbers but 1000g for 0.001sec might be more survivable than 100g for 0.01sec. In fact I think the red shock watch stickers mythbusters liked to use where 100g?
The first couple of sentences are what worried me about you doing these “investigation and reconstruction” videos, namely the “what the pilot did wrong” statement. These videos have the potential to be educational and informative, however, they could very easily descend into a “we would’ve saved the airframe if it was us, the pilot must be terrible” video. Be vary wary Cap, I know your intention is not to be the latter, but crashes are a very intimate subject.
Screw that, crashes are not intimate subject. When some incident happens in aviation, whether it be a failure, mistake or both, we must figure out what went wrong and how can we keep it from happening ever again. Most of us try our hardest to refrain from hindsight of course, but human factor is at play here. We are just bunch of nerds trying to be as good virtual aviators as possible.
GTpcGaming You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Virtual nerds. Most of you have no professional qualifications, no real world experience and knowledge limited to what you are told/read/watched over the Internet. Using just this “investigation” as an example, the meteorological conditions were not the same as in the actual event, the payload & airframe were not as was in the real world, the situation was not as it was in the real world. There is no information publicly available at this moment in time, apart from the conjecture that has been posted on the Internet. I am all for using aircraft accidents and incidents to enhance a gaming experience, but, you have to be incredibly careful of how you portray it. I am a pilot, it’s my job, it’s my whole life. After every incident, I see pilots across the world becoming air crash investigators over night. The comments made by qualified people can do enough damage. As I mentioned I’m all for it being a bit of fun, however, the second you say that your completing an “investigation” it becomes a whole different thing.
@@edwardbarrett5691 "You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Virtual nerds" I basically handcrafted you an insult you can use. You done goofed it anyways. Virtual nerd is idiotic, we either are nerds or not. Anyways, you fell for my trap: Are you an asshole? Yes, you are. This content would be problematic if it is possible to confuse it with official investigations. It can't. We'll use whatever terminology we want.
Your acount of what happened and your information is all wrong i was on the sqn and line superviser on that day, I was stood less than 100ft away from the point of impact and carried out the recovery of the aircraft from the run way to the hangar. And spoke to the pilot and i know exaclty what happened that flight and what caused the crash.
aircraft was at 6500 ft . you know afghanistan is mountain country. i am sure the airfield should be higher. this is why he crashed. but this is just my idea.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
The second landing might be the best recreation you've done in DCS, that was damn near perfect!
0:37
Amazing how he stayed with it right up until things started to get a little ...toasty. Fukin brave man!!
I can't remember where I read this but I believe he stayed in long enough to try and steer the aircraft away from other parked aircraft.
It's in the report he reads at the start. Dodging 4 Aircraft lined up for take off.
He said on the afterburner podcast that he lost his eyebrows from the fire and decided enough was enough and punched out!
My wife says she doesn't understand how pilots can multitask so skillfully, driving engineering marvels with high precision while under stress, yet still piss on the edge of the toilet.
BECAUSE, of all the above...
Can you ask her why women can't put the toilet seat done themselves, asking for a friend.
Man, that Harrier pilot was determined.
+ Plane in trouble - no problem.
+ Crash land on runway - no problem.
+ Skidding across the tarmac while plane disintegrates - no problem.
+ Engine on fire - no problem.
+ Fire reaches cockpit and engulfs pilot - oh well, I guess it's time to eject!
Might have been dazed/ knocked unconscious from the impact too.
Thats martin pert for ya
Can we recreate it? That looks like it came out of a GR landings gone wrong highlight reel, so I'll put my money on 'yes'....
Looks like a standard landing from the GR vids that I've seen!
Was thinking the same thing. They have recreated this in just about every mission that involves harriers. LOL
Recently in Kandahar: "Can we recreate a typical GR landing?" Harrier pilot: "Hold my beer."
lols!
@@grimreapers Cap, are you interested in seeing the carcass of this bird before it was shipped out? Msg and Ill send you copy.
'The rate of descent was too high'.
No shit.
You are very correct. Martin Pert, now Squadron Leader, is indeed Red One at the moment, having previously taken the Red 2, 4 and 8 position in previous seasons. Met him when I was on RAFAT ground crew, (he was on a different squadron/role) and he is a consummate professional, and a gentleman to boot. He knows how to fly I can assure you.
Now he needs to improve his landing skills
Just kidding!!!
....as you mentioned the load out certainly didn’t help. But what you never factored was the temperature, high altitude and humidity of the day in KAF (though I suspect that the humidity was low). This makes for a high density altitude, which substantially reduces the performance of the aircraft. While this is a performance factor in all aircraft, helicopters and in this case STOL and VTOL aircraft are particularly sensitive to these conditions and can get themselves into a speed/height/sink rate regime that does not allow for successful aircraft recovery. This is also shown by many videos in helicopters such as the Apache that flew into a mountain field in Afghanistan and a California police helicopter that “settled with power” into a mountain basin. It’s a very real and known phenomenon and unfortunately in this case, the performance curve of the aircraft intersected with the ground. The only way to escape is to attempt to fly forward out of the sinking condition but sadly the recognition of it and decision to to recover from it are often made too late.
Source: flown em all.
IRL?
No Drama Lama nothing as sexy as an Apache or Harrier, but in various points of my career I have been fully qualified on jets, helicopters and transport aircraft.
@@danrossi8753 Oh wow! That's really cool!
The Knight of Nightmares Ok hippie
When I was stationed at NAS Rota Spain in the mid 80s, the Spanish Navy crashed a Matador (what they called Harriers). The pilot was hovering and ejected when he rolled to about 45 degrees. He was fine. There isn't much left after a Harrier burns. We had the fire out in about 20 minutes, but spent the rest of the day putting out the brush fires it started.
Tom Lohr My dad was stationed in Rota in the mid 90s, witnessed a Spanish harrier have an engine stall while hovering
The worst part of that "landing" to my eyes was how loaded that bird was. He had bags and GBU's when he hit the deck, I'm amazed nothing on a wing pod fell off nor ignited.
Also take into account the elevation of the airfield at Kandahar - 1,015 metres - plus the temperature on the day. These would be "hot and high" conditions, very unlike what you might expect at sea level, reducing the performance of the engine and the lift from the wings. All of which would make controlling the sink rate of such an approach much more difficult.
rgr
High density altitudes...
Thanks for doing my suggestion cap 👍🏻
Pleasure!
Thanks for suggesting it. 👍🏻👍🏻🙃🙃
Imagine being that pilot and just hearing CAP yell RCCCCCCC! right before impact lmaoooo
Cracking vid.... I was on the team who investigated and then recovered the Harrier. Taking the stores and whizzbangs off was extremely difficult because of the crash and fire damage... I remember it being very hot and working in a Noddy suit and face mask for hours at a time absolutely dehydrated us. The Reapers would stop outside on the taxi way and take a look inside. We would give them what for!!!!! Keep up with the brilliant work!!!!!
I read the official accident investigation report and prior to them RTB, ATC were giving out conflicting instructions and in one case getting two separate aircraft c/s mixed up. This added to the delay in landing and it was actually determined that the missile warning may have been 'spoofed' by other factors. Regardless, as he was attempting to execute the short final, ATC continued to give confusing instructions. He intended to ride the jet all the way in but when sheets of fire covered his entire canopy he decided to abandon the aircraft.
The fire was also a problem as the firecrews were alarmed about the stores igniting, and even when the fire was extinguished, a composite team of US & Brit EOD staff officers dealt with the damaged stores with an RAF Armourer.
Just like the Sully incident... when its happening real time with an actual threat, your brain is probably all over the place.
B P sully was focused and calm definitely not all over the place
As a former pilot out of KCAE Columbia SC, I heard the outside ramp speaker ATC talking to some Harriers up from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort MCAS. She "tower" was very adamant about NOT hovering but gave them the option to land or touch and go. They elected full stop. Again she said NO HOVERING. Well they did and not only did it FOD out the runway for 30 minutes but caught the TDZ area rubber and nearby grass on fire! After that we never saw Harriers again.
Kandahar is also hot and at 1000M or about 3300ft so it can all add up to be very deceptive as to sink rate and ability to recover.
The Harrier is a plane only the British could have thought up. Anyhow, glad to hear the pilot made it out ok.
I watched the "successful" crash cap did over twice, then compared it over again with the original incident, and there's even more in common than cap gave himself credit for.
The original sound/video was not sync (distance?) And you can clearly hear the pilot only gave full power 2-3 seconds before impact. Cap was low power until then too.
You also see both real+sim, harrier enters an accelerated stall during the flare and from the problem first being aware (power to max) --> crash is only 2-3 seconds, also both cases.
Excellent work, arguably the most true-to-life DCS recreation yet.
That is a standard Harrier landing for my mate Drator.
We met Martin in Canada He (and the other Arrows) were very good with my son and daughter. Impressed with their questions and very patient with the fans.
The Khe Sanh Approach. Basically rapid loss of altitude to defeat AA.
One thing to remember is that fires and other IR incidents can set off Missile Warning Systems...
rgr
Having read the accident report (we keep them in our toilet for some light reading when #2) there are some areas you have failed to mention. Elevation, OAT (Temp), Humidity or lack of (less dense air = less thrust), distraction with the attack, which if i remember correctly was not a warning of an attack on the harriers, it was a ground attack warning, which kept all the aircraft in the air longer whilst the airfield was checked for mortar/rocket impacts. DCS simulates this stuff very accurately, so unless you set the OAT to 45degC, and used a higher elevation airfield it would make a huge difference.
You have also misunderstood the 6500ft above "usual" also, as has the aviation-safety site. This was carried out on purpose by design as a tactical decision to avoid SAFIRE, and was the routine flight profile into the airfield. It may have been 6500ft above a standard publish circuit height, but having been into and out of KAF on a number of occasions you would be a lunatic to fly though at "normal" cct ht. The steep approach path also means its harder for enemy combatants to engage with small arms.
Another thing is fuel weight, you are absolutely carrying too little, and 1400kg is nowhere near enough diversion fuel for the next available airfield allowing for a second approach + divert which would have been in the aircraft at the time.
Sadly it appears that the incident report is not available online publicly and I am not willing to repeat more in depth detail from it as a result.
Kandahar is about 1,000m above sea level, meaning the air would be less dense (about 90%), which would have made the whole process that much harder.
Very nice re-creation! - And explanation.
We just finished servicing that jet at Cottesmore about a week before Red One piled it into the runway. Scared the crap out of us when we walked in one morning to find a double page spread of that crash on our desk. Hover stop is just a fixed physical stop on the nozzle control lever.
Before 12:45 you could have gave it the full beans to arrest the stall. I've tried this many times and have always been able to land unless my engines got damaged.
This is real mate not on the PC
@@martf8014 Sadly i just realized that ... lol
That's a pretty cost-effective way to destroy enemy aircraft without expending a stinger.
One of my coworkers was a USAF flight nurse based @ Kandahar. He described that tight circling drop from altitude as the standard approach for landing. He rode that approach down every time they went out on a C130. Said it was a wild ride and you never got complacent. The nature of the enemy did not allow for more leisurely approaches or complacency.
Aztec01 its a different thing in the Herc, those big props give an almost instantaneous power response, and all you end up having to manage is your energy. 4 big prop discs do a great job keeping the speed somewhere sensible and tactically you can touch down mid field so your descent is almost entirely within the defended airfield-complex boundary.
@@777driver7 Which is why back in the 60's an KC-130 was launched and recovered 25 times aboard the USS Forrestal incrementally increasing the a/c weight up to 124,000 pounds. Get the wheels on the deck, reverse pitch apply power, it didnt use the arresting wires for landing, nor the catapult for launching. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet at 124,000 pounds it took 745 feet to take off. Amazing birds.
Nice vid, would have been cool to end with a view of the last landing from outside the cockpit to compare with the actual vid. Good job Cap.
I was a air traffic controller that worked at kaf in late 2009. This happened before I got there. But the guys told me about it. Mind you I was in Afghanistan for a total of 2 years and at kaf for about 6 months. Almost all arrivals helps and jets would deploy their chaff...the radars used to put out soon much radiation it would set them off....helps would fod out the taxiways runways all the time. In the 6 months I was there I seen about 6 crashes. High alt and hot temps with dust in the air wreaks havoc. All over Afghanistan at night Helios spooling up you would see the rotors glowing with the naked eye..imaging what's going on in the engines. Oh and a ride bit. The control tower before they built the new one was in the infield. If you flow it down it passes off his left...he held on to her until he knew he wouldn't hit the tower then ejected...fucking legend!!!
Thanks!
Note the oversized parachute to take the weight of those massive balls.
Hi Cap. You did set the water switch on for first attempt, but it still didn't actually use any since the counter stayed full at 500 lbs in the tank / no flashing usage light. On the second attempt it appears that you forgot to turn the water on.
But even with the switch on, I know that water is only actually used automatically when the engine conditions exceed max tolerance, which means sometimes not even at full throttle.
By personal observation I assume this has something to do with atmospheric conditions, airspeed and weight, but I'm not sure. Anyone know precisely?
yup pretty much, I've went full load and reduced the map temp down and barely had to use any water
Water injection in the Harrier is to cool the turbine blades juuuust a little bit, allowing the engine to run at a higher power setting for a limited time. Anecdotally, it'll drop the jet pipe temperature by about 23*C.
About 3% more RPM/Fuel's worth.
Cooler ambient temperatures allow the engine to produce more thrust for a given power settings and lower weights give a better thrust/weight ratio, again meaning lower power settings needed.
Air speed is a factor only in so far that when there is any, the wing is providing some of the lift, so the engine isn't having to support the entire weight of the aircraft (contrary to the video, 90/100kts is not basically a hover. The wing is providing substantial lift at those speeds. Not enough to completely support the aircraft, but the engine is far from doing all the work. At 90kts, a Harrier will be able to take off and climb with around 50 degrees of nozzle).
Water injection is generally only needed during an actual hover, when the engine is doing all the work.
So it's not really a typical part of STOL operations, but is common during ship operations which are always STOVL, especially anywhere warm.
Its where the myth comes from that the Harrier can only hover for 90 seconds, the time the water supply lasts, but in cooler ambient temperatures (such as UK airshows) Harriers have done demo routines that involve 4+ minutes of hovering.
To be clear, the water wasn't *required* for the engine to run at those power settings, there's no automated system to keep you from exceeding the temperature restrictions, but doing so 'dry' it would cause significant amounts of engine fatigue.
Well spotted
Back then, Kandahar was the busiest single-runway airport in the world, what with all the worlds military based there!
cool
When on the Kearsarge in 99 during the bombing in Kosovo we had a Harrier come in and bail into the Med. I was in formation right by the elevator in the hanger. Got to watch the whole thing! General Quarters! General Quarters!
You can buy the refurbished Harrier GR9 from Everett Aero website :-) They've done a nice job!
HOW MUCH!?
@@schweizerluchs7146 POA! grr!
@@schweizerluchs7146 only 10 Million Pepsi Points
That harrier was rebuilt and is for sale currently
lets buy it!
Yes this was Martin Pert current Red Arrows Leader
Why would the pilot not do another lap around the field to drop height and speed before coming in for landing? Is there an actual reason for that or is it not an option at all?
He was just panicked
According to Aviation-Safety.net, the second plane's "turn onto finals was too short and 6,500 ft higher than normal." The Harrier's rate of descent was too high, and just before landing the pilot went to full power, probably to pull up, circle back around, and try landing again. Unfortunately, the airplane's tail struck the ground, and the plane hit the deck. The landing
collapsed under the weight of the aircraft on impact, and the plane skidded for 4,000 feet.
He's lucky he didn't blow up on impact. Guy's got balls of steel to stay with it as long as he did.
His sink rate wasn't *_too_* bad and at least he had a cushioning what with the gun and whatnot. It was probably obvious to him the airframe was going to be a loss but that he'd survive the landing. Probably helped he was very low on fuel, given his wingman had to land first due to remaining fuel stores.
You can get away with a lot of force and skidding on modern aircraft. More so than you'd think. Just go back and look at the YF-22 "crash" where it seesawed into the pavement and skidded in a fireworks display yet didn't turn into an explosive fireball. A-10s can do similar landings and in fact the gear even slightly stick out when retracted so even if the hydraulics for the gear aren't working and they won't drop free under gravity you can still do a belly landing. The problem is when you start coming in at too high of a sink rate or you're at an angle and are impacting *_into_* the ground instead of off of it.
I normally think of commando units operating way out in the middle of nowhere. The missile alert makes me wonder if there have ever been snipers, JTAC's or CCT's hiding just outside of the base as a method of countering some jackass with a MANPAD.
That's the ao of the short range desert group.
That was great as you replicated it well. Can you get into that situation and find out how and when to get out of it? Presumably when there's still airspeed there are options, but can you find the point the pilot was entirely committed to his landing and unable to do anything else?
The day following his ejection, the pilot was working out at the gym. That's what was said anyway.
Hot and high, heavily loaded with a high ROD in a VERY draggy jet and most definitely behind the steep GR9 low speed drag curve, he may have gotten away with it back in the day at Wittering/Cottesmore....but not at Kandahar. An avoidable accident but not a career ending cockup it seems.
I was on deployment at Kandahar when this happened. He came in just to hard and fast. I believe he said he was going to ride it out but when the flames lapped around the cockpit it was time to bang out. I remember seeing the airframe the following evening dismantled wrapping in black plastic ready to go back to the UK.
Saw that too, they did a nice job wrapping it up. Burned composites are hazardous. Seal it well.
Hi cap the guy flying the harrirer is the current red1 martin pert well simulated 👍
Cool
Wait what the hell is on the left of the gbu
I keep clicking on Cap's TH-cam logo to minimize the screen :-P
High rate of descent is hard to arrest, even in a Cessna if you don't do it right same can happen.
If you have a loaded carrier deck, can you recreate the USS Forrestal incident ? It would be interesting to see how many of GR planes bunched together would do when an errant rocket hits a couple of them
hmmm have we got any planes that can fire a missile with Weight On Wheels?
It's often written in the media that 'the heroic pilot steered the aeroplane away from the other aircraft/primary school/puppy farm/whatever prior to crashing/crash landing/ejecting. In nearly every instance this is utter bollocks. You're taught from early on in your flying training that in the event of an emergency you steer the aeroplane toward the area that looks the least likely to kill you if you have to land on it. You have no idea whether the building you were heading towards is a primary school, you're just trying to avoid the building that will kill you if you hit it, and touch down on the parkland next door. In this instance it's vanishingly unlikely that the Harrier pilot was still steering his gearless aeroplane over a kilometre into his belly skating session in order to avoid some other aeroplanes waiting to takeoff (who, incidentally won't have been on the runway and in his path anyway because the controller won't have cleared them onto a runway that he had only moments ago cleared two Harriers to land on).
The pilot will have ejected when he did because fire was surrounding the cockpit. He absolutely won't have stayed with it because he was heroically waiting to ride it to the ground and then steer it away from the aircraft waiting to takeoff. He didn't eject just prior to hitting as by that stage his rate of descent combined with his height would have put him outside the seat operating envelope and he would have hit the ground in his seat before the chute had deployed/developed. Then he was left skating down the runway at probably 100+ knots, wondering if he was going to slide off the side, which would have prompted immediate ejection in case the aircraft rolled in the dirt. If there was no fire around the cockpit before he stopped then I guarantee you he would have stayed in the aeroplane until it stopped, as ejection is a dangerous business and it's a damn sight safer to climb out of a slightly burning aeroplane on the ground than it is to eject from one.
We've all been there
11:40 With a little more "piff and vigor"?
I'm assuming that's the equivalent or euphemism for "piss and vinegar".
roger, near enough
@@grimreapers copy that
I wonder if a high ambient temperature was a factor? Perhaps water wasn't enabled?
Hmmm, two full seconds of cockpit totally obscured by flames travelling forwards into hundred plus knot headwind, 00:38 probably a good time to leave...
What was the problem with the aircraft in the first place? There is no damage visible on the original plane and engine was working fine ...
Nothing was wrong with it, what makes you think there was?
Pilot error
Engines? One engine Rolls Royce Pegasus
I'm sure he knows that :D
oh... I thought it has 3 Pegasus's?
Grim Reapers Plural of Pegasus is Pegasi
SA-18... I have to presume that harriers in 2009 had ir missle launch warning sistem? And as i checked, i don't think manpads other then the "stinger" were ever in afghanistan.
Yeah, he said "Russian Stinger", but I believe good old American Carter and Reagan administration era Stingers are still the only surface to air threat in Afghanistan.
@@Greasyspleen I know Cap to be really on point with his terminology, so i was jus bamboozled with that statement. My thought is that wingman was locked on by friendly radar or panicked without reason. So just a human mistake.
A long time ago in Iraq, I was told that helicopters coming in to land were dropping flares on final because they picked up the base's ATC radar and momentarily confused it for a hostile radar locking them up. I have no idea whether that's accurate. However, I question whether insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan could keep a radar of any useful size operational for very long. Nothing says "COME KILL ME NOW" like an emitting radar dish.
It's BS. We didn't even have chaff loaded when we were flying in Afghan as the bad guys only had IR manpads, so no radar threat.
What the engines are doing?
0:28 boom
What will happen to the pilot after crashing a jet?
He actually got promoted believe it or not!!!
See this for the events from the actual pilots perspective ...
theaviationgeekclub.com/red-arrows-leader-remembers-the-moment-he-ejected-after-a-crash-landing-in-a-harrier-ten-years-ago/
notice how the nose lift in about 3 seconds or so before touch down,...that was the cause,wrong angle...a fighter pilot bret is sitting here next to me.he olso noticed it.
The cause of this crash was determined WELL before 3 seconds from touchdown.
Human error but to be fair to the pilot it sounds like he was under enormous amounts of pressure to 'get the bird down' quickly.
Обожаю твои видео)
Just to make it even worse...Kandahar airfield is at 3388’ ASL, looks like summer so say 30*C, my E6B gives an effective (density) altitude of 5487’ ASL. He was even more SOL than you estimated.
Think this happened in early May 2009, not quite the kickass heat of full summer.
I'm pretty sure this Harrier is up for sale now
cool
@@grimreapers next upgrade to setup? 😂
how about UFO incidences? like the USS Nimitz encounter 2004 (F-18 vs Tic Tac) or Iran, Tehran 1976 ( F-4 vs UFO) for e.g.? can you guys some how recreate that? Somehow use a Mod or something? seriously asking...for a friend.
We've looked into it, but it is clearly an insect on the lens so didn;t really want to do a whole vid on that...
Fleet Defender (F-14 sim): one one mission you are doing a recce on Halloween, near Bermuda Triangle. Sometimes you intercepted a lost flight of WW2, sometimes nothing unusual, sometimes an UFO.
Wings over Europe also has a classified mission (mod) where you fly in the 1960's and intercept with your F-104 Starfighter a spaceship from the future. A very famous spaceship btw.
@@grimreapers Thanks Cap for the reply. I was wondering what the radar data and flir images would look like on DCS. Since TTSA has released a low quality and incomplete video of the "tictac" and the "gimbal" UFO, it would be interesting what the simulation has to offer. btw the views would go through the roof. imagine all those people wating for ttsa to release more. you can give them a glimpse already. just sayin'.
@@slowhornet4802 thanks fam!
I read this a little differently. You are ignoring that he travelled 4000 feet on the ground. Neither of your computer models travelled anywhere near that therefore I assume he was carrying far more forward speed than you are allowing for. Would that have made any differences? Maybe, maybe not. If he was going for a rolling landing which would be more in line with expedite the landing and get off the runway, he should have had some options for doing a go around. In the audible the engines spool up to full power then roll back before full power is applied again....Why did he only realise in the last seconds that he was carrying too much vertical speed? I like Dan Rossi comments speculate that the initial bust pof power was intended to attentuate the vertical speed but the atmospheric conditions got in the way. Alternatively he either got the vertical speed totally wrong and maybe go around wasnt an option. Did he have insufficient fuel to make a go around? He let his wingman go first because he was low on fuel.
Wait ?! It's perty (red 1)?
Or the actual leader of the red arows
yup its pert
You forgot to punch out near 30 its slide speed
Kts
Always wondered what happened & if the pilot was ok. Thanks for sharing 👍🏻👍🏻🙃🙃
His name is Martin Pert and he's currently the head of the Red Arrows, Red 1!
Ralph Shackell
Awesome. It’s great when you hear real success stories like that.
Cant recreate this, DCS just blows shit up on crash.
Who comes in for a landing circuit at 6500ft? I know he was rushing to land, but that is ludicrous. I mean sure, we all do in DCS, but IRL?
Pretty normal combat approach when there is a manpad/small arms threat in the surrounding vicinity of the airfield. Done it loads of times.
Silly Cap didn't put H2O on for landing
oopsy
Great job.
I clicked cause the thumbnail is my Steam account pic.
Might have been better if he had done it like your first try. The plane is a total wreck. BTW; I would love to see some more Harrier play (I just bought the plane).
Did you take into account that the sound is lagging 1 or 2 seconds behind ? You can synchronise with the sound of the pilots ejection.
It's not funny but basically the insurgents managed to down an aircraft somehow :(
Cost of doing business. Material expenditures are expected...
Another point.
This counts as a successful "kill" for the MANPAD operator(s) outside the airfield. Without even firing off a missile.
So what happened to the pilot? Was he fired?
he was promoted believe it not!!! good old RAF
Top gun tournament
In my garden
Impact bent engine so Martin must have felt it big time.
Where is RC? He could have done it ;-)
lol he was on hols.
This is a maneuver kill for the Taliban.
2750 fpm of sink rate is deadly... does anyone know the general max survivable sink rate in RL.. . perhaps in a helicopter rotor separation scenario... lmao.
Actually I'd like to know that too, gonna do a bit of digging
@@jmullentech fabulous.
@@scarecrow1323 Alright, so check out the report for the crash of C-GZCH (Report A09A0016). They impacted *water* at "somewhat less than 5100 fpm", leaving 17 dead and 1 survivor.
The dead, according to the report, had drowned. It states "the most significant passenger injuries were lower limb fractures" but that all the fatalities were due to drowning.
So... obviously there's 1,000 factors at play. Orientation on impact is obviously one thing but it looks like, under the right circumstances, you can survive an impact of 5,000+.
Surprisingly, not a whole lot of info floating around but if I had to take an educated guess, I'd say that a survivable impact nearing 10,000 fpm is *possible* but unlikely.
Anybody else got anything to add, I'm all ears. Interesting as fuck.
@@jmullentech yes that friggin awsome. good job dude. I was thinking of equating to a max G force impact that an F1 driver could take.. I'm sure there's a formula to covert fpm to G force or whatever.... but I also know that considering as humans we are comparatively sensitive to impacts but can take spinning G forces of up to 20G in some racing accidents. crazy stuff our bodies can handle. I love it.
Can't directly convert feet per minute (velocity) to g (acceleration). The velocity isn't what kills you, it's how quickly it changes to zero that gets you. Crash survivability isn't a hard & fast thing, there's simply various points that most people will survive. You can also endure a higher peak impulse if the time is short enough, not real numbers but 1000g for 0.001sec might be more survivable than 100g for 0.01sec. In fact I think the red shock watch stickers mythbusters liked to use where 100g?
The first couple of sentences are what worried me about you doing these “investigation and reconstruction” videos, namely the “what the pilot did wrong” statement. These videos have the potential to be educational and informative, however, they could very easily descend into a “we would’ve saved the airframe if it was us, the pilot must be terrible” video. Be vary wary Cap, I know your intention is not to be the latter, but crashes are a very intimate subject.
Screw that, crashes are not intimate subject. When some incident happens in aviation, whether it be a failure, mistake or both, we must figure out what went wrong and how can we keep it from happening ever again. Most of us try our hardest to refrain from hindsight of course, but human factor is at play here. We are just bunch of nerds trying to be as good virtual aviators as possible.
GTpcGaming You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Virtual nerds. Most of you have no professional qualifications, no real world experience and knowledge limited to what you are told/read/watched over the Internet. Using just this “investigation” as an example, the meteorological conditions were not the same as in the actual event, the payload & airframe were not as was in the real world, the situation was not as it was in the real world. There is no information publicly available at this moment in time, apart from the conjecture that has been posted on the Internet. I am all for using aircraft accidents and incidents to enhance a gaming experience, but, you have to be incredibly careful of how you portray it. I am a pilot, it’s my job, it’s my whole life. After every incident, I see pilots across the world becoming air crash investigators over night. The comments made by qualified people can do enough damage. As I mentioned I’m all for it being a bit of fun, however, the second you say that your completing an “investigation” it becomes a whole different thing.
@@edwardbarrett5691 "You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Virtual nerds" I basically handcrafted you an insult you can use. You done goofed it anyways. Virtual nerd is idiotic, we either are nerds or not. Anyways, you fell for my trap: Are you an asshole? Yes, you are.
This content would be problematic if it is possible to confuse it with official investigations. It can't. We'll use whatever terminology we want.
Your acount of what happened and your information is all wrong i was on the sqn and line superviser on that day, I was stood less than 100ft away from the point of impact and carried out the recovery of the aircraft from the run way to the hangar. And spoke to the pilot and i know exaclty what happened that flight and what caused the crash.
Thanks Andrew, feel free to make a full comment and I will pin it to the top so people can read, thanks.
The line was a bit further than 100ft away from the impact..
He just came in way too hot.
Shouldn't you be out making documentaries?
lol I'm probably not the right guy for documentary making.
It's a video of a video.
Very nice
aircraft was at 6500 ft . you know afghanistan is mountain country. i am sure the airfield should be higher. this is why he crashed.
but this is just my idea.
i was a bit ....
Looks like one of my landings. lol
D@‘mn I was there, had to block off everything in front of it
Don't you guys already do that maneuver on about every mission cap? lol
ermmm yup pretty much...
Intradasting
first