I was working on the line when this incident happened, I41 it became known as the 'Tarmac Toboggan'. I was in the crash tractor that attended the aircraft. After 18 months of repair it was flying again. If memory serves me it was a German crew flying an Italian jet.
I served at RAF Cottesmore from January 87 until May 95. As I recall there were two other major accidents involving TTTE Tornados. Just before I was posted to Cottesmore, an Italian Tornado with Italian crew slithered down the runway on its belly, whilst trying to take off. In the late 80's an Italian Tornado with German crew was lost in a mid air collision. They struck a Tornado from Marham. It happened at night over Cumbria. Tragically no one survived. Then there was this incident. Italian Tornado with German crew, go wheels up on landing and slides to a stop. Thankfully no one was injured. As I remember this particular incident happened earlier than 95. Maybe in 93/94.
Amazing footage. I was an instructor pilot at TTTE at the time and had just crewed out of my aircraft. I was walking back towards the line hut when I saw that aircraft and remember saying to my student "wow look, a crash!" It stayed there for quite a few hours and they had to get a crane in to shift it. The underside of the aircraft was worn to a wafer-thin piece of metal and it was in the hangar for ages, but I think it flew again. The cause was the pilot thinking he was moving the throttles forward for a roller landing, but instead he raised the undercarriage. A cognitive and expensive error!
A friend of mine worked in the simulators at the time and indeed,when they put the recording into the sim it was throttle and U/C selector confusion.The pilot had converted from 104's (I think) and the selectors are the other -way round! It did return to flight and i have a small part in my work-shop from the "belly".
Bit of a design flaw surly?...When weight is applied to the U/C legs its still lets you retract the gear?...I did notice all 3 legs went up in unison, as if it was "Meant" to happen.......
I was told that the U/C has micro-switches fitted that "told" the system that the aircraft was on the ground but that during a roller,if the weight of the aircraft doesn't fully settle onto the U/C the micro-switches didn't trip the system.So a combination of floating onto the runway and selecting the wrong lever,both of which you could argue are design flaws!
I 42 (Italian) aircraft with a German crew I was on the arrester team, it was the same crane driver that lifted the F3 adv off the runway at Coningsby a few years earlier although that one wasn't pilot error
pointless....the flight computers will have recorded the activation of the gear lever; it was video'd so the evidence is already there and the undercarriage locks will prevent it from being selected down after the fact anyway and it would constitute deliberate impedance of an investigation, besides.
@Susan Ananda Not quite the same as how the Tornado did or didn't do it look at this till the 47-second mark and ask the same question? It lost loading and the wheels lifted. th-cam.com/video/lteL18wd15Y/w-d-xo.html Not as sophisticated but apparently far better for high speed weed cutting. Nothing to do with your question but try the 11 minutes of this to see how "Antiquated" jets could perform: th-cam.com/video/24CaLD8l0OE/w-d-xo.html
The tornado was one of the groundbreaking constructions in military aircraft construction, and had no comparable counterpart at the time. Only the F 14, but this could not take on any reconnaissance tasks. It has had a better weapon platform for decades not given before.
@@PS-wn7cw I vaguely recall that the pilot was doing a roller and had selected the uc lever up early. The weight on wheels (WOW) switches would have allowed the uc to retract. It was a good aircraft to work on when walking underneath. No pesky aerials or drains to hook up on. If you listen to the audio, the controller calls a State 1 about 3 secs after the first set of sparks. He was definitely on the ball.
Hi there, would it be possible to let me know how I could contact you to request use of this footage within the context of a television programme I'm working on? best Jane
The Tornado GR3 and 4 were in theory supersonic but in practice were firmly subsonic carrying a warlord which also reduced their range to comedy numbers. The Buccaneer by contrast could carry a similar warlord to the Tornado over three times the range at a faster speed overall for the mission. The Buccaneer was just a better all round strike jet. There is the well known story of when the Tornado entered service with the RAF and was sent on a mission to beat up Beirut to remind the locals to behave. A Buccaneer was sent to a company the super new electric flick nife as a buddy tanker. The Buccaneer flew there and back unrefueled while refueling the Tornado three times and the Buccaneer had to slow down to allow the Tornado to keep up without using burners to catch up which risked ditching the shiny new Tornado running on fumes in the sea short of Cyprus as it run out of fuel. The Tornado was a Euro fudge political jet, the Buccaneer was the world’s finest strike jet throughout its entire operational life.
@@martinbayliss3868 My friend flew down the Euphrates through Baghdad on reconnaissance missions during the invasion of Iraq and he rated the Tonka very highly indeed.
The long range fighter version was never designed to be a dog fighter. It was designed to fly 100s of miles out into the Atlantic, extend it's wings and loiter for hours, waiting for soviet bombers. It would then engage the bombers (and fighters) at long range with missiles. Where didn't it fare well in 'real combat'? The Ground Attack version did well.
@@blowingfree6928 From engine start to TO, it was not reliable, in Iraq, quite a number was shot down, pitted against F-5E, it did not do well, the ground attack version has got a mournful litany of "airworthiness directives" so to speak... in conclusion, similar to Harriers.. a sad saga
@@kristinawhorey3837 You are a mournful litany of verbal diarrhoea. Some were shot down by SAMs, but that is to be expected at low level. None were shot down by F-5Es. No Harriers were shot down. You are a sad saga.
@@kristinawhorey3837 It was very effective and served very well? Where do you get your information from? It seems very very highly rated by pilots in their books/memoirs
a lot of bullshit talk in hear about that.....does someone know what precisely happen? Technical fault or pilot fault...combined?!? Appreciate facts and not Gamer and wanna be pilot remarks....
1) the accident was before 1995, as in 1994 I was a student there and I-42 was already in hangar being put back together. 2) TTTE flew Tornados from all 3 European Nations it was in service with. Specifically, the crew in this incident was NOT Italian (i will not specify which of the other two nations, out of respect.)
You can always tell when someone hasn't got a blimming clue what they are banging on about. If mil aircrew are so badly trained why are so many ex airforce folks flying self loading freight on Boeing spam cans?. People like 'Sulley' Sullenberger as of Miracle on the Hudson fame. He is an Ex USAF F4 pilot.
The comments are another proof of widespread functional illiteracy. "AAIB (civil) reports"? I wrote "COMMERCIAL pilots", not private people in Cessnas. When was the last time a commercial pilot ruined a Boeing by sheer negligence?
An airframe has a certain lifespan, which is why 40 years of service life is exceptionally long under the stresses of deep flight. The tornado is a groundbreaking construction in military aviation history. Bye Hans.
@@gravydavy4188 An airframe has a certain lifespan, which is why 40 years of service life is exceptionally long under the stresses of deep flight. The tornado is a groundbreaking construction in military aviation history.
I was working on the line when this incident happened, I41 it became known as the 'Tarmac Toboggan'. I was in the crash tractor that attended the aircraft. After 18 months of repair it was flying again. If memory serves me it was a German crew flying an Italian jet.
I served at RAF Cottesmore from January 87 until May 95. As I recall there were two other major accidents involving TTTE Tornados.
Just before I was posted to Cottesmore, an Italian Tornado with Italian crew slithered down the runway on its belly, whilst trying to take off.
In the late 80's an Italian Tornado with German crew was lost in a mid air collision. They struck a Tornado from Marham. It happened at night over Cumbria. Tragically no one survived.
Then there was this incident. Italian Tornado with German crew, go wheels up on landing and slides to a stop. Thankfully no one was injured. As I remember this particular incident happened earlier than 95. Maybe in 93/94.
Amazing footage. I was an instructor pilot at TTTE at the time and had just crewed out of my aircraft. I was walking back towards the line hut when I saw that aircraft and remember saying to my student "wow look, a crash!" It stayed there for quite a few hours and they had to get a crane in to shift it. The underside of the aircraft was worn to a wafer-thin piece of metal and it was in the hangar for ages, but I think it flew again. The cause was the pilot thinking he was moving the throttles forward for a roller landing, but instead he raised the undercarriage. A cognitive and expensive error!
A friend of mine worked in the simulators at the time and indeed,when they put the recording into the sim it was throttle and U/C selector confusion.The pilot had converted from 104's (I think) and the selectors are the other -way round! It did return to flight and i have a small part in my work-shop from the "belly".
Bit of a design flaw surly?...When weight is applied to the U/C legs its still lets you retract the gear?...I did notice all 3 legs went up in unison, as if it was "Meant" to happen.......
Just wondering Mike are you Flt Lt Mike Allton?....Did you display ZA560 (All back) GR1...1995 I recall......?
I was told that the U/C has micro-switches fitted that "told" the system that the aircraft was on the ground but that during a roller,if the weight of the aircraft doesn't fully settle onto the U/C the micro-switches didn't trip the system.So a combination of floating onto the runway and selecting the wrong lever,both of which you could argue are design flaws!
Cyclemike
I forgot to say.....
Thanks for the informative on this one. And also a huge thank you for serving to keep the free world safe.
I 42 (Italian) aircraft with a German crew I was on the arrester team, it was the same crane driver that lifted the F3 adv off the runway at Coningsby a few years earlier although that one wasn't pilot error
Tonkas are renowned for low level but that’s taking the piss.
I've seen dogs do it, but didn't think Tornado pilots rid themselves of worms the same way...
The fact it survived shows its a great jet
Pilot: What's this button for again.
Back Seater: Which button
Pilot: Never mind. I remember now
"back seater"
So glad the crew wasn’t injured.
After landing with the gear up always make sure you put the gear lever in the down position, before you exit the aircraft.
Atom Sky …..Why to pretend you did everything possible ?
pointless....the flight computers will have recorded the activation of the gear lever; it was video'd so the evidence is already there and the undercarriage locks will prevent it from being selected down after the fact anyway and it would constitute deliberate impedance of an investigation, besides.
Lesson 1. Never raise the undercarrige when on the ground....
@Susan Ananda yes
@Susan Ananda Not quite the same as how the Tornado did or didn't do it look at this till the 47-second mark and ask the same question? It lost loading and the wheels lifted. th-cam.com/video/lteL18wd15Y/w-d-xo.html Not as sophisticated but apparently far better for high speed weed cutting. Nothing to do with your question but try the 11 minutes of this to see how "Antiquated" jets could perform: th-cam.com/video/24CaLD8l0OE/w-d-xo.html
The tornado was one of the groundbreaking constructions in military aircraft construction, and had no comparable counterpart at the time. Only the F 14, but this could not take on any reconnaissance tasks. It has had a better weapon platform for decades
not given before.
Thought the F111 flew before the Tornado.
@@eugeneoreilly9356 I love the F 111.The F 111 cannot perform interception missions.Bye Hans.
@@hansstopfer878 The Sukhoi flew before the Tornado .There was two different variants off tornado ,it wasn't multirole.
My dad was one of the SAC and in charge of the crew that went to this incident. He was in the truck closest to the plane.
Sorry chap as an SAC he wouldn’t be in charge, a little junior in rank.
I remember this, I worked at the Falconry Centre in Greetham opposite the base, a friend told me the piss taking after was relentless
Why hide behind that fence?.
Local were quick of the mark making the Emergency State 1 tannoy
I worked on the repair of this aircraft and gave tech evidence to the BOI
So what happened? Did the landing gear malfunction or wasn't it given enough time to lock?
@@PS-wn7cw I vaguely recall that the pilot was doing a roller and had selected the uc lever up early. The weight on wheels (WOW) switches would have allowed the uc to retract. It was a good aircraft to work on when walking underneath. No pesky aerials or drains to hook up on. If you listen to the audio, the controller calls a State 1 about 3 secs after the first set of sparks. He was definitely on the ball.
Top Crash!.. a good landing one you can walk away from! 👍✈️
My 1st posting in 1987 of a 20 year career as a 'Painter and Doper!'.
Hi there, would it be possible to let me know how I could contact you to request use of this footage within the context of a television programme I'm working on? best Jane
Hi Jane...E-mail sent
every landing is a good landing if you walk away
Except your supposed to fly first
@@mreid08
you better check your grammar
make your sentence clear and meaningful
@@ottavva ,
@@kenjones569 what ?
@@ottavva sorry that was a mistake
That's what is called flying nap-of-the-earth!
"Max effort braking" 😉
Hum. Half the people on the internet must have been there when it happened.
yeah i was there..wasn't you? maybe you didn't get the invite
I repaired it
Good morning from St John Parish, Louisiana 10 Oct 20.
And after they rebuilt it it was still too short on range and operationally slower than the Buccaneer it replaced.
The Bucc wasn't supersonic was it?
The Tornado GR3 and 4 were in theory supersonic but in practice were firmly subsonic carrying a warlord which also reduced their range to comedy numbers. The Buccaneer by contrast could carry a similar warlord to the Tornado over three times the range at a faster speed overall for the mission. The Buccaneer was just a better all round strike jet. There is the well known story of when the Tornado entered service with the RAF and was sent on a mission to beat up Beirut to remind the locals to behave. A Buccaneer was sent to a company the super new electric flick nife as a buddy tanker. The Buccaneer flew there and back unrefueled while refueling the Tornado three times and the Buccaneer had to slow down to allow the Tornado to keep up without using burners to catch up which risked ditching the shiny new Tornado running on fumes in the sea short of Cyprus as it run out of fuel. The Tornado was a Euro fudge political jet, the Buccaneer was the world’s finest strike jet throughout its entire operational life.
@@martinbayliss3868 Do you mean Tornado GR1 and GR4? There wasn't a squadron GR3 variant.
@@martinbayliss3868 My friend flew down the Euphrates through Baghdad on reconnaissance missions during the invasion of Iraq and he rated the Tonka very highly indeed.
If he had flown a new build Buccaneer with upgraded avionics and sensors he would have rated that even higher.
It's the cargo plane full of rubber dog 💩 for you mate.
Wasn't a crash at all. That's calling parking in a tight spot!
"Ach Himmel, ...........i forgot to put down der wheels!!!".😄
This sliding tornado returned to flight ?
Yes it was :)
They put Vodka in the fuel tank and the Tornado became legless.
I bet they save a lot on tires that way.
Size of that tail. Only plane that can fly at 2 altitudes simultaneously.
LOL
it looks good tho
Wrong way to do a touch & go.
Isn’t the term crash over egging it a bit ?
What would you call it?
@@motormouser I would class it as. A gear up landing.
@@davecooper3238 If you listen carefully you'll hear the crash team tanoy say crash,so i'll stick with that.
@@motormouser Perhaps a heat of the moment thing.
This was earlier than 95, more like 87 ish
Nah i know as i videoed
it!
Where's the crash
What is meant to be an MRCA has become a nightmare to upkeep airplane. And does not fair well in a real combat. A great aircraft for its time though.
The long range fighter version was never designed to be a dog fighter. It was designed to fly 100s of miles out into the Atlantic, extend it's wings and loiter for hours, waiting for soviet bombers. It would then engage the bombers (and fighters) at long range with missiles. Where didn't it fare well in 'real combat'? The Ground Attack version did well.
@@blowingfree6928 From engine start to TO, it was not reliable, in Iraq, quite a number was shot down, pitted against F-5E, it did not do well, the ground attack version has got a mournful litany of "airworthiness directives" so to speak... in conclusion, similar to Harriers.. a sad saga
@@kristinawhorey3837 You are a mournful litany of verbal diarrhoea. Some were shot down by SAMs, but that is to be expected at low level. None were shot down by F-5Es. No Harriers were shot down. You are a sad saga.
@@kristinawhorey3837 It was very effective and served very well? Where do you get your information from? It seems very very highly rated by pilots in their books/memoirs
@@imperialinquisition6006 they were some major problems with structure, etc
Nose down...nose down...controller said.
its not a crash, its a slide
If the wheels fell off your car would you say you'd crashed or slid? :)
A belly flop isn't a crash.
Fly by.....OMG......I do the wright thinf and stay in...
Space bar *exists*
Oh, the humanity!
?
Few skid marks all round
British?
Italian aircraft flown by German crew
Achilles Wheel
Crash?....where?....who?
It's all in the topline?!
motormouser i t was incident, not crash
Says crash on the official report so i'll stick with what the RAF says thanks :)
motormouser 😁
Not a crash. Just a landing with no undercarriage :)
He should of put the burners on and gone for land speed record without wheels. 🤔
That was a crash, more like a brain fart
Trop tôt le train d 'atterrissage ?😖😖😖😖👎🎆
Belly landing. Not a crash.
Landing?! behave
Why must all the armchair pilots have to sprout their opinions and all the pilot's have to brag
Why does water flow downhill?
Oops indeed here 😮🙊🙈
Flying lower than snake shit!!
panavia
a lot of bullshit talk in hear about that.....does someone know what precisely happen? Technical fault or pilot fault...combined?!? Appreciate facts and not Gamer and wanna be pilot remarks....
Pilot fault.Converting from aircraft that had throttles and gear selector on different sides and selected wrong lever!
Go NATO! Bitches!
Id of ejected. Those guys are gods balls 👍
Pilot who land with gear up, have baseless reason!!
Looks fake to me... just for the initial start of the plane at the start of video... so innatural
Tube does somthing to the video to reduce camera shake and it makes the video look odd. Google the incident if you want.
Ieis
Oh those Italians!!
1) the accident was before 1995, as in 1994 I was a student there and I-42 was already in hangar being put back together.
2) TTTE flew Tornados from all 3 European Nations it was in service with. Specifically, the crew in this incident was NOT Italian (i will not specify which of the other two nations, out of respect.)
@@andreao6008 German.
@@Ace-Av8erDid the Luftwaffe can claim another victory against the RAF ?
American pilots
German
.
The pilot mistakenly retracted the landing gear. That tells you how poorly the military pilots are trained compared with the commercial pilots.
You can always tell when someone hasn't got a blimming clue what they are banging on about. If mil aircrew are so badly trained why are so many ex airforce folks flying self loading freight on Boeing spam cans?. People like 'Sulley' Sullenberger as of Miracle on the Hudson fame. He is an Ex USAF F4 pilot.
Idiot. Go back to your computer games and come back when you've grown up.
The comments are another proof of widespread functional illiteracy.
"AAIB (civil) reports"? I wrote "COMMERCIAL pilots", not private people in Cessnas. When was the last time a commercial pilot ruined a Boeing by sheer negligence?
BandytaCzasu Like I said, you're an idiot. Stop shouting about things you have not experienced.
lmao, you are really talking about those commercial airliners that are literal glorified computers? fuck right off, clown.
the Tornado were failed aircrafts.
Aabee Jan do fuck off...
I totally agree, they're so bad they were only in service for 40 years. You failed Troll.
An airframe has a certain lifespan, which is why 40 years of service life is exceptionally long under the stresses of deep flight. The tornado is a groundbreaking construction in military aviation history. Bye Hans.
@@gravydavy4188 An airframe has a certain lifespan, which is why 40 years of service life is exceptionally long under the stresses of deep flight. The tornado is a groundbreaking construction in military aviation history.
The F-35 won’t last half as long