Update on Eric - please read

[Wirralman]

..............and decoded for us non aviators ??

The aircraft was on charter to the RAF. It was an executive jet packed with electronics , it's job being to stooge around and simulate air attack for fighters to intercept . It was fully loaded, close to it's maximum take off weight. The runway had a slope in it so the pilot couldn't see as far down it as he should. Just they reached the take off speed a crow loomed up. The pilot elected to Reject Take Off and brake rather than take to the air knowing that he would probably sustain damage perhaps to control surfaces and/or lose an engine at worst when he hit the crow
The pilot managed to slow the aircraft, but the runoff area at the end of the runway was not swept and offered little grip. He went over the end of this area and the wheels sank into the grass. The aircraft was pulled out, mud cleaned off and was fully serviceable .
Had the aircraft become airborne, the pilot would have been faced with potentially flying a lame duck. The max landing weight for an aircraft is lower than the max take off weight so a 'hard' landing would be a real possibility causing expensive damage or even worse.

The investigators calculated that the pilot was going fast enough to take off and in their opinion would have got away with it. They don't comment on whether he'd have a good chance of getting it safely back! The queried how many times in his 3000 hr flying career that he had rejected a take off. It was 3, this being the fastest abort. They then came up with a figure of 1 in 3000 take offs are rejected, so a long haul pilot would be faced with one once every 30 years along with other spurious 'facts'.

The decision to brake was taken when the aircraft was travelling at 141or perhaps 150knots(est) so things were happening pretty damn fast. A split second decision saved the day, yet there are over 20 pages of analysis by bum shiners casting doubt on the pilot's capability. Cads and Bounders I'd say.

I hope that isn't too inaccurate a summary of events and explains the shorthand, Eric

[Mr Kay]

Nice precis Eric

Hope you're on the mend, Lynne sends her best wishes too!

[frenchy3]

Glad you are on the mend eric and are back on here with us.

[MONKEY]

Great that you are on the mend and that your literary contributions are getting back up to speed. Kepp em going mate and hope you are home soon. Mike

[CADMAN]

Hi Eric glad you are on the mend , and back on the forum.
All the best
Dave

[Mr Shiney]

[quote="Wirralman"][quote="DSG"]..............and decoded for us non aviators ??[/quote]
The aircraft was on charter to the RAF. It was an executive jet packed with electronics , it's job being to stooge around and simulate air attack for fighters to intercept . It was fully loaded, close to it's maximum take off weight. The runway had a slope in it so the pilot couldn't see as far down it as he should. Just they reached the take off speed a crow loomed up. The pilot elected to Reject Take Off and brake rather than take to the air knowing that he would probably sustain damage perhaps to control surfaces and/or lose an engine at worst when he hit the crow
The pilot managed to slow the aircraft, but the runoff area at the end of the runway was not swept and offered little grip. He went over the end of this area and the wheels sank into the grass. The aircraft was pulled out, mud cleaned off and was fully serviceable .
Had the aircraft become airborne, the pilot would have been faced with potentially flying a lame duck. The max landing weight for an aircraft is lower than the max take off weight so a 'hard' landing would be a real possibility causing expensive damage or even worse.

The investigators calculated that the pilot was going fast enough to take off and in their opinion would have got away with it. They don't comment on whether he'd have a good chance of getting it safely back! The queried how many times in his 3000 hr flying career that he had rejected a take off. It was 3, this being the fastest abort. They then came up with a figure of 1 in 3000 take offs are rejected, so a long haul pilot would be faced with one once every 30 years along with other spurious 'facts'.

The decision to brake was taken when the aircraft was travelling at 141or perhaps 150knots(est) so things were happening pretty damn fast. A split second decision saved the day, yet there are over 20 pages of analysis by bum shiners casting doubt on the pilot's capability. Cads and Bounders I'd say.

I hope that isn't too inaccurate a summary of events and explains the shorthand, Eric[/quote]

Thats a pretty accurate interpretation of it!

I have had a couple of rejected take offs in somewhat more than 3000hrs and would always prefer to keep the problem on the ground than take it into the air and then have to problem solve with passengers. I need to burn 30 minutes fuel at MTOW before I can land again or risk an overweight landing with the implications that go with that.

The reality is that the guy at the front is responsible and has to make good decisions. A good decision is generally one where nobody is hurt!

[Derrick]

Eric, welcome back to the land of the MTs. Hope you make a full recover and are back on the road soon.

[Wirralman]

Ok guys , this has to stop
I have in conjunction with Rus devised two escape plans
1 to build para glider out of bin bags and sticky tape. I can pinch the emergency cords in the bathrooms, they even have handles on the end so I'll have controls sorted. If I launched from the roof above me I'll have about 200ft, with a glide to a huge field about 400ft away
2 to get slacker Gronk to wear a blue polo shirt, nick a wheelchair and pose a a porter. His mate, the hairy one, would act as decoy and distract the guards whilst we slipped out. All Gronk would need to bring in would be a mop head dyed ginger, blankets are readily available so I could just be 'asleep'. Timed right, after guards rounds and with the bustle of visiting it should be a breeze . The tricky bit is that if you get caught the penalties are severe I'm told. I only hear muffled gunfire at 0800...

Rus is determined that I should do it right and have papers. I'll have to find some to copy butI have a good friend in mid-Wales who could do the job I'm sure. Should anyone be in the area, my name is Jaques Gaspard, a road mender from Nantes on contract to Wimpey.

Rus also thought I should head for the border, n Wales is 12 miles from here. I'm not too keen on that, the No 237 bus will take me the 2 miles home. I'd have to hide in the loft of course and keep a diary. To avoid suspicion on the bus dressed in pyjamas and slippers, I'd have to lose some years, the youth were pjs all the time, so some boot polish will be needed

I've had some more forum texts and cards which is nice, however the mickey takers are having a field day.

I had a package addressed to Major Eric Jones MTRC (R&R)Btn. (For non-mil rest& recuperation batallion)

Also a card with an MTRC sticker. I have been instructed to place it on the most expensive bit of hospital kit I can find.

Finally, an erudite member sent me a card with a painting by Vincent Van Gogh. It was a rural scene. Inside the message read 'get well soon. Saw this card and it reminded me of you. The title of the painting should be " Cows having a dump"

As you may be able to tell , I'm on the mend
Eric

[ellrider]

[quote="Wirralman"]
As you may be able to tell , I'm on the mend
Eric[/quote]

I don't think so, I just think you are in the wrong ward.

Good to hear you with raised spirits.

Mark

[Mr Kay]