"In The Red" BCAL 707 Into RAF..???

Ok.. I have just started a new thread “My Life in Aviation” Lt/Capt Alan Lane, with an audio download link. It was a 45 minute talk Dad recorded in his eighties just before he passed away, and described the Manston incident, amongst many others.

I do stand thoroughly corrected though, the Manston RAF Officers response was nothing like I described it, my recollection was 43 odd years old, and the cassette, to clarify has come to light only in the last few months.

Never seen this thread before, but a good read and nice conclusion. At that time i was a serving member of RAF and stationed at Valley, Anglesey, which has always been (And I think still is ) a Master Diversion Airfield. Arriving to work one morning to see Civil Airliners strewn (Parked) all over the Pans and Peri Track on Seaward side of Airfield. Station Flight were going frantic trying to unload passengers with “Giraffes” and herd em into an assembly area where they were bussed off to Holyhead Railway Station. Because of fog still around, no Valley Aircraft were flying, so the station was very busy copiing with it all. Some of the planes were there for a day or more before they departed.

Never seen Valley that busy with Diversions since.

Bill T.

Full laden with pax I suspect.

🙂

So, almost six years after I started this thread, I have found, amongst Dads flight papers, a record of this event, and can now confirm the station he landed at was Manston… thanks again for all your contributions.

Do you have any more details as your initial post six years ago was contradictory, you said ‘his full laden BCAL 707, with extremely marginal fuel reserves’.
If he was at the end of a log flight he would be nowhere near full laden and his airfield options would have been many, but the choice may have been reduced by only having marginal fuel remaining.

Richard

How strange: at that time there would have been no nukes at Manston but the RAF reaction seems extreme for a ‘friendly’.

In October 1956 three Aeroflot Tu-104s diverted into Manston and seem to have been well-received: resident 92nd FBS did at the time store its nukes onsite.

Here’s what may have happened.

Out of options he talks to Company but they can’t offer a civil solution within his range. So he calls on 121.5. First question they ask is how long a runway does he need? Simple question – Not so easy to answer off the cuff. His P3/Nav is busy taking down weather and in any case there’s little time to get the charts out and put in actual performance data. He has to be quick and very conservative, not knowing the actual conditions. I don’t know what the answer would have been but on a 707 it could easily have been 8000 (VC10 might have been 6500/7000, again conservative but he might have had to accept a small tailwind to get the vis required).
Not many 707 pilots of the time would have known off the cuff, without the time to go into charts, if they could safely get into Lyneham/Brize etc as Comets/Britannias/VC10s all had better airfield performance. They would have known that a USAF base was a safe bet.

As I wasn’t born then, yet alone flying, I can’t be sure, but you’d probably find the crew would have a number in their head that would represent a 95% (random percentage guestimate) likelihood of being an acceptable length. Calculated something like this: at Max Landing Weight on a level runway at 25 degrees (or at ISA or ISA+5 etc) with no wind we need X,000 FT.

That number would allow them to quickly appraise anything offered before checking the charts of the preferred options available.

Regardless, it’s great to see a conclusion.

:applause: Nice to hear the conclusion to this ,thanks.

Maybe a bit of embellishment to the tale, but a satisfying result.

Interesting; should not have been a problem as it was a master diversion airfield and joint RAF/Civil at the time.

So, almost six years after I started this thread, I have found, amongst Dads flight papers, a record of this event, and can now confirm the station he landed at was Manston… thanks again for all your contributions.

Here’s what may have happened.
He set off with LGW/ LHR forecast open (otherwise he would have planned to PWK/SNN). It’s likely PWK was open as he went over the top or he’d have already known the extent of the mainland fog and gone to SNN. He let down and likely commenced an approach at LGW/LHR but the vis went below ILS limits. He had no autoland. First choice MAN but fog thickening. Second choice back to PWK. He didn’t go there so either PWK had clamped in (possible but rare), or more likely, having let down he hadn’t the fuel (which also would have ruled out SNN). Next choice AMS/BRU but probably affected by the same weather system. Next choice Paris (different weather system, two airfields, lots of runways) but apparently didn’t have the fuel.
Out of options he talks to Company but they can’t offer a civil solution within his range. So he calls on 121.5. First question they ask is how long a runway does he need? Simple question – Not so easy to answer off the cuff. His P3/Nav is busy taking down weather and in any case there’s little time to get the charts out and put in actual performance data. He has to be quick and very conservative, not knowing the actual conditions. I don’t know what the answer would have been but on a 707 it could easily have been 8000 (VC10 might have been 6500/7000, again conservative but he might have had to accept a small tailwind to get the vis required).
Not many 707 pilots of the time would have known off the cuff, without the time to go into charts, if they could safely get into Lyneham/Brize etc as Comets/Britannias/VC10s all had better airfield performance. They would have known that a USAF base was a safe bet.

I don’t know where this takes us, but if it had been me, without time to study the actual numbers, I would have accepted Filton, Fairford, Boscombe, Bedford but if offered USAF I would have bitten their hands off – nasty dogs and big guns notwithstanding!

The station photographer at Northolt recorded the take-off (, no payload, enough fuel to get to Heathrow) and it got off in about a third of the runway. It was a JT-4A powered original Intercontinental model not the later developed JT-3D fanjet model with the developed high lift wing….which all goes to show the 707 could use a 1 mile runway at the right weights 🙂 and they sometimes flew in an out of Southend for resprays/maintenance, I believe
http://www.abpic.co.uk/results.php?q=pan++northolt&fields=all&sort=latest&limit=10

If a Pan Am 707 landed safely on Northolts’ 5,500 ft runway, I’m sure Lyneham (7,800 extended for the Comet), St Mawgan, Greenham, & Boscombe at just under or just over useable 10,000ft would have been manageble.;)

I think that PAA 707 just squeezed onto the Northolt Runway, they had to gut the aircraft of all seats and furnishings to get it back out again.

There was a worldwide programme of runway extensions in the early Sixties for the 707(which had entered service in late 1958)…the VC10 went into service April 1964. The 747entered service 1970 overweight and underpowered and another round of runway extensions occurred (e.g at Heathrow). As you say the USAF had adequate runways (dating back to the late 50s in the UK) typically 10000ft for SAC bases (though Heyford was a little shorter and 9000ft for TAC bases and the RAF did make do with 7000ft in many cases.

.
This incident occurred in the early 1970s. Runways adequate for a B707 were few and far between then. Landing performance was not great in comparison with, say, a VC10, which after all was designed to use shorter runways. Much runway lengthening took place throughout the 70s at both civil and military airfields. The USAF bases did have adequate runways in those days as they were built for Boeing’s finest, but many RAF bases did not.The runway length figures quoted for the mid-eighties are for a different aviation era.

THe book doesn’t give an ASDA figure for Greenham so you could be correct
Probably not relevant but Bedford had 10500ft(ASDA 10500 also) and Boscombe Down had 10537ft (ASDA 10537also)
Heathrow wasn’t extended to 12800ft until the 747 arrived I think

Wasn’t GCs r/w almost 10,000 but with over 900ft overrun at each end of the runway which could be used if needed?

If a Pan Am 707 landed safely on Northolts’ 5,500 ft runway, I’m sure Lyneham (7,800 extended for the Comet), St Mawgan, Greenham, & Boscombe at just under or just over useable 10,000ft would have been manageble.;)

.
This incident occurred in the early 1970s. Runways adequate for a B707 were few and far between then. Landing performance was not great in comparison with, say, a VC10, which after all was designed to use shorter runways. Much runway lengthening took place throughout the 70s at both civil and military airfields. The USAF bases did have adequate runways in those days as they were built for Boeing’s finest, but many RAF bases did not.The runway length figures quoted for the mid-eighties are for a different aviation era.

Greenham 10000ft

Wasn’t GCs r/w almost 10,000 but with over 900ft overrun at each end of the runway which could be used if needed?

Seems a bit odd, emergency landings happened at many bases and were not hushed up even for small aircraft. I have raised landing fees on several unexpected vistors and the arrivals were officially logged. It is fairly easy to isolate an arrival and keep the crew/pax away from restricted areas. The procedure was part of regular exercise drills.

Thats how I remember it, what was the codename??

Rogue elephant ?:confused:

Baz

A quick look at RAF ‘EN ROUTE SUPPLEMENT’ 1986 bought at Culdrose for £1 has Brize 10006ft, Fairford 9997ft Greenham 10000ft Lakenheath 9000ft Mildenhall 9240ft Upper Heyford 9600ft Machrihanish 🙂 10003ft…most except last two have ASDA (accelerate/stop distances) about 1000ft longer
Heathrow however had 12800ft (ASDA 12800) on 28R/10L…Gatwick 10364ft (ASDA 10607 on 08 direction)

I’m absolutely sure that I have seen reference to GC ESAs storing special weapons well after the SAC departures and into its RAF preriod, however can’t find evidence at mo so can’t argue any further.
An irrate RAF officer (even if only notional/acting station commander), ranting about nukes at an aircraft landing on an airfield that isn’t even generally open kind of makes some sense against this background – even though I don’t think Greenham is the airfield in question.

JB when Greenham was operational it was one of the longest runways in Europe with almost 12,000ft max usable tarmac, it and LH and both could support the B-36 with its longer t/o run.