Watch the video and think about what the pilot can see.  He ejects when the flames surround the cockpit, probably got kind of hot in there.

Maybe he had a back up plan and that's why he stuck with it so long.

Maybe he waited to put the handbrake on so no-one could steal the wreckage! 

British Harriers are fitted with Martin-Baker Mk. 9A or Mk. 12 seats. http://www.martin-baker.com/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--12H---Harrier.aspx

Hagar wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 1:56am:


Not as much oomph as an ACES II I reckon?  That looked like an awful hard hit that poor guy took.

Two hits!  One was in the backside getting punched out, two was the landing.

Forgot about the first 'hit'.

The poor guy took three altogether.

machineman9 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 10:34pm:



What happened is the wrong manoeuvre in the wrong country. Sounds daft I know, but let me explain. The Harrier is very marginal on thrust when not in conventional flight. The pilot was performing a very short landing. The video looks like Afghanistan from the amount of Rubs (rubber hangers in the background). So add marginal engine performance to high air temperatures and, well you get this. In a previous life that involved a light blue suit I spent quite a lot of time in a hot sunny country with the Harrier Force for Op Warden. The Harrier could only fly early in the morning or evening due to air temperature conditions and was limited to conventional take off and landing. The moment that this pilot decided to perform this landing, he placed his order for his Martin Baker tankard and tie. Also he was unlucky on two other fronts. Firstly it was all captured in glorious technicolour and the Harrier is one of the few fighters that has an accident data recorder . So a nice print out of his accident at 0,1 second intervals too.

Matt

expat wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 3:59am:

Yeah it looked to me as if the pilot was hoping for more to happen than what actually did - Understeer, if you will. Anyone capable of flying something that large is bound to know how to land it properly and for what ever reason it seems like what they were used to doing to land it just didn't work that time. It would be like a Californian trying to park their car on Alaska's slippiest iciest road; they're not quite prepared for what to expect even though they're qualified and may have been driving for decades.

Quote:


I would discount the emergency approach theory purely due to the aircraft being in a very tight place when doing that sort of manoeuvre with marginal engine performance due to temperature. A normal emergency harrier approach will be fixed throttle and nozzles at 55 degrees and a normal approach. Saying that, as we only have a video and sketchy reports it is hard to say, however I would suspect that the pilot had an interview without coffee and biscuits.

Here are a couple of reports I found. They mention an emergency landing, but I think that is more propaganda than anything else.

Flightglobal

Due to gear not extending, funny but the video tells another picture and if so, why a risky STOL manoeuvre

Another gear story and luckily the Harrier was not carrying passengers 

So, as you can see, without an official report, lots of, well for want of another word, bollox being reported. Gear failure is a vertical landing to minimise damage. Those wing tanks and gun pods make great crush zones or a conventional landing to minimise damage if for what ever reason (read performance) and not stove it into the ground with a risky STOL approach in high air temperature with doggy gear

Matt   

expat wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 1:52pm:


I saw that one. I laughed as well.
Thats what happens when people report on aviation events when they have no clue about anything aviation.