TA4-K crash landing shots

[Splitpin]

More stuff Ive dug up from that RNZAF photo archive ....really is worth a look.

[Dash8captain]

Amazing images Marty what was the reason here? Landing gear failed to deploy?

[Splitpin]

Cheers Dash dude, Evidently yes. But one report I read says it was just the nose gear that failed ...but the photos show no gear at all.
Im looking at a unit history report now and will get back to you.

[Splitpin]

Dash ... "On Thursday 14 September 1989 TA-4K NZ 6255 touched down short of the runway threshold at Ohakea, breaking off the starboard main undercarriage leg before getting airborne again.
Subsequently, it made an arrested landing on its drop tanks with the undercarriage retracted."

[deaneb]

An exciting ride for the passenger in the back who was a ground crew member. The story I heard, was he was out of the aircraft before the pilot was!!

[Splitpin]

An exciting ride for the passenger in the back who was a ground crew member. The story I heard, was he was out of the aircraft before the pilot was!!

DB ...I would have been unstrapped and perched on his shoulders as the canopy opened

[cowpatz]

You would want to sure those drop tanks were empty.

[Splitpin]

You would want to sure those drop tanks were empty.

CP, I had the same thought. I don't know if they can dump the fuel in them (I doubt it) but they can drop them. Either way, he must have been sure they didn't pose a risk, and the result, I guess saved a little damage to the airframe.
On the odd occasion, they popped into Wigram with wing tanks, we sometimes just refueled through the single pressure point under the tail....they didn't ask for the Aux tanks.
They were funny old things .... no battery, no self start, so I guess a flameout in flight would have been a problem.

[Lindstrim]

You would want to sure those drop tanks were empty.

CP, I had the same thought. I don't know if they can dump the fuel in them (I doubt it) but they can drop them. Either way, he must have been sure they didn't pose a risk, and the result, I guess saved a little damage to the airframe.
On the odd occasion, they popped into Wigram with wing tanks, we sometimes just refueled through the single pressure point under the tail....they didn't ask for the Aux tanks.
They were funny old things .... no battery, no self start, so I guess a flameout in flight would have been a problem.

One of our management is rumoured to have had a flameout overhead I think Ohakea, and glided it back.

[Splitpin]

Lindstrim , thanks for looking. I recall a couple of yarns about something similar...maybe a hanger myth, but hese things are generally based on actual events.
You as a professional Pilot you would understand the dynamics of gliding. I imagine if the flame out occured in or near the circuit he could have got home.
Im not up to speed with the engine out details of the A-4.
I would love to know more.

[SUBS17]

That's a good landing.

[Charl]

I missed the point the first time I saw this thread!
The images took too long to resize, and I got distracted...

Now I notice it was an arrested landing!
That explains the minimal damage to the front, as the thing was hooked on the back, and so restrained from nosing over.
It would've been a pretty high-g landing too: plenty of friction drag plus the arrestor.
How long?



Pity the LH photo didn't have overlap for continuity, but scaling the 40ft of a Skyhawk and allowing perspective "creep", that looks like a little over 400ft.
These things could land on HMAS Melbourne which had a 690 ft flight deck so sounds reasonable; they use up about 60% on landing.

Great find, Marty. I imagine there would've been a pretty gritty Order Group meeting post landing.

[deaneb]

It would've been a pretty high-g landing too: plenty of friction drag plus the arrestor.

The arrestor will more than overcome any friction drag! The other advantage of the arrestor is it will help keep the aircraft in a straight line.

[Aharon]

It is GREAT miracle that the plane did not blow up!!! Thanks for interesting educational post showing new facts!

This is amazing landing and it reminds me of other famous incident by other country's air force plane as seen on this hyperlink:

https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f ... -one-wing/

Regards,

Aharon

[Splitpin]

Aharon, great link to the IAF F-15 incident .....a real testament to the pilot, and also the aircraft.

[aerofoto]

On the subject of abnormal landings/procedures .... Does everyone remember this one back in April 1990 (on April 1st of all days) ? ....


SAFE AIR ARGOSY 222 ZK-SAF EMERGENCY LANDING AT WOODBOURNE/BLENHIEM APRIL 1st 1990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osNcIqH8X1I


SAFE AIR ARGOSY 222 ZK-SAF was on approach to WEL when its crew were confronted with an unsafe port main gear indication.

The approach was abandoned and the crew endeavoured to trouble short the problem .... which included a procedure "not in the book" .... in attempt to force the port main gear down and into a locked condition, but, which also failed.

The decision was therefore made to divert the aircraft to Woodbourne/Blenheim .... SAFE AIR's engineering and operations base .... in order to perform an emergency landing there with a port main gear "UNSAFE" indication.

That approach, and landing, was performed superbly.

Aided by slower than normal approach to landing airspeed and the influence of starboard aileron after landing the crew held the aircraft's full weight off the unsafe port main gear until the last moments of their roll out after landing .... when both physics, and gravity, inevitably resulted in the port main gear slowly collapsing and the aircraft then commencing to off-road/ground loop.

The cause of this incident was "a sheared" locking pin on the port main gear.

This was a common end of life failure among ARGOSY aircraft .... as both the RAF and other UK operators had experienced prior to the NZ incident.

Repair work to ZK-SAF was commenced by SAFE AIR engineering .... and a replacement ARGOSY leased-in from IPEC AUSTRALIA (VH-IPB .... re-registered ZK-SAL) to cover -SAF's schedules .... but .... the repair work was never completed before AIR NZ (SAFE AIR's parent company) announced it's decision to cease SAFE AIR's air freight operations (at the same time also announcing its decision to withdraw its F-27 fleet too) and focus what then remained of the company on aviation engineering.

ARGOSY ZK-SAL was returned to IPEC Aviation on September 26th 1990 .... but not before some high-spirited engineers had "the final say". SAFE AIR staff resentful at parent company AIR NZ's quietly doctored the "SAFE AIR CARGO" titles on ZK-SAL's fuselage overnight to read "SAFE AIR CANGO" .... essentially meaning SAFE AIR CAN GO (down the road/be dispensed with so to speak). Perhaps the last, longest, and loudest laugh occurred though when this particular aircraft was then forced to fly additional domestic air freight services prior to its return to Australia .... whilst still bearing this non-standard/edited titling as a slur against AIR NZ management of the period ....





"MRC FS IMAGES"


A great NZ produced video documentary about SAFE AIR's history .... from BRISTOL FREIGHTER's to ARGOSY's


"THE FINAL FLIGHT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDfDYgoXFjY


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Radar88]

Here you go Marty, the actual onsite video of the incident RNZAF TA-4K Skyhawk Wheels Up Landing Ohakea 1989 and 2 Sqn Skyhawks at Nowra 1991/92

Here's some more for a look at the RNZAF Skyhawk nostalgic past Various RNZAF Skyhawk videos from the late 1980s and 1990s.

The Douglas, by Stewy Murphy

RNZAF Skyhawk Pilot recruitment videos

Kiwis Do Fly

Eagle High

These are just a few of the old RNZAF A-4 Skyhawk footage, lots more can be found on Don Simms You Tube Channel

[Charl]

Great find, that clip!
It also rubbishes just about everything I doodled in the post above...
Those arrestor wires must've been set to "Gentle"