RAF Tristar ZE704 emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport

[@737driver]

I think it was something with the flaps; you can see it landing with not very much flaps and a high nose pitch. It also explains why the plane had trouble slowing down; the flaps generate drag

[@juleshathaway3894]

Flaps create more lift at slow speed which is why they are used on landings and take off.

[@737driver]

Jules Hathaway I know, thanks, I’m a pilot myself.

[@AlaskaMike72]

Interesting that the #2 engine was left with the reverser engaged for a bit. I'm an American, so I don't have the same perspective of those of you in the UK, but I think it's wonderful the RAF is still operating these great old birds. The fact that airlines worldwide are "ditching" them should have real benefits in the way of cheap parts for maintaining these aircraft. The only downside is that they wouldn't take advantage of the fuel savings of the more modern engines.

[@henryvagincourt]

Nice video again Jim, comments are interesting to, being a fire fighter myself.

[@redstone51]

Thank you for your SERVICE!!!

[@granskare]

thanks for the added info as to why this emergency landing...cheers!

[@mickey1299]

Gotta say i didn't see any landing flaps .

[@natho11420]

I have never understod why the l1011 never caught on so to speak yet the dc10/11 did but had an awful safety and reliablity record, the l1011 was by far the most advanced airliner next to the 747. shame it wss never adopted.

[@Acheillidh_01]

I mind being out for a walk near my work at South Gyle when I saw it flying around and around - knew there was something up!

[@DM-hw4cr]

Fast angle for a landing. Well done. Nice plane

[@gismofly2847]

Perfect. Finished with engines. Edinburgh airport looks a bit scruffy? Bit of fly tipping there, Jock?

[@loaferguy73]

@mesocat Well there is actually 2, Orbital Science flies there Tristar which was converted to a 200 from a 100 last year with the changing of the engines to -524. There are 2 others that are in flying condition N723DA a -1 which was overhauled in 06 to go to TransAtlantic airlines which never started service. It still sits with engines and could be serviceable. Also N700TS a 100 that flew to Kansas City last yr could fly if it had engines and had some more prep work but it probably wont fly.

[@blaxton1946]

Lovely video many thanks for this.

[@brooklyndrive]

Fair enough. The DC10 design can't be blamed though, the part on the runway was not approved by the manufacturer, it was non standard apparently.

[@pascalchauvet4230]

Beautiful aircraft, beautiful video

[@brooklyndrive]

The L1011 was later into service giving it a sales advantage. The long range L1011 was a shortened version of the standard L1011 whereas the long range DC10 (series 30) had the same length and could carry more passengers. The DC10 did not have an awful safety record. The two cabin door accidents were a design fault, the second incident (all killed, Turkish airlines) should not have happened, that was a lack of airline industry action. The Chicago crash was bad maintenance techniques.

[@stanleyrober9254]

The leading edge slats were deployed normally for the landing but looked like flaps were completely retracted which would have required a higher touchdown airspeed than normal. Spoilers deployed at touch down, But not sure that all came up normally. During taxi, No. 2 engine was in reverse thrust, perhaps to keep taxi speed slowed if there was a hydraulic power system problem and loss of brake pressure. Not too likely though with four hydraulic systems and crossover capabilities.

[@johnbeech3493]

Thank you, a sensible and accurate viewpoint

[@stanleyrober9254]

Since that was 45 + years ago, my memory as to system operation is a little fuzzy. Was a Lockheed F/E on the L-1011 Production Flight Test at the time.

[@raybankes7668]

Using reverse thrust makes sence as look at the wind sock they have quite a tail wind while taxing

[@19rick44]

+Ray Bankes. It's sense.

[@sparky739]

The 1011 has/had worm gear driven flaps, not hydraulic like the POS DC-10. If either side is out of whack with the other side, the flap motion stops where it is and can not be reset in flight. He was either dumping fuel or trying to fix the problem and briefing for the emergency landing. Probably dumped fuel as you want to be light as possible with as little flammable fuel on touchdown without flaps. I could see that his flaps were not set but he did have slats, and the outboard spoilers did actuate on touchdown. An amazing save aircraft to fly...not a single one ever crashed due to catastrophic failure...all crashes due to pilot error or, in one case, massive passenger stupidity.

[@popeofmick]

Strange they decided to land at Edinburgh with a fault, rather than return RAF Brize Norton as that's where the engineering support is. The no2 reverser is used to control taxi speed and is normally deployed, as idle will move the aircraft quite easily.

[@JMcdon1627]

The thrust reverser on engine #3 (pilots view, right wing) was not deployed properly after landing. Must have been an engine failure or reverser arming issue. I have been a pilot since 1967, and I might want the extra fuel dumped depending on the length of the runway and the weight of the aircraft, because less reverse thrust means less braking ability. Also, circling for a while gives time to work through problems as the crew prepares for the safest landing possible.

[@rexinapex1784]

Have you been flying these planes regularly? Nice to see an historial L-1011 making an emergency landing

[@JMcdon1627]

No, I have not been flying. I have been retired for quite a while. Best Regards.

[@burnandtwist]

It makes it easier to taxi, as there is more control over number 2 engine

[@juanbollozzy]

I have been lucky enough to fly on that exact plane this year from Cyprus, they suffer many problems and delays these days, but all in all a good flight,,

[@neneto74]

What camera did you use, the video quality is amazing.

[@loaferguy73]

If you notice closely the thrust reverser on the #2 engine opens and closes, open and closes and opens....Bet you it was a prob with that. Spurious Tristars never had stuctural problems in the late 70's, its similiar looking competitor the DC-10 did although. It had problems with engine mounting, cargo door issues.

[@jamesmcnab3555]

I think all L-1011s have the rear reverse thrust opened longer than the others

[@TR6Telos]

Looks like no flaps high speed landing. Fire engines for burning brakes popped tires, or off end off runway.

[@kcphillips1000]

The trailing edge flaps were not extended in the landing position...fairly obvious.

[@whisky110]

Why was the rear engine thrust reverser still open as it taxied past the fire trucks ? Was this part of the general problem with it ?

[@regnig99]

I remember seeing this flying over Edinburgh numerous times. I also remember some people phoning into the local radio station here worried about why it was flying round and round and round... some even thought there was a possible attack of some kind about to happen!

[@737Adventures]

I remember this day precisely, I was at waverley bridge getting my lothian buses ridacard update and I had come out of the office and Iooked up west to look at the castle and all I could see was the Tristar booming overhead with the gear down and all, couldn't believe it.

[@TorontoChannel]

Huge plane. Saw one land at Prestwick it was massive and loud :D

[@ChrisZoomER]

The RAF Tristar looks a lot like the KC-10.

[@chizz32]

You are wrong, it was a full airport emergency, flaps failure

[@sp00kywestie]

Great video in good quality also

[@Starbuckin]

Beautiful video.

[@brooklyndrive]

Now that is a can of worms! That was a real multi-factor crash. Should an airline be able to brought down by a wee bit of metal on the runway?

[@jonny96]

Leading edge devices only, looks like a hydraulic problem. Maybe the system that retracts the centre reverser is out!

[@MrPceneviva]

The mains point still is: no flaps. And land without flaps REALLY is not boring.

[@melissarennie7289]

Never seen the TriStar up close before. I didn't even know the RAF used them, I've only ever seen the A330's.

[@Videospotter]

The DC-10 had less Crashes than the B747 related to the flight hours!

[@1chish]

Possibly no who really knows but it was actually a fair size bracket (full width of the tyre) and shouldn't have been there. And yes this was a many faceted accident but the fact remains that Concorde had one accident in 30 years.

[@CrazyMelaizi]

Nice Jim.

[@JimRamsayJWR]

As the tripod had tilted at that time!! Thankyou!

[@catacv9]

What eqipment use? u have impressive zoom,how much mm have ?

[@AlaskaMike72]

Ah, never mind, I see that he's using the #2 engine reverser to control his taxi speed so he doesn't have to rely on wheel brakes so much. I'm sure that means he was very light, which also explains the slats-only landing.

[@AlaskaMike72]

Wow--I'd forgotten I made that comment 7 years ago! I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about aircraft than I am. I didn't mention anything about steering, so I'm not sure why you bring up the nose wheel tiller. The reason I noted the thrust reverser on the #2 engine is because at around 2:50 they very clearly disengage the reversers on engines 1 and presumeably 3 as well, but left #2 in reverse thrust, disengaging it while turning off onto the taxiway. However, then at about 6:36 they put #2 into reverse again while taxiing, and it remains engaged for most of the rest of the video. Maybe you didn't actually watch this video?

[@AlaskaMike72]

@Horsehead Pete Haha! No worries. I always love watching the Tristars. We didn't get them up here in Alaska much when they were active with the commercial carriers. We always had DC-10s and 747s (operated mainly by Northwest Orient) stopping here for a midpoint refuel stop. Even the MD-11s operated by FedEx have now mostly gone away.

[@SpuriousEmission]

I seem to remember there was a safety issue with (passenger?) Tristar's back in the late 70's when I was a boy. can't remember what it was, but think it was a sructural failure issue?

[@1chish]

No I never criticised the DC10 design or manufacture. I said it was a DC10 part but maybe a 'part from a DC10' is a better form of words. Still a tragic and unique set of events.

[@leemason5953]

not sure what the problem was here but the flaps look a bit funny,but I'm not a pilot nice landing though looked a bit fast which is why I thought it was flaps.might be wrong tho.

[@euantulip]

every one was yold it was a wing problem but one of the passingers posted flight times for the flight to akorteri

[@euantulip]

or that is a different plane

[@siddiqueyd1]

All videos must be like this. With a overlay slide show throughout.

[@McRocket]

8:00 - the firefighters are saying 'Hey, come back...we want to help you!!!'.

[@trent8002003]

You're comparing the Tristar-1 with DC10-30. Of course there's no match. One is for domestic US market while the other is for intercontinental European market. A more valid comparions would be between Tristar-1 and DC10-10. There was hardly any difference. Moreover, late version Tristars like the Tristar-250 had a decent range and payload. 510000lbs vs 530000lbs. That's a more meaningful comparison with the DC10-30.

[@bmused55]

Yay, lets make a video of a plane, the overlay still pictures of it to obscure the actual footage!

[@rildain76]

Had to overlay still images to cover up the horrendous zooming in/out and the jerky panning. High quality video is no good without smooth camera operation.

[@nrodar]

@sherodyn at 2:05 u can see the flaps...

[@mickey1299]

Actually they were the speed brakes , flaps are under wing , and on this bus are quite large . I didn't see any either .

[@JGrindel]

@440gray whats wrong with them to make them so bad

[@1chish]

...and it was a DC10 part that fell off in Paris and caused the Concorde to have its only ever crash. Just saying ...

[@TrainNutter]

And the same aircraft was retired 2 years later...

[@ryanbarnes631]

I thought the Tristan where banned

[@kenbuckley3294]

Good landing.

[@chizz32]

it was problem with the flaps

[@henson2k]

WOW Tristar! It's like see dinosaur alive

[@socalfive]

Between the stills and the constant zooming, this video is practically ruined.

[@Ampex196]

Commenting as a pro cameraman - my view is that Jim did very well under the circumstances (lead room restored by whip panning etc.). It's not easy in such conditions with long focal distances. I'd put this footage 'to air' without a second thought! Perhaps 'socalfive' would like to have a try at the same?!

[@vidcrit1187]

Socalfive probably doesn't even know what a camera is.

[@1BassJohn]

I highly doubt that plane was dumping fuel.. over land.

[@camelsac]

You're right - they normally dump fuel over the sea. On top of that, if they have too much fuel on board, the extra weight damages the undercarriage on landing.

[@JimRamsayJWR]

camelsac If you know the geography of Edinburgh, you'd know its on the sea!

[@camelsac]

Jim Ramsay Yes - so they dumped the fuel at sea, not over land.

[@inekemateman273]

El Al flight 747 which crashed at Amsterdam some decades ago, dumped fuel over my house at 4.500 feet!

[@MrCagivaman]

The aeroplane the RAF didn't want!! The RAFwanted the DC-10 Extender, but Mrs Thatcher thought it would be a good idea if the RAF bought the ex BA Tristars which would give BA enough money to bail them out of the shit!! The conversion would be carried out at Marshalls of Cambridge ( Lockheed partners in Europe) who got a new wide-body hangar out of it, paid by the MOD. Hence the RAF got an aircraft that airlines world-wide, were ditching as fast as they could. RAF, worlds last Tristar user!!!!

[@Altenholz]

There is no need to dump fuel, i mean RWY 24 is something like 2500 m long, so long enough for a Tristar anyway .-)

[@JimRamsayJWR]

+Altenholz It was dumping

[@computer5272]

+Altenholz It can't handle the weight. Either that or the jet was too full to land anywhere too early. When these things are loaded with fuel for a long journey they plan to burn it off and can take off with max fuel but cannot land with max fuel.

[@hannahcrawford9198]

flaps weren't working by the looks of it so it would have been an exeptionaly hard and fast landing so it would have needed to dump fuel if it was operating close to the envelope to begin with.

[@Sterlingjob]

The tristar had crap carrying capacity and range compared to the dc10. We could send 70 tonnes of freight to Uganda in one hit!

[@redstone51]

LOCKHEED, bring back the TRISTAR!!!

[@besinnliches]

Some also came from British Airways :)

[@autodidact2499]

It's "its," the pronoun, not "it's" the contraction of "it is," dunce!

[@vidcrit1187]

You stay happy in your ignorance of our language Mr McRocket. Some people do care and they are normally referred to as "educated".

[@AAHKLEE]

Yes indeed Vidcrit. However, regrettably being "Edumacated" brings with it a degree of small thinking such as yours.

[@vidcrit1187]

If ignorance is bliss then you, AAHKLEE, must be the happiest person on earth.

[@AAHKLEE]

Sorry Vidcrit. Your job application has been declined. You just have an inadequate attitude.

[@inekemateman273]

They both had to pee?

[@stephenbishop4129]

no its wings deffo fell off ,,i saw it with my own eyes ,wingless 1011

[@christopherescott6787]

A SEXY beast.

[@JADEAV]

You.....Blah...

[@chillit3707]

bbh

[@CC-gr7gf]

Horrible editing

[@JimRamsayJWR]

I totally agree, not my finest video.

[@robertlworley]

You watched it! He didn't have to share it, just to get some insult by you. What an interesting society we live in!

[@kapottespatiebalk]

Boring!