Fuel dumping!

[Ed Majden]

Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel by
cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice? If
not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used to
explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph was
first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but
now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory to
explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
exists, would be appreciated.
Ed

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel
by
> cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice? If
> not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used to
> explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph
was
> first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but
> now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory
to
> explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
> exists, would be appreciated.
> Ed
>

The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one
did it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was
seen around the world.

As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason :)

Keith

[John Carrier]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel
by
> cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice? If
> not, why would this be done?

A pretty standard airshow move in the RA-5. The F-14 could also perform the
deed, but it was discouraged by NATOPS. IIRC, JP's flame rate is 260 knots.
Theoretically, at speeds faster, your torch cannot catch up with you. I
know of no aircraft lost to the trick.

R / John

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:43:44 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
>the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel by
>cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice? If
>not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used to
>explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph was
>first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but
>now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory to
>explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
>exists, would be appreciated.
>Ed
>
>


The fuel dump on a Backfire is just above and between the nozzles too.
I wonder if they've ever lit fuel off.

[WaltBJ]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message >...
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> > Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
> > the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel
> by
> > cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice? If
> > not, why would this be done?
>SNIP:
I know of only one loss due to fuel dumping - a Boeing 314 Clipper off
Oahu, I believe, in 1939 or so. It had to abort after takeoff and was
dumping 100-octane gas and unfortunately flew in a wide level circle
and upon entering the cloud of gas-air mix caught fire and crashed. I
believe the crew was a Boeing factory crew and it was not on a
pssenger flight. FWIW all jet airliners that takeoff at a gross weight
higher than max landing weight have fuel dumping capabilitites. ISTR
the L1011 could dump 5000#/min. The F4 had to dump fuel to get to
carrier landing weight if it had to abort right after launch.
Walt BJ

[Larry]

>The F4 had to dump fuel to get to
> carrier landing weight if it had to abort right after launch.
They all still do.

Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired

20 years of Navy in my rear view mirror
and getting further away every day ;-)


"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> > news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> > > Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me
about
> > > the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped
fuel
> > by
> > > cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice?
If
> > > not, why would this be done?
> >SNIP:
> I know of only one loss due to fuel dumping - a Boeing 314 Clipper off
> Oahu, I believe, in 1939 or so. It had to abort after takeoff and was
> dumping 100-octane gas and unfortunately flew in a wide level circle
> and upon entering the cloud of gas-air mix caught fire and crashed. I
> believe the crew was a Boeing factory crew and it was not on a
> pssenger flight. FWIW all jet airliners that takeoff at a gross weight
> higher than max landing weight have fuel dumping capabilitites. ISTR
> the L1011 could dump 5000#/min. The F4 had to dump fuel to get to
> carrier landing weight if it had to abort right after launch.
> Walt BJ

[Ed Majden]

"John Carrier" <
> A pretty standard airshow move in the RA-5. The F-14 could also perform
the
> deed, but it was discouraged by NATOPS. IIRC, JP's flame rate is 260
knots.
> Theoretically, at speeds faster, your torch cannot catch up with you. I
> know of no aircraft lost to the trick.
>
> R / John
>
I worked on CF-104's and CF-101B Voodoos and never heard of this being
done. Is this a recent trick or did pilots not attempt this near their home
bases where they could be easily identified? ;-)
Ed

[Richard Brooks]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
>> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me
>> about the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this
>> dumped fuel by cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a
>> very risky practice? If not, why would this be done? On another
>> newsgroup, this is being used to explain a photograph taken by a
>> young fellow in the UK. The photograph was first explained to be
>> the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but now this is not
>> supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory to explain
>> what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
>> exists, would be appreciated.
>> Ed
>>
>
> The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one
> did it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was
> seen around the world.
>
> As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason :)
>
> Keith

It made at least one Oxford Mail newspaper in England when an F-111 did it
over Upper Heyford and what with some old thatched houses and corn fields
around it scared a few people.

Richard.

[WDA]

We had FJ-4Bs (1950s Navy fighters) on the flight deck dump fuel from the
rudder mounted dump pipe just above the jet engine exhaust at 100% RPM (no
afterburner), but the fuel flow was so torrential it never even ignited.
Such fuels have to be partially vaporized to reach the correct ignition
temperature to begin burning.

WDA

end

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> > Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me
about
> > the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped
fuel
> by
> > cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice?
If
> > not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used
to
> > explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph
> was
> > first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere
but
> > now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition
theory
> to
> > explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
> > exists, would be appreciated.
> > Ed
> >
>
> The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one
> did it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was
> seen around the world.
>
> As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason :)
>
> Keith
>
>

[Errol Cavit]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no>...
> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel by
> cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice?

In theory, not if you are going faster than the burn rate of the fuel.
The USAF banned it for their F-111s (now retired), the RAAF still does
it.

It's covered in aus.aviation fairly often

groups.google.com/groups?q=dump&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Daus.aviation.*

If
> not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used to
> explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph was
> first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but
> now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory to
> explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
> exists, would be appreciated.
> Ed

Having it happen at altitude in the UK is rather different from at an
Australian airshow however.

Cheers
Errol Cavit

[Jim Thomas]

F-111s at Edwards AFB open houses did it for years (1970s).

Jim Thomas

Errol Cavit wrote:

> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no>...
>
>>Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
>>the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped fuel by
>>cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very risky practice?
>
>
> In theory, not if you are going faster than the burn rate of the fuel.
> The USAF banned it for their F-111s (now retired), the RAAF still does
> it.
>
> It's covered in aus.aviation fairly often
>
> groups.google.com/groups?q=dump&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Daus.aviation.*
>
> If
>
>>not, why would this be done? On another newsgroup, this is being used to
>>explain a photograph taken by a young fellow in the UK. The photograph was
>>first explained to be the entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but
>>now this is not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory to
>>explain what was photographed. Your comments on this practice, if it
>>exists, would be appreciated.
>>Ed
>
>
> Having it happen at altitude in the UK is rather different from at an
> Australian airshow however.
>
> Cheers
> Errol Cavit

[Vygg]

Richard Brooks wrote:

> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
>>

>>
>>> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
>>> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped
>>> fuel by cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very
>>> risky practice? If not, why would this be done? On another
newsgroup,
>>> this is being used to explain a photograph taken by a young
>>> fellow in the UK. The photograph was first explained to be the
>>> entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but now this is
>>> not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory
>>> to explain what was photographed. Your comments on this
>>> practice, if it exists, would be appreciated. Ed
>>>
>>>
>> The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one did
>> it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was seen
>> around the world.
>>
>> As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason
>> :)
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
> It made at least one Oxford Mail newspaper in England when an F-111
> did it over Upper Heyford and what with some old thatched houses
> and corn fields around it scared a few people.
>
> Richard.
>
Do you know what year this incident happened? In the years that I was
stationed at Heyford with the Varks, fuel dumping was prohibited. Even
during an IFE. Crews were told to burn off fuel or, if necessary, eject
over an uninhabited area. Us maintenance types had boldface warnings in
the workcards not to check the fuel dump valve for operation unless the
aircraft was in the fuel barn. Due to the real danger of the valve
failing in the open position and the aircraft pouring 32K lbs of JP-8
onto the ground, messing with the dump valve was verboten.

I'd take any article written in the local papers with a grain of salt.
While I was there, the Banbury rag would routinely print a photo of one
of our Varks lifting off the runway with external tanks and a headline
screaming about the Americans flying with nuclear weapons loaded under
the wings over Upper Heyford village.

Vygg

[Richard Brooks]

Vygg wrote:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> >> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
> >>
>
> >>
> >>> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me
> about >>> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting
> this dumped >>> fuel by cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't
> this be a very >>> risky practice? If not, why would this be done?
> On another newsgroup,
> >>> this is being used to explain a photograph taken by a young
> >>> fellow in the UK. The photograph was first explained to be the
> >>> entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but now this is
> >>> not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory
> >>> to explain what was photographed. Your comments on this
> >>> practice, if it exists, would be appreciated. Ed
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one
> did >> it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was
> seen >> around the world.
> >>
> >> As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >
> > It made at least one Oxford Mail newspaper in England when an F-111
> > did it over Upper Heyford and what with some old thatched houses
> > and corn fields around it scared a few people.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> Do you know what year this incident happened? In the years that I was
> stationed at Heyford with the Varks, fuel dumping was prohibited. Even
> during an IFE. Crews were told to burn off fuel or, if necessary,
> eject over an uninhabited area. Us maintenance types had boldface
> warnings in the workcards not to check the fuel dump valve for
> operation unless the aircraft was in the fuel barn. Due to the real
> danger of the valve
> failing in the open position and the aircraft pouring 32K lbs of JP-8
> onto the ground, messing with the dump valve was verboten.

I think it was not meant to happen as I think the aircraft was possibly
taking off as it did so! It certainly made the local Central TV News as I
lived in Oxford at that time. Of course the newspapers had to show the odd
thatched cottage to make a point. Bit like putting a childs shoe or toy on
top of a pile of rubble! ;-)

Try the Oxford Mail archives and even contacing Central Television.

Personally I more enjoyed the aircraft that overshot RAF Abingdon's runway
and got a parking ticket from the local traffic warden.

> I'd take any article written in the local papers with a grain of salt.

That goes without saying really but Brize' has been lucky where news has
gone. Even the light aircraft that crashed nearby didn't (ahem) make much
impact!

> While I was there, the Banbury rag would routinely print a photo of
> one
> of our Varks lifting off the runway with external tanks and a headline
> screaming about the Americans flying with nuclear weapons loaded under
> the wings over Upper Heyford village.

I'll ask around but it gets a bit of a strain keeping all news articles of
everything aircraft although I do have a small pile of the last Upper
Heyford airshow glossies that a nice lady on base had sent me albiet nowhere
near a patch on their earlier days.

Richard.

[Richard Brooks]

Further to my other post I include the following URL that may put some light
on the situation.

http://f-111.net/t_no_E.htm

There are a couple of fuel dumping measures taken but before an impending
crash but the TV and newspaper story I remember didn't have a crash.

Richard.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Richard Brooks"
> wrote:

> Further to my other post I include the following URL that may put some light
> on the situation.
>
> http://f-111.net/t_no_E.htm
>
> There are a couple of fuel dumping measures taken but before an impending
> crash but the TV and newspaper story I remember didn't have a crash.
>
> Richard.

Which measures?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Vygg]

Richard Brooks wrote:

> Further to my other post I include the following URL that may put
> some light on the situation.
>
> http://f-111.net/t_no_E.htm
>
> There are a couple of fuel dumping measures taken but before an
> impending crash but the TV and newspaper story I remember didn't
> have a crash.
>
> Richard.
>
> Wow! I'd sent an email to the webmaster of that site a couple of
> years ago about my rambling musings over tail numbers when I was
> stationed there, but never bothered to check the site. I'm surprised
that my words are now posted there. Guess I should check in once and awhile.

Couldn't find anything specific to fuel dumping, but I can really only
speak to the years that I was there. I don't doubt that it may have
happened at some time prior to '83. I'm not sure when the prohibition
went into effect. Even so, I'm sure that procedures would have required
that it occur at an altitude well above anything that would have
endangered any thatched roofs. ;-)

I lived on the economy (in Northants) while there and the Oxford Mail
was a bit outside my budget. I was paid in dollars and pretty much lived
by the exchange rate. The year that the Iron Maiden took on King Arthur
I was able to afford a subscription to the Buckingham paper (the title
escapes me), but it didn't seem to have much interest in anything other
than the market price of rapeseed, so I let it go. The Banbury paper was
free (and, therefore, within my budget).

I know for a fact that I kept at least one of the Banbury papers with
the notorious "world's largest tactical nukes" photos on the front page.
I'm just a bit loathe to crawl up into the attic and dig through those
boxes to find it in this heat (I live in Arizona, now).

Vygg
>

[Richard Brooks]

Vygg wrote:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>
> > Further to my other post I include the following URL that may put
> > some light on the situation.
> >
> > http://f-111.net/t_no_E.htm
> >
> > There are a couple of fuel dumping measures taken but before an
> > impending crash but the TV and newspaper story I remember didn't
> > have a crash.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > Wow! I'd sent an email to the webmaster of that site a couple of
> > years ago about my rambling musings over tail numbers when I was
> > stationed there, but never bothered to check the site. I'm
> surprised that my words are now posted there. Guess I should check in
> once and awhile.
>
> Couldn't find anything specific to fuel dumping, but I can really only
> speak to the years that I was there. I don't doubt that it may have
> happened at some time prior to '83. I'm not sure when the prohibition
> went into effect. Even so, I'm sure that procedures would have
> required that it occur at an altitude well above anything that would
> have
> endangered any thatched roofs. ;-)

It was understood by those who understand that it was nothing to worry
about. After all, it had happened and no thatched roofs had set alight so
worry over but there were the "what if's" out there and the press love it as
you know. I saw it on tv (Central News, office down in Abingdon IIRC) but
how much stuff can you keep ?

>
> I lived on the economy (in Northants) while there and the Oxford Mail
> was a bit outside my budget. I was paid in dollars and pretty much
> lived
> by the exchange rate. The year that the Iron Maiden took on King
> Arthur
> I was able to afford a subscription to the Buckingham paper (the title
> escapes me), but it didn't seem to have much interest in anything
> other than the market price of rapeseed, so I let it go. The Banbury
> paper was free (and, therefore, within my budget).

Was it a standard 'freebie' with only the first few pages worth a quick
browse and the rest being about the price of houses and cars ?

The Oxford Mail archives only go back a few years but I know where I could
find out but it's not that important. The Oxford library archives go right
back to the start of the last century but think of all those years to guess
at!

> I know for a fact that I kept at least one of the Banbury papers with
> the notorious "world's largest tactical nukes" photos on the front
> page. I'm just a bit loathe to crawl up into the attic and dig
> through those boxes to find it in this heat (I live in Arizona, now).
>

You're not the very same person whom I was in contact with over the 'stealth
F-111' at Upper Heyford are you, as I have those slides on the shelf but
between being in contact and bringing those slides from Oxford, my PSU
regulator died (going high) taking all circuit boards including hard drives
with it so all information is sitting dormant.

I have photos from that last airshow which was a bit thin on aircraft but it
was great to be there. One day soon I'll be throwing those out also.
Reduce, reduce, reduce as you can't bury it with you!


Richard.

[Vygg]

Richard Brooks wrote:

> Vygg wrote:
>
>>Richard Brooks wrote:
>>
>> > Further to my other post I include the following URL that may put
>> > some light on the situation.
>> >
>> > http://f-111.net/t_no_E.htm
>> >
>> > There are a couple of fuel dumping measures taken but before an
>> > impending crash but the TV and newspaper story I remember didn't
>> > have a crash.
>> >
>> > Richard.
>> >
>> > Wow! I'd sent an email to the webmaster of that site a couple of
>> > years ago about my rambling musings over tail numbers when I was
>> > stationed there, but never bothered to check the site. I'm
>>surprised that my words are now posted there. Guess I should check in
>>once and awhile.
>>
>>Couldn't find anything specific to fuel dumping, but I can really only
>>speak to the years that I was there. I don't doubt that it may have
>>happened at some time prior to '83. I'm not sure when the prohibition
>>went into effect. Even so, I'm sure that procedures would have
>>required that it occur at an altitude well above anything that would
>>have
>>endangered any thatched roofs. ;-)
>>
>
> It was understood by those who understand that it was nothing to worry
> about. After all, it had happened and no thatched roofs had set alight so
> worry over but there were the "what if's" out there and the press love it as
> you know. I saw it on tv (Central News, office down in Abingdon IIRC) but
> how much stuff can you keep ?
>
>
>>I lived on the economy (in Northants) while there and the Oxford Mail
>>was a bit outside my budget. I was paid in dollars and pretty much
>>lived
>>by the exchange rate. The year that the Iron Maiden took on King
>>Arthur
>>I was able to afford a subscription to the Buckingham paper (the title
>>escapes me), but it didn't seem to have much interest in anything
>>other than the market price of rapeseed, so I let it go. The Banbury
>>paper was free (and, therefore, within my budget).
>>
>
> Was it a standard 'freebie' with only the first few pages worth a quick
> browse and the rest being about the price of houses and cars ?


Yep, that's the paper alright. The CNDers pretty much did most of the
"reporting" for it. It came in handy though for keeping informed about
what was playing at the cinema and who was performing at The
Boathouse(?) dinner theater.


>
> The Oxford Mail archives only go back a few years but I know where I could
> find out but it's not that important. The Oxford library archives go right
> back to the start of the last century but think of all those years to guess
> at!
>
>
>>I know for a fact that I kept at least one of the Banbury papers with
>>the notorious "world's largest tactical nukes" photos on the front
>>page. I'm just a bit loathe to crawl up into the attic and dig
>>through those boxes to find it in this heat (I live in Arizona, now).
>>
>>
>
> You're not the very same person whom I was in contact with over the 'stealth
> F-111' at Upper Heyford are you,


I believe so. I remember a conversation here some time back about the
"stealth fighter" that we used to show at the base open house.


Vygg

as I have those slides on the shelf but
> between being in contact and bringing those slides from Oxford, my PSU
> regulator died (going high) taking all circuit boards including hard drives
> with it so all information is sitting dormant.
>
> I have photos from that last airshow which was a bit thin on aircraft but it
> was great to be there. One day soon I'll be throwing those out also.
> Reduce, reduce, reduce as you can't bury it with you!
>
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Richard Brooks]

[snipped]

>> You're not the very same person whom I was in contact with over the
>> 'stealth F-111' at Upper Heyford are you,
>
>
> I believe so. I remember a conversation here some time back about the
> "stealth fighter" that we used to show at the base open house.
>
>
> Vygg

Send me an email with your proper address and I'll send them to you!


Richard.

[TJ]

I used to Live at Fringford and watched an F111 dumping and burning at
about 3kft heading South towards Upper Heyford during the summer of
1988. I watched the papers but not surprisingly heard nothing about the
reason.



Tobin

In message >, Vygg
> writes
>
>
>Richard Brooks wrote:
>
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>news:kg0gb.28475$pl3.8704@pd7tw3no...
>>>
>
>>>
>>>> Some of you are jet jocks or ex-jet jocks. What can you tell me about
>>>> the practice of dumping fuel from a jet and the igniting this dumped
>>>> fuel by cutting in your afterburners? Wouldn't this be a very
>>>> risky practice? If not, why would this be done? On another
>newsgroup,
>>>> this is being used to explain a photograph taken by a young
>>>> fellow in the UK. The photograph was first explained to be the
>>>> entry of a meteorite in the upper atmosphere but now this is
>>>> not supported. Some are using this fuel dump ignition theory
>>>> to explain what was photographed. Your comments on this
>>>> practice, if it exists, would be appreciated. Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The RAAF F-111's do this pretty regularly , I seem to recall one did
>>> it over Sydney during the recent Olympics, that footage was seen
>>> around the world.
>>>
>>> As for why, well its pretty dammed spectacular is the main reason
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>> It made at least one Oxford Mail newspaper in England when an F-111
>> did it over Upper Heyford and what with some old thatched houses
>> and corn fields around it scared a few people.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>Do you know what year this incident happened? In the years that I was
>stationed at Heyford with the Varks, fuel dumping was prohibited. Even
>during an IFE. Crews were told to burn off fuel or, if necessary, eject
>over an uninhabited area. Us maintenance types had boldface warnings in
>the workcards not to check the fuel dump valve for operation unless the
>aircraft was in the fuel barn. Due to the real danger of the valve
>failing in the open position and the aircraft pouring 32K lbs of JP-8
>onto the ground, messing with the dump valve was verboten.
>
>I'd take any article written in the local papers with a grain of salt.
>While I was there, the Banbury rag would routinely print a photo of one
>of our Varks lifting off the runway with external tanks and a headline
>screaming about the Americans flying with nuclear weapons loaded under
>the wings over Upper Heyford village.
>
>Vygg
>

--
tob

[Richard Brooks]

TJ wrote:
> I used to Live at Fringford and watched an F111 dumping and burning at
> about 3kft heading South towards Upper Heyford during the summer of
> 1988. I watched the papers but not surprisingly heard nothing about
> the reason.
>
>
>
> Tobin

This sound like the one!

The newspapers, in chasing reality, montaged an F-111, a cottage and
people running for the hills.

It did make the Central ITV news but that's because they've already done
the 'skate-boarding' duck for those slow news days.

I've video taped so much stuff and now have got rid of a lot as you can
only keep so much stuff.


Richard.