Added: 1 year ago
From: AceProductions4U
Views: 136,580
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (219)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • poor british harriers!

  • Idiot below

  • @fiverats1 I concur !

  • prollly cuz VTOL jets suck... especially the harrier

  • stall,probably :-)..because if u listen carefully u can hear the sound when he try to set full trust..and no have enough altitude to make...shits happen :-(

  • stupido nato britanico hehe

  • thats pretty hard landing after he jumped off...i bet he must broke his ankle or knee cap for sure...

  • This pilot needed a Master Caution light on his forehead that would have come on at about 1500 AGL and a mile out from the end of the runway, with an accompanying audible warning that said, "WARNING, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO LAND THIS AIRCRAFT, PLEASE CALL THE TOWER FOR ASSISTANCE!!!" His sink rate on short final was beyond ludicrous, and you can hear the engine suddenly rush up to full power as he realizes it about 500 feet lower than he needed to realize it. What a waste of a good airplane.

  • @riderpoet Its amazing how everybody in the comments of youtube suddenly becomes a "profesional" you havent even flown an airplane let alone a harrier have you? It looked more of an engine problem to me, they dont just let you fly the airplane they make sure you know what your doing so this doesn't happen.

  • @riderpoet if you actually watched the video throughly the engine was not functioning normally it was not at a high enough power to land normally or come in for a vtol landing so just as he was about to touch down he elevated the nose to reduce heading speed and slow down his decent if he did not do what he did the harrier along with him would have gone up in a fire ball

  • why didnt he just do vertical landing?

    

  • @eddie5871 because the engine was malfunctioning you can hesr this when he is about to touch down the engine was spontainiously throtiling

  • did the raf pilot live?

  • The pilot flying was dismissed after the crash

  • Well. That's why the Harrier could use hovering lands, although I suppose that would only get him killed.

  • Yes, I think he stalled, it's not excess of speed, 

  • air speed to low, nose high, look like he stalled

  • Q FORMA DE ATERRIZAR JAJA XD

  • shows the structural integrity of that plane.....

  • This is why Marines should not be pilots.....

  • He lifted the nose too high

  • What this pilot think to he landing with suhoi :)??

  • at 0:06 what happen to outer inlet? is it normal to that thing late to open?

  • Remarkable about the comments.So when this Harrier crashed.You have a lot of aviation people talking about the plane but when a Chinese Plane crash a couple of months ago people like to bash China( people say cheap plane).So many racists in the world and especially coming from the West.

  • aviation experts spend many months or years , investigating film , wreckage , avionics , communications , interviews ( if lucky with those on board ) they use phorensics , science , and many other highly scientific methods

    then you get someone that has been to one or two airshows and can afford a pc that can come to a conclusion in one or two seconds after watching a video

    there can be one or many causes or events and it takes more than 1 individual many months to work out

  • For those that don't know. Ejecting from an aircraft isn't a easy, fun 'plane sailing' task. Pilots lose two inches of their spine when ejecting due to the G'forces they experience leaving the aircraft, furthermore many go on the break there legs on impact with the ground. Im pretty sure the pilot was trying to avoid this experience until absolutely necessary.

  • Good thing the Marine Corps just bought more of those from the Brits.

  • @fushheads never buy shit from the brits, the sold us(Canada) 3 subs that all broke down trying to bring them across the alantic ocean and didn't give us our money back. Fucking sleasy, lieing pieces of shit.

  • @douggw go fuck a moose nobjockey

  • @eddie5871 I should of said the british goverment were those things not the british people so i deserve that insult.

  • @douggw sorry im not following you, what things, did i insult you?

  • look at the tail dude it was first to hit the land soo its a pilot error !!!

  • I think he way going a few seconds after hit

    "Ok, we're cool, just skidding, Ok, we're cool, just skidding, Ok, we're cool, just skidding, oh crap cockpits covered in fire, I'm outta a here"

  • cold blood

  • His air brake was deployed. His rate of descent looked a little to aggressive. (VMA-542 AV8As from 1976-1979)

  • @sgtzsquad Yea what I noticed is that the engine sounds like they are on idle, or not nearly what I beleve would have been a more senseable thrustsetting for braking a very high decentrate.. also note that the boundry leyer doors are closed witch seems to conferm this.

  • Don't really know much about aircraft but it looks like the tail made contact with the runway and fell to pieces?

  • he came in way to hot you might be right about the airbraks failing

  • Looks a lot like an aerodynamic stall on landing

  • that pilot has slow reactions

  • Did anyone else see the co-pilot... the parachute didn't open for his seat.

  • Comment removed

  • @ScientificExploits All McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II models are single seat (apart from training aicraft.) The other object that falls to the ground after ejection was most likely the base of the UPC/Stencel 10B zero-zero ejection seat which detatches from the pilot at altitudes of less than 10 000 feet. ( The seat stays connected at high altitude to supply oxygen to the pilot before automatically detatching to allow for a safer landing)

  • @reverseassal Oh, ok haha.

  • @reverseassal Mostly correct, however this aircraft is not a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B - It's a BAE Harrier GR9.

  • @reverseassal This is a BAE Harrier GR7A fitted with Martin Baker Ejector seat although the release remains the same. i can confirm that it was pilot error and that the reason he stayed in was to ensure that the aircraft remained clear of other aircraft operating on the flightline. this however became impossible once his cockpit was engulfed in flames. my father had the job of trying to repair this afterwards :P

  • @ScientificExploits What co-pilot? It's a single seat aircraft.

  • he soon punched out when that flame started licking over the glass lol

  • he has less reflexes than a pigeon to eject

  • ouch.. the impact alone may have briefly knocked the pilot out

  • Sea Harrier --FAIL

  • KAF Lawn Dart?

  • usmc?

  • @dgammar HA HA HA HA HA HA HA no it was a harrier gr9 of the royal air force about a year ago before the asshole David Cameron decided to scrap the carrier fleet and the harriers that could have been useful over Libya.

  • love how people start to argue even when they know absolutely nothing about harriers. They are British and have a lot of experiance as fighter jets, the can land like a normal jet aswell as vtol landing. sh xD

  • Now that's one tough motherfucker of a plane. It smacked into the concrete like a meteor, and it remained almost intact. Of course, in the end the fire finished the job, but the plane's wings, stabilisers, and whole fuselage didn't even came loose. Not to mention the ejection seat working perfectly after it's been dropped from equivalent of about 5 stories down into concrete. And I thought it was made out of tin foil to make it as light as possible. It's a VTOL after all. Brilliant machine.

  • Another reason why the crabs should just be a taxi service for the army and leave the real flying to the FAA.

  • Awesome aircraft, shame to see it like that - but this could have been much worse.. obviously..

  • JA!

  • this makes me wanna play Battlefield 2

  • Um nothing to see here folks, only a $10 Million dollar fender bender.

  • I thought this jet could land like a helicopter, take off vertical and even land and taxi upside down.

  • Crashed a lot in the past; British-made!

  • @MisterSunson No it did not. British made? Of course, the source of most aviation innovations. That's why the USMC so desperately wanted this aircraft.

  • @MisterSunson Are you seriously that dumb? Fucking dumb n00b.

  • 0:06 What happened to 'Vertical Take Off and Landing'?

    

    0:21 Ah - there it is.

  • 4 more and he's an ace.

  • jajajajajajaja !!!!!! VSTOL........ despegue y aterrizaje vertical.....si seguro exelente aterrizaje  preparenlos para los nuevos portaviones de la royal navy.......que espero el idiota del piloto, se penso que salvaba el avion......

  • jajajajajajaja !!!!!! VSTOL........ despegue y aterrizaje vertical.....si seguro exelente aterrizaje preparenlos para los nuevos portaviones de la royal navy

  • Respond to this video...  I cant make out the markings on the plane, is it a USMC or RAF harrier?

  • @elmsy1664 I do have to challenge 1 thing you say, as you can clearly see 2 LGB's on the outer hardpoints, from the size i would say 500lb'ers.

  • @zebadee277 agreed... I would of punched out at the first impact!

  • @TeamYankee2 I would have punched out at 2000ft.

  • wow... how did those insurgents manage to hit a jet?

  • Comment removed

  • IMO he stayed with the aircraft until he knew it wasn't going hit something else on or near the runway and only then did he exit through the sunroof. Me, I would of been out of there first sign of trouble, but that's probably why I drive a truck and he's flying harriers. I don't care if it was equipment failure or pilot error he stuck with it and for that he must have BIG BALLS. Great vid thanks for sharing

  • @MrMilesdriven The aircraft was completely out of control no matter what. No way he could have missed anything in his way.

  • @CKelaiditis If you watch when he lands, he had the tail down too far and it hit the runway before the landing gears did. IDK if it was pilot or aircraft error but that's what happened.

  • @DanySayRide Also true, but in such chaotic circumstances you have to utilise complex mathematics and physics in order to predict possible outcomes, with relative margins of error.

  • @MrMilesdriven The times you eject are when you are going to crash, if you have no control or if you are on fire. He stuck with the aircraft until the canopy was enveloped with flames, he had no way of knowing whether it was just a small flame or the fuel tank had been pierced and the whole jet was burning. If it had not caught fire he would have stuck with it until it stopped.

    In case anybody is wondering, it was an engine problem, not pilot error.

  • @frauspi

    Correction:

    The times you eject are when you are going to crash, if you have no control, if you are on fire or your master caution light comes on :)

  • @bullseatpizza if youd eject for each time your MC light is flashing, you would be grounded. several times.

  • @elprint

    It would depend on the circumstance but normally your grounded after ejecting twice cause you would have attained som serious back and neck issues. It depends on the circumstances. When an MC light comes on, you either take it up high and eject or you instead land as quickly as possible. An A-10 pilot told me at RIAT this year. His MC light came on in a demonstration and due to the runway not in use he was able to land. He told me if he couldnt land then he would have ejected

  • @bullseatpizza Do you even know what the MC light is for? the Master Caution notifies the pilot something is wrong. Then you go to the warningpanel, which tells in what system the problem is. Then you go to the overhead or Basic T, depends on what system is failing, and check for any changes or errors. Some examples are if you leave APU bleed on while the engines are started - MC light on - Aircondition glow - DUAL BLEED. I wouldnt eject cus of that, now would ya?

  • @elprint its all depending on how severe the fault is. MC flashes often without any sever failure. So as im saying, if you would eject each time your MC flash, you would be dead by now.

  • @elprint

    Like i mentioned previously, it would depend on the situation that you were in.

  • @frauspi Exactly, It looked like he stalled. If you look you can see a sudden plummet as he was going to slow.

  • @MrMilesdriven What in the hell could he've done? Nothing. He didn't want to eject and the only reason why he did is because he thought it was about to explode. Nobody wants to eject, especially while sliding down the runway. Not much room for the chute to open. There was no way to steer or stop, so I don't know what he could've done if you are right.

  • @MrMilesdriven would 'have'. not would 'of'.

  • @MrMilesdriven NO, he wanted to avoid the bail out with the catapult seat¹ because every bail out makes the Pilot 3 cm smaller!!!!!!!(compressed Backbone*) and after 3 bail outs the Pilot have to quit Flying a jet fighter.

    This story told me a Luftwaffen technician (german airforce)

    ¹ A catapult seat is like a Bullet in a Pistol

  • @Lagerfeld2008  second time I have heard this now, it was true on old planes but now the poly explosive blows the pit open so that the neck compression cant happen, 15-20 years ago that was bang on but new technology rocks :D

  • @MrMilesdriven Actually he was subconsious and as soon as he woke up he ejcted fast as hell.

  • @MrMilesdriven sorry but he had no control on where he was going once he crashed on the runway, as can been proven by the way the harrier starts to pirouette. It was physics ensured the jet carried on down the runway. Notice how he stayed with it until the flames engulfed the cockpit. But agreed pretty brave to stay with it that long.

  • @MrMilesdriven There was no controlling the jet in any way after the impact. Remaining in the cockpit was simply the safer option until flames surrounded the pilot. The initial impact was hard but then the airframe seemed to be able to handle the sliding without braking apart. The pilot decided to not put himself through the risk and stress of a zero-near-zero ejection, until the flame and fear of explosion. He hit the ground not all so softly as you can see.

  • @MrMilesdriven

    These guys are real heroes. I think he initially elected to stay with it because it offered best chance of survival. However the fire changed that.

    Aren't those ejector seats amazing.

  • its amazing how long he stayed with it

  • very brave man regardless of anything.....

  • How lucky can one get. Too many of these & it'd put you off flying for keeps.

  • bad pilot? or bad plain?

  • @AwSomeGreNade bad spelling

  • @AwSomeGreNade neither, just a very rare crash.

  • its a strong plane for not braking apart

  • Had missiles on wings, and brake was open, wonder why he did not jettison all his stores if he had a damaged engine. Good video for the effective use of the ejection seat.

    Harriers do not seem to glide well.....

  • there goes a miljon dollar plane

  • @7249xxl try 30 million

  • @tigerswede3 ok

  • Is it me, or do a lot of people talk a load of bo**ocks on here? :-)

  • @Factnotfictionpeople it's not you.

  • @jay55also :-)

  • @elmsy1664 Good for him!

  • soft like a METEOR

  • He waited too long to pull the handle. Limp home, but if you have to punch out then don't spend a lot of time thinking about it.

  • He had landed so many times on carriers VL that he just forget conventional landings (i gess)

  • I am that pilots squadron leader.

    Would you believe he asked for a pay rise after that?

    I said "yes" sure, why not!

  • @jeffr100rs I am cinderella

    Woud you believe i´ve lost one shoe yesterday night?

    Holly crap i already can see that formely artist called Prince comeing for more

  • looks like he'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong now.

  • to late his rate of sink was to high so he alto rotated and make a crash landing he was fine suffered no major injuries the aircraft ZG478 was scraped, it was involved in Operation Herrick at the time.

  • I have seen the report to this crash I am not allowed to disclose how, but I know it happened on the 14/05/2009 and it was due “A high speed approach and landing resulted in aircraft breakup and fire, no technical fault” He was high and fast his rate of sink increased when be deployed his air breaks to then counteract the great increase in rate of sink he was forced to increased the throttle but it was

  • he saw his wife and wanted to kill it

  • the pilots so casual, just sits in the plane throughout most of the crash!!!!

  • not a good reflex, a well trained pilot will eject at the moment of failure

  • @elmsy1664 i love burns that flash

  • I bet he loves the guy who invented the Zero Zero ejector seat!

  • that better come out of his wages

  • Not enough lift on the wings...

  • How did he not sustain a broken spine after landing like that?

    Did any british out there remember 999 with Michael Burke - there was an episode where a harrier pilot drop liked this and badly injured his legs + back.

    Incredible.

  • @elmsy1664 heroes die, cowards command!

  • jet name?

  • made in the UK... what did you expect...

  • @Carlos1661993 Well you'd expect it to be the world beating strike fighter that it is. Spain uses them also.

  • Comment removed

  • Its more of a lorry driver than an fighter pilot!

  • And this is what happens when a afgani takes over a harrier

  • STUPID RAF PILOT

    (That happens by cocky)

  • he landed

    Mission Accomplished

  • too high vertical speed

  • Lol blue and msa

  • perfect landing

  • The guy is driving a fucking harrier, Am I missing some shit? Virtical landing as well as take off lol, Troll if you wish, Im right.

  • @THEMSASBOYZ Firstly, he's flying it, not driving it. Secondly, the harrier is capable of Vertical takeoff/landing but usually lands like a normal jet, i.e roll on.

  • @blueb0g Drive = Propulsion. Example...you drive me up the wall...PLUS, Does this guy look like he is flying to you Mr expert?

  • @THEMSASBOYZ Yes, that's how he managed to crash it. And doesn't matter what you say, "drive" is wrong and makes you look like an idiot. As does professing that Harriers can only operate VSTOL, do some research.

  • @blueb0g He didnt say that, He added that function to the conversation, Troll lol

  • @mrfunrunner1000 Nope. He implied that this could not be a Harrier, or was a modified Harrier, as it was not operating VSTOL.

  • @blueb0g I dont need research, The 1st harrier rolled out of a factory, Bout a mile away from where im sitting, My step brother operates a harrier for the airforce, I also sat in an av8/b in an airshow, I think I know what she can do lol

  • @THEMSASBOYZ So, you agree that it can both land vertically and roll on? Good if you do, but that's the opposite of what you said before. Yes, you said "Virtical (spelling mistake) landing as well as take off." What you were saying there: "The Harrier can only do vertical take-offs and landings.". Wrong. FYI, driving is defined as controlling a land vehicle. The Harrier is not a land vehicle, and even when it's on the runway, it's a stretch to say that the pilot is controlling it.

  • @THEMSASBOYZ Oh and "paid to argue here", interesting, seeing as I'm a YT partner, I'm paid to be here too... So, according to your logic, we both win. Hmm.

  • @blueb0g Listen "Partner" lol, Im in work, I just earned 9 pounds from the moment I met you, How long does it take you to clock up 1 pound? I know how much partners get and its buttons mate, You aint earning the way you think you are lol

  • @THEMSASBOYZ Ah, so because you're wasting work time on YouTube, you win? Nice. Also I wouldn't be too pleased with, what, £10 an hour? Plus, I like the way your step brother "operates" a retired aircraft.

  • @THEMSASBOYZ um Harrier's are from italy. and uh Harriers are USMC not AF

  • @AndreRHayles HUH? lololol The 1st harrier was made in BELFAST N. Ireland and they had them in the R.A.F, What you smokin mate? lol (Google the answer if you have to lol)

  • @AndreRHayles ......no, harriers are british, derived from the hawker sidley p 1127 kestrel. they went into service as the harrier GR3s and the Harrier FA2s and FRS1, later, lockheed martin joined britain to make harriers specialised for the USMCs needs, which led to the AV8 Harrier II, in the US, and the Harrier GR7 and 9 in the RAF, which were sold to spain and italy as the AV8 Matador. the other users of the harrier include India and Indonesia (using the FRS1s i think).

    Harriers = British.

  • @AndreRHayles and btw, italy havent produced a proper fighter on their own for a VERY long time. they do jet trainers at best, or transports. they were a CO PARTNER to the tornado and the typhoon. harrier was hawker siddeley/ BAE systems, UK

  • @AndreRHayles make a fool of your self why not

  • @elmsy1664. Dunno about an engine failure. Possibly engine damage or malfunction - all out failure and he would have had to eject from a dead airplane long before it was near the ground. You can hear the engine spool up a couple of times on final. It looks like he wasn't hitting the right glide speeds (way too slow) and had no energy left for the flare. But I'd have to read the findings of the accident report for this.

  • "..but at first look it seems like his Air brakes failed"

    I would say the pilot failed.

  • harriers dont use runways idiot they r vertical tkeoff

  • @DahTreeSniffer Oh, but they can (and do!)

  • @DahTreeSniffer Fucktard. Many harrier landings are roll on, they can do both, and a roll on landing is generally easier.

  • @DahTreeSniffer yes they do. they rarely use VTOL (vertical take off) as it decreases their maximum payload for missions. they use their thrust vectors to shorten the take off. whilst they are capable of landing vtol, again, conventional landing (ie the one he tried to do) cuts down the amount of fuel and payload (ie bombs) they have to dump before they can land. also, in afghanistan, a hovering harrier is a bit of a target for an RPG isnt it? conventional landings shorten time spent in the air

  • 00:21 the shock must be great for pilot...

  • Love all the "expert comments" on flying a harrier on here. Nice work guys keep it up! Idiots.

  • Pilots judgement, stay in the plane until you are sure that you have done all you can, then eject to save your own life. Cool and professional. 

  • omg he stays in the machine to make it stop ... balls...balls

  • very impresive

  • looked like he was coming in too fast at a bad angle

  • im very surprised it did not explode

  • Balls of Steel!

  • You gotta respect that pilot, Still reconed he could ride it away 2/3rds the way down the runway. "It's ok, i can still taxi in!..... Ok, so Im not getting out till im actually on fire!... Fuck, I'm on fire!"