First the facts as provided by the Canadian Government: indeed a first Officer did in fact have a break down; and was forcibly removed by the cabin crew and subsequently restrained under the care of two Medical Doctors. After checking to see if any company pilots were on board, the Captain sought out any commercially rated pilots. One of the Flight Attendants was a commercial and instrument rated pilot (her instrument rating was expired) and the Captain had her sit in the co-pilot seat to assist in the approach. These facts made the fourth paragraph.

A little background: most commercial aircraft require 2 pilots, older models like the Boeing 727 and DC-10 require a flight Engineer as well. The Flight Engineer is normally a fully rated commercial pilot waiting to move up to the co-pilot seat in a normal progression based on seniority. I am type rated and have flown the 767-300; it requires two pilots (3 if the flight exceeds 8 hours in US/10 hours Canada). But only one pilot flies the aircraft at a time. By fly I mean actually control it. The other pilot (pilot not flying/controlling) handles the radio communication, reads the checklists and backs up the flying pilot.

So the “anti-headline-grabbing” truth is that the Flight attendant, again a rated commercial pilot, assisted the Captain by reading checklists and maybe talking on the radio for him. Not as the headline asserted; actually, physically controlling the Boeing 767-300 on landing. Not exactly time to cue up the writers for the movie “Airport 2008”.

I’m not in any way making light of her assistance, but I just can’t let an un-truth hang out there as fact. There is just a bit more to flying a 767 than plopping into the seat (insert more sarcasm here). She sure does have a resume’ bullet, scratch that, a resume’ Howitzer! Especially for a pilot position at Air Canada.

“Dog you have a rather large hole in the port (left) wing.” Transmitted Charlie 1.
“Roger that Charlie, how’s it look?”
Closing within inches the Chase pilot looked for hydraulic leaks or any burn marks denoting a bleed air leak.
“You are clean.”
“Roger, Charlie we are flying fine where did the missile hit, in-board or out-board of the wing fold?”
“Out-board.”
This was significant because the Phantom was a carrier aircraft, that meant it’s wings folded and more importantly there was not much critical out-board the wing fold hinge. And thus it would probably fly fine all the way to touch down.
“OK Charlie 1, we are going to try and recover the Dog. We will slow flight it on down wind. If it gets squirrelly, we will ditch it in the Pacific.”
The UCC operator by now had a group of engineers and controllers standing around his controller, the operations and safety representatives normally agreed with his suggestions. He was the one who had to try to land the wounded bird. Fuel as always in a Phantom was tight; not only for the Drone but the Chase as well. Plus, the Chase still had to travel the 50 miles back to Naval Test Center, Point Mugu.

Turning onto the downwind leg of the approach box pattern the operator slowed the QF-4N to approach speed in 10 knot increments. If the aircraft became unstable they would fly the approach at the last increment that would allow positive control. If that minimum speed was too fast for a recovery Charlie 1 would slid out wide and the UCC operator would pull the engines to idle raise the nose and cross control (full throw the flight controls in opposite direction) the QF-4N. It would rapidly stall and drop almost straight down into the Pacific.

In testament to the Phantom’s durability they slowed all the way to normal approach speed without a quiver from the drone. Fuel was now critical and they turned in tight for a short final approach. Unable to break out the runway on the small TV screen the UCC operator would depend on the human eyes of Charlie 1 to get him pointed at the runway. Perched on a 500 foot cliff the runway closed quickly. A normal glide path was 3.5 degrees; the Q-birds used a much shallower 1.5 degrees. It brought the flight very close to the cliff’s edge and to the Chase pilot the visual perception was that you would not clear it!
Standing next to the UCC was the GCA (ground controlled approach) controller; he would simple give glide slope and course instructions right into the ear of the UCC operator. Landing gear down, flaps down and hook down the QF-4N cleared the cliff. Inside the UCC the operator held a simple white cross hair, superimposed on the TV screen, onto the wire stretched across the runway while fighting to maintain lineup and the appropriate speed. If he got too slow, he would stall the wing and crash the aircraft, not to mention the QF-4N Chase with the live pilot on board. Too fast and the hook would bounce over the wire and they would have to go around and try again.

“Charlei 1 is bingo.” Rang out over the radio.

That meant they’d get only a single look at the deck (attempt to land) because the Chase was down to divert fuel. He could not land on San Nic once the Q-bird was in the arresting gear fouling the runway. The UCC operator worked hard to maintain parameters, he had to catch the wire, the 5,000 foot runway was too short to get the speeding Phantom stopped. Sliding out to the side Chase 1 called.

“On deck.” As the Phantom slammed onto San Nic’s runway.

He watched as the aircrafts drag chute deployed and then snagged the wire jerking it to a halt. Immediately the Chase pilot eased his throttles to military rated thrust; being very careful not to engage the afterburners. Down to 2.3 on the fuel if he engaged burners they would consume his remaining fuel in 90 seconds. The gear and flaps raised as he simultaneously pointed the hungry Phantom for home.

Climbing through the haze he set the fuel flow at 3,000 pounds a side as he leveled at 15,000 feet above the water. Peering through the haze he saw the giant white sand mound on California’s Route 1 and pointed directly at it. He checked his fuel now down to 1.7 (17 minutes until flameout). Getting in close to the dune Charlie 1 rolled inverted (upside down) and let the nose fall through the horizon. Using gravity to accelerate him he also set 85% on the thrust. Just because his fuel state was in extremis didn’t mean he couldn’t have a little fun.

Flashing across Route 1 at 500 knots he ran up the ridge line to Point Mugu. Crossing Laguna Peak barely 200 feet above its antennae, the same antennae that linked the UCC to the drone, falling away abruptly the mountain revealed the airfield at its foot. Snapping on 5 times the force of gravity Charlie 1 turned toward downwind using the pull to slow him down. Crossing over the control building he continued to pull back toward the mountain peek he just crossed, squaring the corner to pass between the mountain and runway on downwind. At 250 knots he dropped the landing gear, at 230 he selected full flaps and started a steep turn to final. Picking up the visual reference for glide slope used on ships (meat ball) he also lined up on the carrier deck painted on all Navy runways, so Naval Aviators could practice a ship recovery. Just before the main tires touched he moved his left hand from the throttles to the drag chute handle and deployed it, as it streamed out he moved his hand back to the throttles and pulled them to idle as the Phantom settled onto the runway. Easing on the brakes gingerly so he wouldn’t blow the tires, Charlie 1 cleared the runway glancing at the fuel gage. It read 1.3, perfect, mission complete.

I can honestly say that landing an F-4 Phantom on the Island of San Nic’ squinting at a TV screen, is the only thing I have ever done in aviation as hard as a night carrier landing.

Charlie 1(the chase pilot in his own Phantom) transmits; “Good burners.” Very important, because the nose wheel steering cannot be used to guide the QF-4 on takeoff roll and neither can the foot brakes. The tires are so thin that any brake pressure could blow one. So, the only way to initially control the Dog (drone) is to modulate the afterburner (after thrust in the UK): if the QF-4 starts to drift right the UCC operator would ease the left throttle back to mid range or minimum burner, using the thrust differential to straighten the aircraft. Once the QF-4 reached an adequate speed (approx 100 knots) runway line up could be controlled with the rudder. Bottom line if one burner did not light off it would be bad!

Dropping to an altitude of 100 feet, Charlie 1 takes position on the QF-4’s wing as it leaves the runway and then reselects his own after burners as the Dog accelerates. Climbing up through cloud layers flying formation off of the wing of an aircraft with an empty cockpit is an eerie experience. Once all the checks are complete and a belly inspection is done, looking for any hydraulic or oil leaks, Charlie 1 would detach.

His fun was far from over however. Now free from the Dog, Charlie 1 would rendezvous with the shooter an F-14 or F/A-18 normally. Charlie 1 also usually had a photographer in the rear cockpit to record the weapon separation. Once the QF-4 reached its station and the range was called clear, both the shooter and the soon to be shot at flew their pre-briefed profiles.

3 QF-4N Phantom II's and 1 F-14D Tomcat

As the countdown built to a crescendo the final clearance from range safety would be transmitted; “cleared weapons free.”
“Fox 1!” would be transmitted by the shooter and a sleek AIM 7 Sparrow leapt from the rail, its rocket booster firing propelling the missile toward the target at super-sonic speed. Quickly, Charlie 1 would give the shooter a belly check, looking for any possible damage. After passing a thumbs up to the shooters pilot he’d slide out wide on his wing looking for the tell tale fire ball or smoke trails.

Smoke trails did not mean fire; it meant the QF-4 had survived and its smoky J-79 turbo jet engines were powering it. Once the Charlie pilot got a tally on the smoke trails finding the large QF-4 Phantom II at the end of the black smoke was easy. He’d then detach, jamming on the burner and running down the Drone.

Most of the time the shooter’s missile was a telemetry missile. That meant the war head was removed and the telemetry head would transmit how close the missile came. If the shooter program achieved a kill they would be charged 1.5 million dollars, if it missed 50,000. So they only went for a kill when they had to.

Telemetry would not be needed today; a large hole had been blown through the outside panel of the Phantoms wing………….

While a Test Pilot for VX-30 (Naval Weapons Test Squadron Point Mugu), I was checked out as a UCC (universal control counsel) operator. We flew F-4 Phantoms from a small Island (San Nicholas) off the coast of Southern California, NAS China Lake (part of Edwards AFB test range), and NAS Rosie Roads in Puerto Rico into various live fire ranges. Used for targets and flight tests deemed too dangerous for a pilot to be on board, the missions were wild and a lot of fun to be a part of. The aircraft received their own designator, a Q (QF-4).

The UCC was a shell of an old T-33 cockpit trainer that had been fitted with the instruments of an F-4 Phantom; the only difference was a small TV screen in the spot where the radar repeater was originally. In the cockpit of the QF-4 was a camera fitted to the glare shield above the instruments at pilot height. The camera transmitted to the small screen in the UCC. The USAF had their own program but differed from the Navy’s in a number of ways. First the Navy Q-birds were full up aircraft. We used them as test platforms and advisary aircraft; the USAF Q-birds were drones only and limited to 50 hours of flight time. Also different was the control philosophy. The USAF controls their Q-birds like a traditional RC with two operators at the end of the runway; one controlling pitch the other roll. The missions are controlled by programs. The Navy actually flew their Q-birds like a real fighter from the UCC.

A UCC in a auxilary control room (very old photo)

Set in a large control room reminiscent of a NASA control room, the Top Secret NOLO (No Onboard Live Operator) missions generally were missile shots. We’d launch the Dog (slang for drone) off of San Nic’ Island fly out to a pre-briefed spot get shot at and then if the QF-4 survived fly it back to San Nic’ and trap it aboard (arrested landing using the hook). A chase aircraft, another QF-4 with a live pilot in it, would fly wing on the Q-bird. Being the chase was F-U-N! The traffic pattern was given to you by the tower, normally as a warm up the chase pilot would fly an impromptu air show.
While the Chase (Charlie 1) was performing; the ground crew was configuring and testing the Drone (Dog) on the runway. Once the data link between the UCC and the QF-4 was established launch control of the QF-4 would be given to “Charlie 1”. Charlie 1 would pitch his QF-4N Phantom II into the vertical then snap roll toward the abeam position 1,000 feet above the runway, off-set to the right and going the opposite direction. Arriving at the proper position he’d transmit “Abeam”. In the UCC, 50 miles away at Point Mugu Naval Test Center, the operator would push up the throttles of the J-79 turbo jet engines to 80%. Charlie 1 would then start a descending turn toward the runway as the engines pumped out thick black smoke. Halfway through the turn he would start to a line with the runway on the edge of a 500 foot cliff, pulling the nose to runway heading and slowing to 300 knots he’d transmit;

“launch the Dog!”…………more to follow.

NOLO QF-4N, look close no pilots. San Nicholas Island in back ground.

BTW: If you want to read about my first drone safety mission (riding in the Q-bird, while a UCC operator practices) click on the link to Trailblazers. It is Christopher Hounsfield’s book on test pilots. I wrote a chapter “Test Pilot of a Different Color”, I think you will find it amusing.

One question, though: Is the video totally fake, or could the various stunts be done with a good RC model and a skilled pilot? Jon

Both is the answer: first a good pilot and aircraft can do astonishing manuvers, see the video of the SU-30 (now 35) below.

Incredible; but a smaller propellar aircraft can also perform simular manuvers.

The devil is in the details. It is certainly possible to do the manuvers (with the exception of the single winged hover landing) in the video. In fact I believe the KillaThrill video is a mix of full scale and radio controled aircraft. Again watch the video from the “KillaThrill Video is a Hoax” post. After the wing detatches (photo shop IMO) and a few manuvers the camera comes off the aircraft (swith-a-roo) then the RC model takes over. It remains the RC model until right after landing, then switches back to the full scale aircraft. Slow it way down, and watch the wheel skirts (fairings over the tires); what did you see?

For example an AV-8B Harrier must have better than a 1 to 1 ratio to take off vertically. The Harrier uses ducted jet exhaust and bleed air from the engine and vectors it to enable it to hover. A Helicopter uses its rotor system. Fixed wing aircraft can also achieve 1 to 1 or better thrust to weight ratios. Modern fourth generation fighters are an example; they can take off and accelerate while climbing in the vertical. To do that they use afterburning jet engines capable of producing thousands of pounds of thrust. Obviously if you load it down with a bunch of bombs and fuel it won’t exceed 1 to 1; however loaded for air to air they will.

Back to the video: the KillaThrill aircraft was almost in a pure hover just prior to landing. Not likely for an aircraft with one wing and a piston driven propeller producing thrust. However it is easy for a Radio Controlled aircraft. Ultra light weight materials (no pilot) that do not have to be load bearing and very powerful little two stroke engines combine for an impressive power to weight ratio. Below is a video of an F-100 Super Saber, it obviously did not have a better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio to power it out of trouble.

Quite a story! There was a stub of the wing left, coupled with the lifting body fuselage of the F-15 at 250 knots he was able to hold wings level. The hook he referenced is like the hook on Navy Aircraft. It drops from between the tail pipes of the engines and is designed to grab a steel cable that is stretched across the runway. When the USAF bought the F-4 Phantom they got their first experience with Navy style stopping. A great thing to have when you lose hydraulics or brakes so they put the hook on their new fighters. In the story he does not make a successful arrestment.

1. No fuel vapor at separation. Most aircraft wings are wet; that means they hold fuel. Even if the video aircraft was operating on an internal tank the residue in the tank and lines would have caused a puff of vapor.
2. The bounce on landing. To light not right for an aircraft that weighs thousands of pounds.
3. The control input rate vs acceleration of aircraft in beta and alpha axis. In English too jerky in pitch and yaw.
4. Thrust to weight ratio was very close to, or at 1 to 1. It appeared at times to be in a pure hover, again not realistic.
OK now watch this video I found.

Did it look familiar? You bet, the KillaThrill video was done with a radio controlled aircraft. It explains all four of the unusual flight characteristics above. A real nice job editing in the canopy scene. But; once compared to the second video there is no doubt it is an RC aircraft.

Let’s stick to aerodynamics and of course physics. As I have written in the past “a good pilot must know the laws of aerodynamics; but a good fighter pilot must know how to use physics to defy those laws.” And indeed an Israeli F-15 years ago lost a wing in a mid-air collision, and returned to base for a safe landing. However; the F-15’s fuselage is a lifting body. That means the fuselage is part wing, producing its own lift.

ISSUE #1: The aircraft rolls for no apparent reason; in a red Bull race the object is to get through the maneuvers and course with the lowest elapsed time and no penalties. To do this the pilots keep the aircraft loaded with maximum g to keep the lift vector always down the race course. They would never do an un-loaded roll or ease the g in a vertical move.
ISSUE#2: While it has happened in past accidents it is very unusual for a wing to catastrophically fail while unloaded and at a slow speed; as happened in the video.
ISSUE #3: The aircraft rolls and subsequently spirals the wrong direction; i.e. into the remaining wing. With only one wing producing lift the aircraft would roll opposite the remaining wing not into it. Even if you take into account zero airspeed and torque produced from the engine for initial rotation direction; as it accelerated it would have reversed directions violently.
ISSUE#4: Actually I will buy flying at full throttle, 90 degrees angle of bank. Hanging on the engine and using the rudder as an elevator is believable. However the wings level move just prior to touch down with one wing? Not buying it; also taxi speed within 10 feet, doesn’t seem likely either.

They should have gotten a good Aviation Technical advisor. I’ve fixed stuff like that for movies in the past. Good attempt tho; and it is getting tons of hits. I’ve had it passed to me by three different sources already.