The Harrier that landed on a container ship.

[martin-w 3,235]

Low on fuel. Found a ship so landed on the containers. Phew! Untill the Harrier began to slide off.

Ship refused to change course and he ended up in Tenerife.

https://eurasiantimes.com/low-on-fuel-pilot-lands-his-f-35-like-fighter-jet-on-a-container-ship/?amp

Edited March 17, 2022 by martin-w

[Fielder 3,673]

meh, he had lots of room to put 'er down.

 

[jdwgraf 52]

Strange how the "report" states that the Harrier is "F35 like", surely that should be that an F35 is "Harrier like" as the F35 was not even being thought of back in 1983 (this should be 1982 as from what I remember this occured during the Falklans conflict), plus ofcourse, not all F35's are VTOL.

[FBW737 511]

No, It should state the F-35 is YAK-38 like and the YAK-38 is Harrier like. 🤣

Edited March 17, 2022 by FBW737

[martin-w 3,235]

Bit dodgy that the RAF gave him a desk job, when he wasn't fully trained and had been given a Harrier with defective instruments. 

 

33 minutes ago, jdwgraf said:

Strange how the "report" states that the Harrier is "F35 like",

 

Typical media. Watched a report on the news the other day, where an enemy gun, a sizable thing, had ben attached to a jeep. The reporter said it had been "soldered" to the jeep. 🙄

[787flyer 633]

Errr....... I dont think the owner of that white van was too pleased either!😧

Wonder how that conversation went with his/her car insurance company that a Sea Harrier landed on their roof??

 

Note. That Sea Harrier (ZA176) was recovered, returned to active Royal Navy duty and went through an upgrade to FA2 status until 2003 when it found it's new home at the Newark Air Museum in the UK where it can still be seen on display.

[harrry 322]

I hope the ship charged him the appropriate landing fee and transportation charges as the Navy would surely have their bill machine crunching if someone landed on a navy ship/

Edited March 17, 2022 by harrry

[787flyer 633]

1 minute ago, harrry said:

I hope the ship charged him the appropriate landing fee and transportation charges as the Navy would surely have their bill machine crunching if someone landed on a navy ship/

The cargo ship owners received 570,000GBP in compensation.I'm sure the landing fees would have been included in that!

[harrry 322]

 

[jdwgraf 52]

@martin-w Think you will find he was a Navy pilot (Fleet Air Arm) as his rank was Sub Lieutenant. The RAF at the time had the Harrier GR3. It was much later that the Navy & RAF began using the same aircraft type and the "Sea Harrier" was phased out.

 

John

[ailchim 206]

6 minutes ago, jdwgraf said:

@martin-w Think you will find he was a Navy pilot (Fleet Air Arm) as his rank was Sub Lieutenant. The RAF at the time had the Harrier GR3. It was much later that the Navy & RAF began using the same aircraft type and the "Sea Harrier" was phased out.

 

John

It's not as if there's any historic rivalry between the RAF and the FAA is there?

[martin-w 3,235]

3 hours ago, jdwgraf said:

@martin-w Think you will find he was a Navy pilot (Fleet Air Arm) as his rank was Sub Lieutenant. The RAF at the time had the Harrier GR3. It was much later that the Navy & RAF began using the same aircraft type and the "Sea Harrier" was phased out.

 

John

 

Yep. Meant Navy. Gave him a desk job but he did go on the fly the Harrier again. Even flew F18's, guess he must have been on an exchange program with US, Canada or Australia or somebody.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

The aircraft was rapidly running out of fuel, and the pilot did the only thing that seemed sensible at the time. Ditching in the open sea is not exactly what I would want to be doing in a fighter jet. Yeah, I know......health and safety and insurance and all that BS. Someone remind me how much publicity this shipping company received at the time?

Edited March 18, 2022 by Christopher Low

[martin-w 3,235]

50 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The aircraft was rapidly running out of fuel, and the pilot did the only thing that seemed sensible at the time. Ditching in the open sea is not exactly what I would want to be doing in a fighter jet. Yeah, I know......health and safety and insurance and all that BS. Someone remind me how much publicity this shipping company received at the time?

 

Exactly. What were the Navy implying? That you should kill yourself by ditching in the sea rather than risk the tanker and its crew? I would say that if he was confident that no personnel on the tanker were in danger, then he did the right thing.