Holden's Lightning Flight | Hacker News Reader

Holden's Lightning Flight

en.wikipedia.org

234 pointsColinWright53 comments

I would say it's worth reading Holden's account of it directly, which starts on page 3 of this PDF:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210319185656if_/http://www.nzr...

Wow, that gives a whole new meaning to “ride the lightning” lol.

Here's a 2013 blog post from Holden's grandson with a copy of the same story as well as a video and some photos of a visit Holden took with his family to the Duxford Air Museum to see the Lightning (surprising a tour group):

https://web.archive.org/web/20141025130512/http://www.danros...

Same video on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-5ASHzFsI

Copy of the blog post (sans photos and video) here:

https://www.oldhaltonians.co.uk/post/wing-commander-taffy-ho...

With this single comment at the end left by garyl on Aug 23, 2026: "My father was there, your grandfather was my dad's boss. He was reminding me of the story this morning (he is now 97). He described himself as the new tea boy. Dad was deafened in the right ear as a result of the incident"

Holden passed away in Dec 2016 at 90 years of age:

https://funeral-notices.co.uk/notice/holden/1370331

If you're not a fan you might not know that the Lightning had tremendous performance for its time and long after that time too.

It could climb to 36000ft (11km) in less than 3 minutes. It could pull up off the runway straight into a vertical climb although this wasn't optimal. Apparently it could intercept at 65000ft and this was tested against the U2. It could go supersonic without afterburners in level flight.

All of this gave it relatively short range but it suited its purpose.

It apparently had very good handling but it was full of complicated systems and very powerful so therefore would be a scary thing to have an unexpected flight in.

> Apparently it could intercept at 65000ft

Reportedly it intercepted a USAF RB-57F[1] at 80,000ft and also did a zoom climb to just under 88,000ft.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/raf-lightning-pilot-recalls-...

[1] A reconnaissance aircraft based on the English Electric Canberra. NASA still flies a couple of them for high altitude research.

It is probably worth noting it is not unusual to have people who are not pilots move aircraft.

For example in the US FAA regulations only require a pilot during flight time. Flight time includes self-powered ground movement if it is for the purpose of flight. If it is self-powered ground movement for some other purpose no pilot is required.

Non-pilot mechanics often move aircraft. Their employers typically mandate specific training for this and only allow people who have had that training or are pilots to move planes.

Insurance companies also might impose restrictions, typically only allowing pilots or mechanics with plane moving training.

Love this story. There is something interesting that nags at me though.

- There's a test pilot on staff at the base, but they're not qualified for the Lightning.

- There's a test that needs doing, which doesn't require a test pilot (unless something goes wrong).

- There's no qualified test pilot available for the test, so Holden decides to run the test with someone who knows how to move the plane down the runway, but not necessarily fly it.

Of course you're deviating from the proper process at this point, but isn't the obvious choice for this still the test pilot who isn't qualified for the Lightning, but at least flies fighter jets?

It seems like Holden thought it through - it wasn't spur of the moment. Did he ask the test pilot? If so, did they say "no"?

If I've read the original account correctly, there was no longer a test pilot on staff at the base at the time of the incident:

"In my service, one of my postings took me to 33MU Lyneham where as the CO of a civilian manned aircraft storage unit, I had Canberra, Meteor and Lighting types, which were gradually being prepared for dispatch to various flying unit tasks. When the Meteor and Canberra types had been cleared, the powers that be decided that the MU should be closed after the last Lightning had been dispatched. Up until the last Canberra, I had a qualified and current test pilot on my staff for those aircraft, but he was not a current Lightning pilot. When a Lightning needed test flying, I had to call for any available pilot with a current test pilot rating. Most times I could find one who could be spared within a 24 to 36 hour period."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210319185656if_/http://www.nzr...

Thanks! That makes it more understandable how he ended up in that situation.

This paragraph from near the end of that article gives the incident a different feeling:

Some years after the incident, my hidden fears of high speed flight came to the surface and I had to spend two periods in hospital. I had not come to terms with the emotional side of the event

> According to Holden, in a review before Air Marshal Kenneth Porter, he was asked whether he agreed that "With the limited flying experience I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot", which he answered in the affirmative, following which Porter related some of his own unfortunate flying incidents.

I feel like there’s something between these lines that I don’t understand. Like is this some form of lawyer hacking without lawyers? Like a, “let’s have you admit to something that isn’t really wrongdoing just so we have a thing for the report.”

I have no specific context here, but in case it's not obvious, I think you have to read the exchange in the context of British, and I guess RAF, indirectness and understatement.

I'm guessing the air marshal means "what the hell were you thinking"; Holden is agreeing, indicating that he has learned his lesson and acknowledges the error; and the air marshal is then graciously moving on.

It's English Understatement all the way.

Absolutely, and beautifully so.

My read is that the Air Marshal was confirming a gap in the orders, which were amended after this flight. Less of a "what the hell were you thinking" and more of a "what the hell were we thinking allowing this in the first place?"

That's typical RAF. Same kind of thinking as the exploding marshmallow incident in a nuclear bomber (https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/exploding-teacakes).

A five-minute "toolbox talk" with an experienced Lightning pilot would probably have been sufficient to warn him of the afterburner detent, and "Let's maybe not do that, eh?"

You can't actually write down "No-one did anything really wrong but let's not do that again, okay?" but you can write down something that says that.

I think you're reading too much into the quote. RAF simply acknowledged that the whole episode was an accident that happened during routine work and they wouldn't punish their man for an accident, especially since there was not much harm done (except the repairable damage on the plane).

If he had taken the plane for a joyflight then he would have gotten a right bollocking (to put it mildly) but if it was an accident what exactly could they hold against him?

If there's something peculiarly British about it, it's that their airmen are well-trained professionals and they do not mete out unnecessary punishments just to show who's boss.

I think the joke is that Air Marshal Kenneth Porter was chief of the RAF’s maintenance command, and also not a pilot. [0]

Edit: fergal_reid’s reply below is correct. Porter did serve several years at the start of his career as a pilot, in the early 1930s, before spending the bulk of it as a signals officer. Holden also had his wings, but never served as a pilot. I read Porter’s comment as a joke between two RAF officers who were not “really” pilots, but now I’m not sure how to read it.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Porter_(RAF_officer)

Flyboys will be flyboys.

I appreciate the fact they were able to acknowledge the mistake and get over it.

It was a ballsy move, done with the best of intentions, could have been fine, but near-catastrophically wasn't. Lesson was obviously learned, and both the shortcomings in judgement and in the regs were addressed. I'm glad they let the guy go back to work. It's not like he exhibited a pattern of recklessness. I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)

> I feel like these days, it's less likely a person of authority would exercise the kind of discretion that leads to a sensible outcome. Not because they don't want to, but because liability and PR have become such institutional boogeymen. ('Course maybe I'm wrong!)

Who knows, maybe one day we'll find tales of heroism and bravery extend to cover personal integrity against bureaucratic process? It would be a good thing to happen now, in fact, to motivate the current and next generation of people to do the right thing in the world they live in.

EDIT: I suppose the very thing we're discussing is one of such stories.

The "ballsy move" is completely separate from the mistake.

I don't think there was anything particularly ballsy, or perhaps even reckless, about agreeing to test the taxiing behaviour. It never crossed his mind that this could lead to a situation that got out of his control. Starting the airplane was a complete accident.

Getting the airplane airborne once it was running out of runway - and then landing it again - did take balls, but is not really the part of the incident that the review board was there to scrutinise.

He is establishing the acceptance of blame.

1. People who don't admit fault are refusing to learn any lesson and that's dangerous. It's the strategy that populist politicians use because someone percentage of people judge you on the confidence of your denial more than on the facts.

2. It's especially convenient if he admits fault because then the blame for people higher up is greatly reduced and the overall fallout from the incident is less. The event could have made the RAF look bad.

Oh, I took this as a bowdlerized version of the actual conversation, which I might be willing to pay to have a copy of if I am right?

"Commander Holden, for posterity, with your limited air time, am I right in suspecting the testing of this experimental aircraft would have been better left to a more experienced pilot?"

"Sir, fookin' 'ell yes sir. And tell 'im what does to pack a second set o' britches."

(Apologies, my knowledge of the British language is limited entirely to Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins)

I (as someone British and from an Army family) read that as - "You know you screwed up right? Please reassure me you know that and won't do anything like it again". Followed by an admission that we all screw up sometimes (implied by the stories).

Tongue in cheek dry humour, nothing more. "That wasn't a very good idea was it old chap?"

Small thing: there is a difference between a "test pilot" and a "maintenance test pilot" or MTP. A test pilot is an elite aviator who participates in the development of new aircraft and systems. An MTP is a pilot trained in prodeedures for verifying functionality of systems after repairs and maintenance. Test pilots are very rare whereas literally every squadron or base should have multiple MTPs availible for each type of aircraft.

Another POV:

maintenance/acceptance test pilots test the aircraft within its flight envelope (safe operating limits), while test pilots help discover and define that envelope.

> Holden ran down the runway, narrowly missing a crossing fuel bowser

TIL Bowser is an actual word, huh.

Common word in Australia.

For fuel and other liquids? Its used in Sri Lanka but specifically for water.

Sri Lankan's and Australians also both confuse monitor lizards with iguanas, although Australians have at least created a new word as a result.

Yes, exactly that. Most popular for used in a petrol station situation.

What new Australian word are your referring to?

Goana, which is corruption of iguana. Same mistake historically, but its a different word now so feels less wrong.

I didn't know goanna was a corruption of iguana, I would've said bungarra.

Common word in the UK. Basically a tanker is for transporting, a bowser also dispenses. It's usually fuel but can be any liquid, such as water.

That makes the decision seem even stranger. If there really wasn't a qualified Lightning test pilot available, I wonder whether the pressure to get the aircraft moved quickly was the main reason they took the risk. It would be interesting to know what the expected downside of waiting 24–36 hours actually was.

I don't know that it was that deep, to be honest.

"Here, you're the electrics guy, go and see if you can reproduce the fault you get when you run that thing up to taxi"

Yeah, the story reads to me less as if it was time pressure and more like they underestimated the risk.

"What could go wrong" etc etc

You've done it yourself.

It's fine, it's a five minute job. Never been a problem before.

Me? No, I've *never* done anything like that, that went wrong in an unexpected way, no no no, not me...

I suspect it was just wanting to get the job done. The difference between this amazing story, and absolutely nothing happening was a fraction of an inch.

Having 17y of experience flying military (subsonic) jets and being test acceptance pilot for a few years as well, I feel I can share my perspective on this extraordinary event:

First I was just wow!

Then I read the PDF from 2013 blog and little bit of relief came from knowing that he was qualified pilot too.

But there is a big but! Before that, he flew dramatically different, slower only propeller planes, no jet, no supersonic jet. I can imagine that it kinda might be smth like having driving licence, but being put into an F1 car and asked to handle it properly in order to follow the track in highspeed, but in 3D.

Anyway, I recall my first flight on L-39 after having 20h on Ulla and 50h on Z-142: it was the same flying one is used to, but since releasing the brakes on runway the speed makes the biggest (initial) difference. And then the landing. Otherwise flying is always the same, same flying controls, what changes is the avionics, speeds, g-loads and capability to do certain manoeuvres.

Regarding speed jets are obviously different level fast from propeller engine planes, landscape runs below you way much faster than you are used to. Higher speed means less time for decision and reaction, no time for "wait, I need to think something over", because times flies and jet flies with it, fast. Nobody waits for you and your pondering there. Its totally different workload.

"I needed to get the feel of the aircraft, if I was to get it back on the ground". "..how does one interpolate or extrapolate Tiger Moth, Chipmunk Harvard flying to a two engined, 11 ton, beast like the Lightning?" That is exactly it. Get to feel the aircraft comes with time and experience, especially with final part of the landing (hovering above runway) your brain and eyes need to learn to see proper angle shown to you by instructor.

The most difficult to initially learn is the proper flare phase, when you transition from the approach to the actual touchdown. During final seconds you learn to feel through your butt the rate of descent - you coordinate butt feeling of descending (less speed means less lift, thus more descending) with hand pulling the stick to compensate decreasing speed with increasing the angle of attack (thus increasing lift), you smoothly balance this dynamic imbalance, you slowly decrease speed, increase lift and slowly decrease the height above the concrete in order to land smoothly from desired height. If you overcompensate (pull too much), plane can jump few meter up in the air, which you dont want (being higher with decreasing speed means you can just stall/fall on runway from few meters), if you undercompensate you will hit the ground with sharper descend angle sooner and with higher speed (which can start the sequence of hits and jumps that need to be taken under control). Practice makes you learn from these mistakes, make corrections for the wind aspect, air temperature (extremely cold or hot makes difference) ,take into account different configuration of aircraft, different fuel weight affects this too.

So there is a lot of trial and error and time needed learning to land safely. All in all, it took everybody ~10h before our instructors let us fly first jet solo. Of course we could crashland sooner with less experience.

Well, to conclude, every landing is different and every airline passenger can confirm, that sometimes it can be even adventurous.

I am sharing all this just to show, how extraordinary his landing was! Kudos!

>> Regarding speed jets are obviously different level fast from propeller engine planes, landscape runs below you way much faster than you are used to. Higher speed means less time for decision and reaction, no time for "wait, I need to think something over", because times flies and jet flies with it, fast. Nobody waits for you and your pondering there. Its totally different workload.

I am guessing this accounts for the fact that he couldn't turn the afterburners off until he had lifted off: he didn't have the time to fiddle enough with the controls.

>> During final seconds you learn to feel through your butt the rate of descent - you coordinate butt feeling of descending (less speed means less lift, thus more descending) with hand pulling the stick to compensate decreasing speed with increasing the angle of attack (thus increasing lift), you smoothly balance this dynamic imbalance, you slowly decrease speed, increase lift and slowly decrease the height above the concrete in order to land smoothly from desired height.

That must be what people mean when they talk about "flying by the seat of your pants" XD

>> I am guessing this accounts for the fact that he couldn't turn the afterburners off until he had lifted off: he didn't have the time to fiddle enough with the controls.

Yes, his survival instincts were correct choosing priorities of what to solve first.

>>That must be what people mean when they talk about "flying by the seat of your pants" XD

Yes, its butt-flying!