Vulcan at Uffington, Sun 30 Aug

[Cyprus countrybred]

Apparently it's "appearing" at the country show on Sunday - anyone have any details on timing/is it just a single pass, or more?

Cheers for any info

cc

[airborne_artist]

This page (http://tinyurl.com/uffington) says 1507

[Cyprus countrybred]

Fab, thanks aa

[Ripline]

It actually turned up an hour later - nice banked right-hand turn over Rowstock roundabout presumably prior to a run down the Vale to Uffington Country Show. I'm guessing it had just come from a fly-past at Silverstone?

We'd been sitting on the White Horse having doubts about the low cloudbase and the general viz in the Vale and was on my way home at the time....but probably got a closer look at it in flight than I would have if we'd stayed :D

As we'd come from GWS Didcot having seen the lovely A1 Tornado, not a bad day, I'd say :ok:


Ripline

[Man-on-the-fence]

Ripline

It departed Brize went to Didcot to start its run in for Uffington. I am not entirely sure it was in VMC for much of the time and at one point it was heading towards a cloud that was stuffed with a rather solid hill.

Looked great but was possibly flown closer to legal met limits than I would have liked today.

It was bloody cold on White Horse Hill as well.

[spamcanner]

Top marks to the crew for making it to Dunsfold
Wings and Wheels and putting on a great show.
I'm sure that these highly professional aviators
were flying to the book and within the VFR limits,
albeit at the lower end. They made a lot of
people very happy. Thanks chaps.:D

[Cyprus countrybred]

Missed it myself in the end! Went up to top of Foxhill, after sitting for a while, a chap on ******* said it wasn't departing BZZ till 1600; due to the low cloud level, we doubted whether it would ever appear, so went to visit friends at Chiseldon - then heard something on leaving theirs that could have been it - altho we prob wouldn't have seen it from Foxhill with that visibility.

[Flap62]

Tell you what Man on the Fence

Looked great but was possibly flown closer to legal met limits than I would have liked today

Why don't you just stay wrapped up with your anorak, flask and spotters band radio and leave the aircrew to decide if they are flying within limits.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Flap62

Put your ego away mate, you wont be able to get you helmet on otherwise.

I'll happily do that when they prove that they are capable of making the right decision, yesterday I very much doubt they did, especially when they headed directly towards the (by then) obscured Folly Hill at Faringdon at a remarkably similar height. They appeared from cloud and then disappeared into cloud. Nothing else was flying even the birds. They were in a one of a kind, complex category aircraft that is on a Permit to Fly with lousy vis out of the cockpit on a good day.

I was there, you werent. Deal with it.

[BEagle]

Flap62, there is no need to be so aggressive.

M-o-t-F makes a very valid point. If you compare the Wx at the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome yesterday afternoon with the limits required for VFR of an aircraft flying above 140 KIAS outside CAS, you can only assume that they found a very lucky route.....:hmm:

Whether there was a bit of "The Show Must Go On" for Eddie F or not, I do not know; neither is any criticism of the crew appropriate. But a pound to a pinch of poo they'll undoubtedly be more conservative next time.

Bloody amazing, nonetheless....:ok:

[Flap62]

I was there, you werent. Deal with it.

No you weren't! You were sitting on a hillside somewhere close to it - deal with it!

They were in the aircraft - you weren't. You are in no position to assume what they might have seen. Airborne viz is often very different to what you see on the ground. Even if it was marginal - it was their call!

BEagle - Who makes the assessment on viz requirements at low level?

[pigsinspace]

No you weren't! You were sitting on a hillside somewhere close to it - deal with it!

They were in the aircraft - you weren't. You are in no position to assume what they might have seen. Airborne viz is often very different to what you see on the ground. Even if it was marginal - it was their call!

BEagle - Who makes the assessment on viz requirements at low level?

The EGO has Landed.............

[BEagle]

Flap62, the limits for VFR are as prescribed in the ANO. There may be more restrictive limits in 558's Operations Manual, but they cannot be below those defined in the ANO.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Flaps

You're right, it was their call, they made it, they got away with it.

Next time......

I am not normally the sensitive type when it comes to flying, I accept that in most cases the point of view that I have doesnt always tell the story, but this was VERY worrying. (cropped and re-sized but otherwise untouched)

First pass

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v681/motf/2009/Gen/MD3A5846a.jpg

Second pass
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v681/motf/2009/Gen/MD3A5907.jpg

Legal to fly or not, I'd be interested to hear if you think these conditions were suitable to display in.

[aviate1138]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Hardly a Display more like a fly-by. Surely well within the capabilities of the Captain? Well done XH 588 and all on board.

[LookingNorth]

METAR EGVN 301350Z 20012KT 9999 FEW010 OVC014 15/13 Q1017 TEMPO 6000 -RADZ BKN010
METAR EGVN 301450Z 20011KT 9999 FEW009 OVC012 16/14 Q1016 TEMPO 7000 -RADZ BKN009
METAR EGVN 301550Z 20011KT 9999 SCT008 OVC011 16/14 Q1016 TEMPO 6000 -RADZ BKN009
METAR EGVN 301650Z 21009KT 9999 OVC009 16/14 Q1015 NOSIG

Crap wx like this at least keeps the microlights and gliders out of the area. Probably safer than a sunny day!

[StopStart]

but this was VERY worrying

I'll happily do that when they prove that they are capable of making the right decision, yesterday I very much doubt they did

Stop it please, I'm going to give myself a rectal prolapse from laughing so hard. :rolleyes: You have no idea what you're talking about.

I love the apparent "fact" that some some spotter can come along and declare that the wx wasn't could enough for the aircraft to fly but any rebuttal from a military aviator who knows what he's talking about is turned on as being some "ego trip". Get over yourself.

First picture is fine - viz not 8/8 ginners but fine. Second picture is cropped close up that demonstrates nothing other than that the aircraft was a long way away.

If you've got "issues" then keep it to your knitting circle. :hmm:

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Hardly a Display more like a fly-by. Surely well within the capabilities of the Captain? Well done XH 588 and all on board.

Spot on. Nice work fellas - always great to see the Tin Triangle doing its stuff.

[Man-on-the-fence]

StopStart

Thanks for confirming what I already assumed. Why does it bother you that I am concerned for the safety of the aircraft and crew let alone the people on the ground and the reputation of TVOC? Perhaps slagging off a mere enthusiast gives you a kick, in which case you should seek professional help.

Good point from LookingNorth, there was nothing else in the sky. Assuming it was just about legal to carry out the display (flypast or not legally it was a display, NOTAM and DA required) anyone think it was sensible to fly a very large one of a kind aircraft in those conditions at that height? I realise they dont want to let people down but when does discretion become the better part of valour.

I do wonder though why all the sky gods are getting so defensive.

[GK430]

Has the Vulcan not recently got dispensation from our normal Permit regs concerning VFR/daylight only?
After all, these restrictions do not apply to all Permit a/c worldwide.

[Fast Pussy]

The pilots know what the limits are - both weather and aircraft - and the decision to fly should rightly be with them. Even in a unique and highly valued machine. If they pushed the limits, then I feel sure they will have conducted a full and frank de-brief and learnt all positive that is to be learnt.

Did others fly at the display? If yes, then presumably others also considered it to be fit. If no, then I am sure the crew will have taken note!

[dakkg651]

MOTF

Please don't get the impression that military aircrew dislike enthusiasts. Spotters maybe, but not true enthusiasts.

I think what has rankled Flaps and Stop Start is the fact that you have called into question the professionalism of 558s crew. That is a pretty serious accusation to make. Asking if the weather is suitable as per your original post is fair enough. Posting photos trying to back up your uninformed opinion that it wasn't is something I thought only a Sun reporter would resort to.

By the way, the weather in the photos looks more than good enough for the flypasts.

[StopStart]

Perhaps slagging off a mere enthusiast gives you a kick

Dry your eyes princess - this is the internet; don't come along passing judgement on others and expect to get away with a pat on the back. Perhaps "slagging off" mere professionals gives you a kick? :hmm: I have plenty friends who are enthusiasts - we get along because I don't tell them their job and they don't tell me mine.

I do wonder though why all the sky gods are getting so defensive.

The only thing we're defending are the good names of the highly qualified blokes that were flying the aircraft from armchair "experts" that seek to question their judgement solely on the basis of having been to lots of airshows and owning a battered copy of the 1952 Big Chap's Book Of The Air annual. :rolleyes:

[Capetonian]

Man-on-the-fence

May I give you a piece of advice .... which I've learnt the hard way.

When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging, because if you carry on, you can only dig one way, and that's down.

[Man-on-the-fence]

StopStart

My apologies, press-on-itis doesnt exist, pilots have never screwed up and I have no right to even question that the flypast happened. What is it like to be perfect?

dakkg651

Good point, well made and noted for the future. Thanks for your opinion re the weather.

[BEagle]

If the Vulcan now has dispensation to fly under IFR, then fine. Consider now VFR only:

From those METARS, at no stage was the visibility below 5km - so no problem there either.

However, outside CAS (e.g. at Uffington), an aircraft flying under VFR below FL100 must adhere to the requirements of Article 28(2) of the Air Navigation Order. But under Article 28(4) of the ANO, these conditions are eased if the aircraft is not a helicopter and:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.

Provided that the IAS remained less at than 140 KIAS, the METARS indicate that VFR flight would be lawful. Now, some will ask whether the Vulcan can fly at 140KIAS....

Below 130000 lb AUW, Approach Speed is 140 KIAS and below 120000 it is 135 KIAS. The last operational Vulcan trip I flew in 1980 included a minimum landing weight of 119400 lb. Remember - 558 is much, much lighter than an RAF aircraft, having a ZFW of only 100000 lb and a minimum landing weight of about 107000 lb - some 12400 lb less than the last Vulcan I flew in 1980.

With the low fuel state needed for the flight, it would certainly have been possible to remain below 140 KIAS below an overcast cloudbase such as those quoted in the METAR, given a pilot with the skills of any VTTS pilot.

I think it's entirely reasonable for M-o-t-F to have queried the wisdom of such a flight; he certainly doesn't deserve the rude comments thrown at him by some of you lot who should know better.

I consider that no rules would have been broken; however, it would have required a skilled crew to have remained within VFR limits and to observe the requirements of Rule 5. Whether it was wise to have flown in such conditions is a matter of personal conjecture.

[dakkg651]

BEagle.

Yes you are right. MOTF has every right to question. He has to be very careful, however, when making accusations that rules were being broken. MOTF. I don't know what you do for a living, but if your professionalism was called into doubt in two public forums (yes I have seen the 'Vulcans do fly in IMC' comment in the Aviation History forum), I bet you might be a tad hacked off and would welcome a little bit of support from your colleagues.

So if some people have come at you all guns blazing then you shouldn't be too surprised.

We all want to see 558 continue to fly and entertain us, after all it cost some of us a lot of beer money, so I fully understand your concern over whether the conditions were suitable or not. I don't think the VTTS pilots would ever put the aircraft or public at risk because of press-on-itis. And if they intentionally exceeded any VFR limits the CAA would ensure it would be game over for VTTS.

So lets put all the teddies back in the cot and agree that we hope to see this magnificent aircraft displayed safely for years to come.

By the way Man on the Fence. I humbly apologise for implying you were of a level of a Sun reporter. That was really below the belt and totally uncalled for. I hang my head in shame.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Point taken (again)

[BlindWingy]

Well done to the Vulcan crew! Thank goodness that real, current pilots are able to make sensible weather decisions based on what they see out of the cockpit and not on the opinions of untrained, unrealistic or rule-bound wannabees. Seriously, everybody is entitled to their opinion, however, when your opinions lack credibility you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on them.

All the best


BW

[StopStart]

At the risk of banging-on, which I am:

I think it's entirely reasonable for M-o-t-F to have queried the wisdom of such a flight

Indeed, it most certainly is but there are ways of doing these things and I'd suggest that M-O-T-F appointing himself the expert in absolutely everything isn't the way to go about it. The METARs are all well and good and reflect the wx at EGVN at 10 to whatever hour it was. Whilst they're a jolly good indicator of what it may have been like they weren't observed from overhead Uffington at the time of the flypast. That's the call for the flightdeck to make.

he certainly doesn't deserve the rude comments thrown at him by some of you lot who should know better.

Er I disagree. If you sow wind then don't be surprised at the subsequent whirlwind. I personally object to pontificating armchair AVMs slinging mud at friends and professionals. This has nothing to do with teddies, cots and/or egos and everything to do with the unqualified spouting off on the internet.

My apologies, press-on-itis doesnt exist, pilots have never screwed up and I have no right to even question that the flypast happened.

Who said anything about press-on-itis? Other than you obviously. Pressing on into what? The weather in picture looks fine but then what would I know? I only spend my working day thrashing round the UKLFS in a Vulcan sized aircraft (and before you bunch your pants again - that's not ego it's just my job). You have every right in the world to question whatever you like. May I suggest that when you choose to exercise that right you do so either from a position of knowledge/experience or from a starting point that accepts with mild humility you don't know all/any of the facts?

What is it like to be perfect? It's awesome. Send me an address and I'll send you a signed photo.

[BEagle]

As an ex-student of mine, Stoppers, I know that you'll be intimately familiar with all the rools 'n' regs...:8

Such as the VFR requirements stated in the UK Mil AIP ENR 1-2-1 which reduces the mandatory 'clear of cloud' vertical requirement in the UK LFS to 500 ft if above 140 KIAS (I'm assuming your steed can manage this..:p) and below 2000 ft agl.

So, military Herc at 240KIAS in UK LFS. Height agl 250 ft, vis must be 5km or better, cloudbase must be above (250+500) = 750 ft.

Civil Vulcan at 141KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 5 km or better, cloudbase (BKN or OVC) must be above (500+1000) = 1500 ft.

Civil Vulcan at 139KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 1.5 km or better, aircraft must be 'clear of cloud and in sight of surface'.

So, just because the Wx looks OK to an experienced UK LFS operator, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily legal for a civil aircraft.

Oh, and I'm all for pressing-on-titties!

[Man-on-the-fence]

Beags

I reckon looking at the images I have posted, the vis is more than 1.5km so it would appear that it was within limits. Good news.

StopStart

I dont want to get into a fight and you have my total respect. I didnt mean to come across as if I know it all, I was however there and saw something that in my view was worrying. I am entitled to that point of view just as you are entitled to explain why I may be worrying for no reason. The accompanying bitch fest, while entertaining, didnt achieve anything and I apologise for my part in it.

[blimey]

Not a sign of the beastie at Uffington, Lincs, despite my son finding the best viewing spot :O

PS The photos of the other Uffington look like a normal Brit VFR day.

[A2QFI]

ISTR that, when flying the F4 all over Germany, the 5km viz requirement (if that is what it was at that time) was met by being able to see 2.5 km to the left and 2.5 km to the right! Happy days