Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May

[iansmith]

XH558 was due to fly a practise display today but has just suffered an aborted take-off. Witnesses report two bangs and smoke coming from two engines.

[iansmith]

Incoming flights on 30 minutes delay. I presume they're checking the runway for debris.

[iansmith]

Runway team reported seeing metal and glass debris. I didn't realise an Olympus had any glass components. Seems rather odd. FOD maybe?

[goldeneaglepilot]

After an incredible amount of effort and fund raising to get the Vulcan XH558 back in the air this year, it suffered an engine explosion at Doncaster earlier today. The damage is serious but no one has been hurt. The airport was closed for several hours. A video of the incident was taken by a Pprune member who is an instructor at Doncaster, with luck we will be able to see that on the news later.

[Ramshornvortex]

Quote from VTTST's website home page:

"XH558 was scheduled to take off at noon on May 28th for a crew currency and display training flight. Just after the start of the take-off roll, she experienced problems with two of her Olympus engines. The crew immediately shut all engines down and everyone is safe. At this stage, we don't have any further information but we will keep supporters informed via Twitter (@XH558), Facebook (Vulcan XH558) and the news section (here) of the charity's website (www.vulcantothesky.org (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/352/82/redir.hsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vulcantothesky.org)).

Unfortunately, this means that she will not be able to fly for at least two weeks, although we will not know exactly how long rectification will take until the problem has been thoroughly investigated.
We will provide further updates when we know more."

[Pilotinmydreams]

Oh that's really sad news. I was really looking forward to hearing / feeling a Vulcan flying again as I have great memories of seeing her at Farnborough when I was a nipper. Glad nobody was hurt.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

In the press ....
BBC News - Vulcan bomber XH558 fault causes Robin Hood Airport closure (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-18241082)

[Nige321]

From the VTTS website...

The failure occurred in the two port side engines (1 & 2) on the ground as the aircraft was easing towards full power at the start of her take-off roll. She is now back in her hangar where the technical team will investigate the problem. Our initial thought is that the symptoms are very much like those experienced when something is ingested by an engine so we will be investigating all possible sources. We would like to thank Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) for their immediate assistance and professionalism yesterday.



We will provide further updates when we know more.

[Gingie]

I read somewhere there are a couple of spare engines, however I also read somewhere the airframe is due to expire serviceability next year, can anyone clear up the rumours?

[Evanelpus]

I read somewhere there are a couple of spare engines, however I also read somewhere the airframe is due to expire serviceability next year, can anyone clear up the rumours?

I believe there were eight spare engines at the start of the project and they have used two. The latest incident would mean they are down to four. I suppose it all depends on what else they find when they remove the errant engines. Quite happy to be corrected if this isn't the case.

I'm sure you are right about the airframe though.

Serious questions will need to be asked about the Vulcans future. I think the long suffering volunteers have paid out more than enough over the years to see this beautiful aircraft fly again and maybe it's time to say bye bye Vulcan?

[SPIT]

Hi
Instead of spending/wasting vast amounts of money on this a/c why not get NX 611( Lancaster) flying again ??? :ok::ok:

[Waddo Plumber]

Because there are already two Lancasters flying.

[Noah Zark.]

Instead of spending/wasting vast amounts of money on this a/c why not get NX 611( Lancaster) flying again ??

Because it's not a Vulcan!

[The Cleaner]

I think what we need is a Mossie in the sky again, rather than more Lancs.

[Synthetic]

...Serious questions will need to be asked about the Vulcans future. I think the long suffering volunteers have paid out more than enough over the years to see this beautiful aircraft fly again and maybe it's time to say bye bye Vulcan?

You are to your opinion but a large number of people, most of them financial supporters of the mighty Vulcan will differ.

Other aircraft projects are welcome to go canvassing for money but to say that the money should be given to something to something else is palpable nonsense.

When you are told what charities you may or may not support that is tax.

Long may Doctor Plemming and his excellent team keep up the good work.

[Oldbutnotwise]

I believe that the Canadian lanc is also unseviceable

The yorkshire Air museum is to run the engines on the Mossie on the 1st July

[EGCA]

No disrespect whatsoever to anyone connected with XH558, but this incident may well have the making of being an expensive repair, and this aircraft does swallow huge amounts of money, so maybe safe and sound as a static exhibit now?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'm not sure there's much point in XH558 flying at all. She is limited by the rules under which she flys in the power used and the 'G' pulled compared to those limits in RAF service, therefore the displays are a shadow of those back in the day, when the aeroplane was in service.

This is no reflection on those who fly her; they have no choice but to abide by the rules.

The result is, a lot of folk who are not old enough to remember a real Vulcan display have watched a post-RAF 558 one and are under the impression that they have seen a Vulcan display.

They haven't! Not a balls-out real one! :E

[BEagle]

The displays you see 558 flying nowadays are far more graceful than the ridiculous, wing-waggling nonsense flown by the apple-spitting gibbon in the latter days of the VDF.....

[Waddo Plumber]

I don't agree SSD. For four years in the 1970s, from outside my extraordinarily well-guarded office on the other side of the A17, I often used to stare up the jet pipes of the displaying Vulcan. I've felt the wingtip vortices as it flew low over the mound I stood on. I watched Joe LeStrange skim the airfield at less than half span. I've stood on the ORP watching 16 ship scrambles. However, in the crowd at Farnborough a couple of years ago, I didn't feel I was missing out. Instead I was thrilled to the marrow to hear, see and feel the World's most charismatic aircraft howling down the runway towards me then roaring its defiance into the sky.

Let's hope the damage is limited to a couple of fodded engines.

[hurn]

I believe there were eight spare engines at the start of the project and they have used two. The latest incident would mean they are down to four. I suppose it all depends on what else they find when they remove the errant engines. Quite happy to be corrected if this isn't the case.Yes, they started with eight zero timed engines of which four went into the airframe at the last major. Two have been replaced since 'first flight 07' as a precautionary measure at Rolls Royce request and there are still two zero timed engines available for use.

I've heard rumours that the two low timed ones that were previously removed may be allowed back into service, but as yet it's not (at least publicly) known whether that will happen.

It's a damn shame this has happened now though as they were very close to raising enough cash needed to get them into the display season. Still, nobody hurt, and the aircraft is in one piece so just awaiting more news and hoping for the best really.

[morton]

Waddo Plumber has given me a flashback! During my time in RAF Lincolnshire I enjoyed the experiences of watching many practice and actual displays. The Summer of 1972 is still fresh in my mind – although many other things have long since been forgotten.

That Summer the sun actually shone for days on end and life was good. Posted into the SSA at Scampton my time was torn between watching the Munich Olympics on television, strolling round the site whilst the camp played war games, or going up to the lookout post on the D1 mound to watch the world go by. It was from here one fine day I watched a particularly energetic display.

Taking off Eastwards it seemed to leap into the air (25 - 40% fuel load?). Showing off the amazing agility of such a large Aircraft to advantage as he climbed and banked with consummate ease he then ran down the runway and did a hard wingover L/H turn. To this day I swear I had a plan view of the Aircraft as I looked almost horizontally at the top of the cockpit before he slid off down the vale towards Brattleby and beyond. Forty years on and I still get goose-bumps!

Whatever happens to 558, there will be as many or more of us who, upon hearing the evocative roar of the Olympus engines, are transported back to times gone by and only remembering the good bits. A mass of people have spent a lot of paid and unpaid time as well as their own money to get 558 flying. Let’s hope that it is a quick fix and she can soon be shown off to advantage again and their hard earned endeavours rewarded. With the display season upon us time really is money.

[AGS Man]

Even if 558 is finally grounded fast taxi runs can still be done and you never know... we all thought a Victor would never fly again!

[Gingie]

Do the crew get paid for flying or is it totally voluntary?

[Tankertrashnav]

I'm not sure there's much point in XH558 flying at all.


I'm sure the 400 odd who attended the V-Force Reunion (http://www.vforcereunion.co.uk/index.html) at Newark last month would disagree with you . The overflight of 558 was the highlight of the day, even for us Victor types! Let's hope a double engine change is all that's required, and that no other significant damage occurred.

[TEEEJ]

YzkQ7sSpATU&feature=related

[Agaricus bisporus]

Given the tiny amount of hours it flies does it not seem strange that two zero timed engined have been replaced and only "may" be returned to service? Not an impressive serviceability rate from as new engines, is it?

[hurn]

I think it's probably just down to Rolls Royce being extremely cautious with old engines that hadn't been used for years and wanting to play it safe.

[maliyahsdad2]

From Facebook,

Engine Damage Update - issued Wednesday 30th May - 5pm

The technical team spent yesterday (Tuesday) investigating the engine damage on XH558, to determine its cause and to start assessing the timescale and cost of rectification.

We have already established that both engines No.1 and No.2 on the port side are sadly beyond repair, both having suffered blade damage and the effect of excessive heat.

The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags. The most likely sequence of events was that material was ingested by No.1 engine, which surged and suffered LP compressor blade failure. Debris was then sucked into No. 2 which then also failed.

All relevant agencies and technical authorities have been informed. “We have been greatly reassured by the support from industry colleagues, and would like to thank all those who have offered help,” said engineering director Andrew Edmondson.

We would also like to place on record our thanks to all at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield for their swift and professional reaction on Monday, whilst also apologising to those affected by delays or diversions.

In accordance with normal procedures, a formal investigation into the incident has been opened, chaired by the Chairman of the Trust’s Safety Review Committee.

The technical inspection has so far showed that no airframe damage was sustained, with damage being limited to the engines. The next step is to replace the damaged engines with two from the Trust’s remaining stock. Timescales for a return to flight are not yet clear – we will of course update the web site with progress and give details in the e-newsletters each week.

“We are deeply sorry that this incident has happened, and at this time in 2012. The additional unplanned costs are clearly very worrying as resources are, as ever very tight” said the charity’s chief executive, Dr. Robert Pleming. “We are actively working on a plan to recover our Jubilee season schedule and we will share this with you as soon as practical via the newsletter, Facebook page, Twitter feed and the web site.”

With many thanks to all for continuing to support Vulcan XH558.

The Vulcan Team

[Feathers McGraw]

Hmm

I spent a few minutes with Google and found this:

Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09 (http://www.iconicaircraft.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66729)

In particular there is this post:

Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09 (http://www.iconicaircraft.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66729#p65377)

So, does this mean that the silica gel packets ingested were actually inside the intakes and were not removed before flight?

[Fox Four]

Unless the runway had been littered with desiccant bags, that must be the only conclusion....:rolleyes:

[Feathers McGraw]

Indeed.

The bags shown are pretty large, much bigger than the little ones which come with moisture sensitive things like cameras and lenses. Had these been on the ground, the Vulcan intakes are sufficiently far up that I would not have thought the intake suction would be enough to lift something that large that far up.

[nacluv]

... or '558 was unlucky enough to be underneath an overhead emergency airdrop of dessicant bags on the t/o run-up?

Difficult to think of any other explanation other than they were left in the intakes.

[SFCC]

Oh dear. This isn't looking very good!:ugh:

[M100S2]

Ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags????

FFS I had to read that a few times to be sure my eyes are not deceiving me. I even wondered if someone had dumped LSD in my cup of tea.

I'm sure who left them in the engine intakes is mortified, but sadly there is an overwhelming whiff of gross incompetence here by more than one person.

Of course it could have been much worse if it had got off the ground but an incident like this has almost certainly pissed a lot of people off who have contributed in the past to this project and are now very unlikely to do so in future.

What a bunch of fhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifking amateurs.

[SFCC]

Quite so......that's what I wanted to type but took the easy path instead.
That's it from me I'm afraid. Total and utter incompetance from the top to the bottom.
The whole sham deserves to fail now and I have a feeling it will after this little faux pas.:=

[Fox Four]

I think questions must be asked about the procedures followed by all the people involved. I'm quite astounded the crew missed it on the pre-flight walk around. Yes, the intakes are way off the ground, so go and get a step ladder. With a very limited budget of other folks money, you cannot afford errors like this.

[Feathers McGraw]

I have a nasty suspicion that the need to fly 558 under VFR has pushed things this way, I gather from what I've seen that the good weather on Monday was seen as an opportunity and so an unscheduled flight was decided on.

Perhaps that lack of scheduling has led to corners being cut, and please don't take that as in anyway pointing the finger of blame. I suppose that with only a week to run to the Jubilee weekend and with little display practice possible due to funding and servicing delays there was pressure on to be ready and hence something was forgotten when in haste. Since the opposite side engines did not get FODded, it would be possible for someone who saw some removed dessicant packs to assume that they were from both sides rather than just one, or indeed 3 intakes instead of 4.

[Nige321]

Wouln't a length of rope tied to the bags and a 'Remove before flight' flag dangling out the intakes have been prudent...? :(

[ShyTorque]

Thank goodness this didn't result in the loss of the entire aircraft!

With Bawtry on the climbout it doesn't bear thinking about - it could have been disastrous (especially as I've yet not used my £50 voucher in the China Rose restaurant). :eek:

[Exrigger]

SFCC, I take you belong to the old guard of the blame culture that has been endemic within the miltary until recently, have you not heard of Human Factors and a just culture, do you really believe what you posted and that basically the person/person responsible did this deliberately or through negligence. The guys on the project will be gutted but thankfull that it did not have a worse outcome and will work hard to rectify and try and get through this.

If the investigation is done properly it will show the contributory factors and allow lessons to be learned and implement changes to make sure nothing like this can happens again and the culpabilty chart should be used to place the incident in the context required and then and only then will someone get blamed if it is proven someone was negligent.

If the engineers in the last few places I have worked had you as a boss they would probably be on the dole now and nothing would be learned as people will hide lesser errors and then what happens when a worse incident occurs from removing an open and honest reporting Safety Management System.

[oldchina]

Muck around and hope everything will be ok on the day. If Adolf were alive he would still be wondering how the Brits didn't get invaded.

[SFCC]

Exrigger.
Was it not negligent then?:}

[Bill Macgillivray]

Silica gel dessicant bags in the intakes? Never came across these during my time on Vulcan's, maybe that is due to old age (on my part - memory or lack off!)) or did we just fly the aircraft to often to require these items to be deemed necessary? Glad all are OK.:confused::confused:

[Exrigger]

If they carry out the correct investigation and that is the proven case then so be it, but until then no.

There could be any number of reasons for missing it of which negligence could be one, I prefer to wait for the investigation report and not predict or apportion blame without its findings, apparently that is what a lot of people within Pprune military are always requesting after an accident/incident i.e leave it to the investigators/BoI

[Winco]

Exrigger

This latest incident is without doubt extremely serious in every respect not only for the loss of the two engines but for the future of the project as a whole and if you can suggest any cause at all, OTHER than negligence, then I would ask you get in touch with the CAA because I'm sure they would be interested to hear it. Frankly, the only other remote possibility is incompetence.

I'm not suggesting either, that the aircrew were not at fault for not checking, but I would certainly have hoped and expected the groundcrew to have had a good look down the intakes, especially as they sit so high off the ground to see without the use of steps. I mean, bags of silica gel? come on.

What you need to look at closely is that, had this happened a very short time later, the outcome would almost certainly have been much much worse. The loss of two engines after V2 or rotate simply doesn't bear thinking about.

FOD ingestion, of this type, IS preventable and IS detectable. The fact that it wasn't detected and/or prevented speaks volumes about the working practices of TVOC or maybe lack of and I fear it may spell the end for the project.

Winco

[Exrigger]

Winco, thank you for your response. I am only pointing out that in this day and age within the aircraft industry/miltary there is a system that is called the Safety Management System which includes Human Factors and is what the MAA & CAA are supposed to instruct is integral to the industry to find out what went wrong and put it right, if that turns out to be negligence/incompetance then this will be addressed in the appropriate way and you are right the CAA will be very interested and will more than likely be closely involved in their process for the investigation, also you are correct it could have had an absolutely catastrophic outcome and I have written nothing to play it down or make light of the issue (as I don't where I work).

[billynospares]

Why was there not an open entry on a job card to remove the bags ? Standard practice where I work when any engine preservation carried out !

[Exrigger]

I am sure the investigation will ask and answer that and other questions raised here and elsewhere and even if someone is culpable at the end of it all, if these safety gates are not already in place they soon will be, even if it turns out that 558 won't require them, but somewhere else might learn something from the final outcome.

[Winco]

Exrigger

I hope you don't think I was gloating at all about this because I am not at all. Despite my concerns over Pleming's ability to run this show, it is truly great to see a Vulcan back in the skies.

I don't however, think the incident can be played down in any way, shape or form. This was a very serious incident indeed and the CAA will look long and hard at the practices of TVOC or at least I hope they will.

It could so easily have ended in disaster, not only for the crew but for many others and that is my concern. There are very strict rules, regulations and procedures in place to prevent this very type of thing happening, and it does smack of negligence and/or incompetence that:

a) Something found its way into the intake in the first place and was left there.
b) As bns points out, there was NO open entry left in the F700 or whatever
c) The groundcrew who did the BF and the Aircrew who did the walk round both failed miserably to detect the bags of silica gel

My question for the team is, who is putting the aircraft to bed and leaving FOD down the intakes of all places? Do they know what they are doing and are they 'qualified' in any way?

I have been flying jet-engined aircraft for more years than I care to remember and I don't ever remember someone purposely leaving something in the engine intakes, it is crass stupidity.

[Sir Loin]

Not often that I agree entirely with Winco, but on this occasion I absolutely do.

Firstly, those silica bags were, and always have been an accident waiting to happen. Silica bags are used with good reason in engine storage, however, they are placed inside a sealed engine WVR bag within minutes of being removed from an oven, to ensure that they are free from moisture and able to soak up any errant humidity. The bags are fitted with moisture indicators to then show when they have served their purpose.

The bags in 558's intakes were not in a sealed environment at all, and consequently were most likely of little use within hours of their fitment. Were they controlled? Had they been oven dried and were moisture indicators fitted?

A good idea in basic principle, but in reality, little more than FOD after a day or two.

This was waiting to happen in my view, and the fact that they have been missed is scandalous. Anyone who has worked with and around aircraft constantly has the impact of FOD impressed upon them, and the steps taken to minimise any risks. This in my view is, as has been stated before, either incompetence in that a known and obvious FOD hazard was missed, or negligence in that the intakes were never checked in the first place, either way, it does nothing for my already low confidence in this outfit to maintain an aircraft in a safe and serviceable state...

[amberleaf]

As one of the many thousands of "ordinary" people that have invested their own money in this project, I am utterly dismayed that FOD ingestion through human error may prove to be the cause of this incident.

Given the precarious and capricious nature of a project that relies solely on voluntary contributions I would have thought that at the least, industry "best practices" would be adhered to and one would like to think that even more care than that was being taken to maximise the value of each private donation.

It will be a sad day if 558 fails as a result of this, but I for one will be following the progress of the investigation closely and considering if my money would be better spent elsewhere.

It would be good to see a Mosquito take to the skies again......

[ShyTorque]

It would be good to see a Mosquito take to the skies again......

You're OK there, one has just bitten my forearm, the first this year.

[fergineer]

So sad to hear about this on 558.....on the mossie side of things the one in NZ will be flying soon!!!!!

[Tankertrashnav]

As one whose experience of aircraft does not go much beyond sitting inside them and navigating, I have to confess that my knowledge of engines is scanty to say the least.

I have always been suprised at the different ways engines to react to fod ingestion. Here it would appear that the damage has been cause by silica gel bags. There is a well documented story of a Victor K1 (with Sapphires) completing a refuelling sortie after ingesting a number of seagulls during its night take-off, the crew being entirely unaware of the event until after landing. Here's the story

Bear Hunting - 2 - Tony Cunnane's Life and Times (http://www.tonycunnane.co.uk/bearhunting2.html)

I can only assume that the Olympus is more choosy about what it eats than the Sapphire!

[BEagle]

This was waiting to happen in my view, and the fact that they have been missed is scandalous. Anyone who has worked with and around aircraft constantly has the impact of FOD impressed upon them, and the steps taken to minimise any risks. This in my view is, as has been stated before, either incompetence in that a known and obvious FOD hazard was missed, or negligence in that the intakes were never checked in the first place, either way, it does nothing for my already low confidence in this outfit to maintain an aircraft in a safe and serviceable state...


Even the slightest hint of criticism evokes howls of derision from the neo-evangelical members of a certain website, who insist on describing '558 as 'Our Lady'....

Why was there not an open entry on a job card to remove the bags? Standard practice where I work when any engine preservation carried out!

A very good question.

[Gingie]

Another point worth mentioning, when is the airframe due to expire, i'm under the impression it could be next year?

[Vitesse]

Sorry to hear about 558's problems.

Just wondering if the silica gel in question may have been in place since the last flight with the engine covers in place?

As has been mentioned, they can't do much good in an open environment.

It'll be interesting to discover exactly what happened. Such a shame how this project seems to lurch from one problem to the next.

[srobarts]

Out of curiosity how many check lists would have been gone through before the flight. Common sense suggests that there should have been:

Coming out of storage checklist.
Engineers pre-flight check list.
Flight crew pre-flight walk around.

Would any of those also included a cross-check by someone who did not do the job - either by visually checking or counting Remove before flight tags and items not tagged but needing removal?

[Feathers McGraw]

Thinking about Tankertrashnav's comments, I wonder if it wasn't actually the ingestion of an intact silica gel bag that caused the initial problem. Looking at the video there is a lot of smoke from the exhausts before the bang is heard, and yes I accept that the sound takes time to travel but surely not long enough for there to be a huge cloud of smoke already hanging around behind the aircraft?

To me it suggests, in concert with the heat damage comments from TVOC, that somehow the gel was already in the engine that failed first and possibly blocked cooling passages and melted on to rotating parts causing them to fail. If No1 surged first, spat debris forwards far enough to be re-ingested into No2 intake then that would explain the damage sequence.

So maybe the problem is not that the bags were left in but possibly that one or more of them had ruptured and disgorged their contents in such a way that it was not easy to see nor obvious.

Speculation on my part I know, but the engineering team have been using the same procedures for some years so some benefit of the doubt over any negligence comments is surely due?

[srobarts]

Speculation on my part I know, but the engineering team have been using the same procedures for some years so some benefit of the doubt over any negligence comments is surely due?

Isn't it when people get over-familiar with the same procedures that mistakes happen? Perhaps people cut corners, perhaps check-lists get merged and critical items missed.

There was an air crash investigation documentary where the checklists overlapped two pages and one item was missed.

In my experience the attention to detail culture comes from the top of the organisation.

[Winco]

I suppose it begs the question 'what happened to the Silca bags that were put down 3 & 4 engine intake' assuming of course that you wouldn't try to protect the engines on one side without protecting the other, would you?

I think, with hindsight, that this was a very very lucky escape. I have thought long and hard about it and keep coming back to the same conclusion about what might have happened, and that would have been too dreadful to contemplate.

As BEagle states, the TVOC Mafia, are always keen to dismiss any critisism whenever it is spoken, but this is one incident that even they will struggle to argue against.

I am just glad that the incident happened where it did and when it did. A minute later (or maybe even less) and it would have been a disaster. I think the time has come to say a final goodbye to all those enthusiastic volunteers who are involved with the aircraft and its care. This is NOT a toy to be played with. It is a real-life flying machine and this has shown that it requires qualified people to look after it, maintain it, see it off and whatever. There is no place for a bunch of volunteers, irrespective of how enthusiastic they might be.

Winco

[Fox Four]

Feathers I’m confused as to why you keep ignoring the obvious. To suggest that desiccant possibly ‘spilled’ from one of the bags is ignoring the facts. Did you miss the statement on the website?

I quote ‘The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags.’

That’s bags, end of.

Although I am no way connected with the Vulcan, apart from a good few donations over the years, I can’t help thinking these comments re: amateurs are a little unfair. I think these chaps have done a remarkable job in returning 558 back to the sky. Convincing the Campaign Against Aviation it was possible must be worthy of some merit.

[Blacksheep]

times gone by and only remembering the good bits. There weren't many good bits to remember in No.1 Group back in the sixties. :(

[Blacksheep]

Perhaps that lack of scheduling has led to corners being cut, A bit like QRA, eh? :oh:

The standard AF/BF on A Vulcan included a Sooty wheeling a Giraffe round the pan and clambering into the intakes to take a shufti down the intake for nesting birds, skiving riggers etc. On QRA, when the aircraft stood around at combat readiness, it was part of the Daily. I wonder what schedule they're working to these days?

[hurn]

I think the time has come to say a final goodbye to all those enthusiastic volunteers who are involved with the aircraft and its care. This is NOT a toy to be played with. It is a real-life flying machine and this has shown that it requires qualified people to look after it, maintain it, see it off and whatever. There is no place for a bunch of volunteers, irrespective of how enthusiastic they might be.Winco.
There aren't any volunteers allowed to 'play' with anything. Do you really think the CAA would allow that for goodness sakes? :ugh:

The engineers who look after XH558 are full time professional people, all with years of working previously in the RAF. Not quite the bunch of amateur mugs some people here seem to think.

[Winco]

hurn,

I have no idea about those who are tinkering with her, so I can't really comment. However, I suspect that a great many unqualified amateurs are involved in the maintaining of 558, and that is NOT a problem at all.

What is a problem is that if what you are stating is that the 'see off' team were a bunch of professional, qualified tradesmen, then that's even more worrying, for all concerned I would suggest.

The one slight glimmer of hope in all of this, was that perhaps an enthusiastic 'amateur' was responsible for missing something so blatantly obvious as bags of silica down the intakes! If what you are saying is correct, then that is clearly a major worry and concern.

I'm even less impressed with 'the team' now, who are clearly responsible for this totally preventable and hugely costly incident.

[JW411]

I cannot believe that this has happened. It could well be the end of XH558 and, if it is, what a bloody stupid way to go.

I never flew the Vulcan but I would imagine that it would be very difficult for a pilot (or engineer) making a pre-flight inspection to note that someone had left a stack of silica gel bags well inside the intakes.

If you don't understand the problem then let me tell you that I flew the DC-10 for eight years and I never once went up on a cherry-picker to the height of 30 feet to look inside the intake of No.2 engine. Nor, to my certain knowledge, did any of my flight engineers.

However, there were sound procedures in force such that if anyone had ever been up there for whatever purpose, such an excursion was well documented and had to be signed off before flight.

It would seem that such a procedure was not in force with XH558.

I haven't seen the question posed as yet on this forum as to which "organisation" was actually responsible for dumping the silica gel bags into the intakes in the first intance.

It is my understanding that Marshall's of Cambridge have the design authority and also the maintenance contract for XH558?

Therefore, if it was one of their employees that left the bags in place, then there could be a very good case for seeking damages.

If it was some well-meaning volunteer, then XH558's future could well be in terminal decline.

Mind you, if the latter is indeed the case, then Marshall's have some embarrassing questions to answer about their maintenance oversight.

Finally, it would be interesting to know if one (or both) of the pilots worked for the CAA.

[hurn]

I have no idea about those who are tinkering with her, so I can't really comment.But you DID comment, and implied they were being run by enthusiastic volunteers. Now you're saying you have no idea who tinkers with her. Make your mind up! :ugh:

However, I suspect that a great many unqualified amateurs are involved in the maintaining of 558, and that is NOT a problem at all. So now it's not a problem? But before you said they need to stop using enthusiastic volunteers as it's not a toy. Then you say you have no idea who tinkers with it. Lordy! :ugh:

The only enthusiastic volunteers that get near the aircraft are a few people who are invited to polish the aircraft now and again a few days before displays, and they're properly supervised. They don't do any maintenance, just polishing.
As I've said, the engineering team are full time professionals with backgrounds in the RAF.

What is a problem is that if what you are stating is that the 'see off' team were a bunch of professional, qualified tradesmen, then that's even more worrying, for all concerned I would suggest.Professional people can still make mistakes. It shouldn't have happened but it did, and there'll no doubt be an investigation by the relevant authorities.
I can't comment on what the outcome might be though.

I'm even less impressed with 'the team' now, who are clearly responsible for this totally preventable and hugely costly incident.Well it's lucky for you that the hugely costly incident wont cost you a penny then isn't it. :ok:

[whitworth]

JW411

The 'organisation' responsible is, purely and simply, TVOC!

Having recently spoken to a former colleague, I can categorically state that there has been no MA maintenance involvement since the release to service from the 2011/2012 maintenance. MA are the engineering authority. Apparently, they still have the relevant M5 approval, but it is laying dormant.

No get out of jail free card there!

It would also appear that the errant silica gel bag(s) hid from not one person but two! The person signing for the BF and the person signing for the ASC checks.

Winco, amongst others, has alluded to incompetence and/or negligence and amatuerism...I have to say I concur and have said as much on another forum.

This will now, undoubtedly, provoke another diatribe against me, as on the other forum...c'est la vie. The truth is often less palatable!

[BEagle]

A similar conversation I had recently at the V-force reunion was equally concerning.

Unfortunately the members of another forum cannot seem to get their heads around basic engineering management practices or even accept that negligence might have played a part in the entirely avoidable destruction of two irreplaceable engines. "Never mind, we all make mistakes" seems adequate for them - those who look after 'Our Lady' can do no wrong in their eyes...

The truth may indeed be less palatable.

[Harley Quinn]

This was waiting to happen in my view, and the fact that they have been missed is scandalous. Anyone who has worked with and around aircraft constantly has the impact of FOD impressed upon them, and the steps taken to minimise any risks. This in my view is, as has been stated before, either incompetence in that a known and obvious FOD hazard was missed, or negligence in that the intakes were never checked in the first place, either way, it does nothing for my already low confidence in this outfit to maintain an aircraft in a safe and serviceable state...

Winco, amongst others, has alluded to incompetence and/or negligence and amatuerism...I have to say I concur and have said as much on another forum.

Well now how does the 'just culture' fit in here?

Let all the facts come out before speculating.

[JW411]

whitworth:

"MA are the engineering authority".

I rest my case.

Are you trying to tell me that the CAA have allowed the maintenance of XH558 (actually G-VLCN) to transfer from Marshalls to TVOC?

Knowing the CAA like I do, I find that very hard to believe.

If that is indeed the situation, why have we not been informed that MA are no longer involved?

I would still like to know how many CAA pilots were involved.

[Tankertrashnav]

Slight thread drift, but Tony Cunnane has contacted me to tell me he has had over 600 hits on the Victor birdstrike story on his website this afternoon, which mystified him at first until he traced them back to my link on post 51.

The power of PPRuNe !

[whitworth]

JW411

And which case would that be?

MA -E4 Engineering Authority
TVOC - M5 maintenance.

That's it. And that's exactly what I'm telling you...TVOC perform the maintenance NOT MA. I would suggest you re-think your knowledge of the CAA.

As to why this hasn't been widely broadcast, you will need to take it up with TVOC.

I believe the crew on the day was Martin Withers and Phil O'Dell, who, by the way performed perfectly. (Crew details from TVOC website). Neither, I believe, is connected with the CAA.

[Feathers McGraw]

Fox Four

I'm not ignoring anything obvious, I was trying to formulate a suggestion as to how the silica gel bags could have been missed by anyone inspecting the aircraft before flight. If someone has to remove the intake blanks then they will be in the ideal position to check for other items such as the bag bandoliers, they can't be that hard to see.

I realise that the TVOC statement mentions ingestion of _bags_, but what I'm not following is how, given that the ingestion occurred as the engines spooled up to take-off thrust, they managed not to be ingested at engine start but were simultaneously not visible because to not be ingested at that stage they must have been attached to something at the engine face. Even at idle the forces on something that size must be pretty considerable.

If it's as simple as "nobody looked" then that's the explanation, but removing the blanks implies that a pair of eyes was present in the correct position to be able to see and given that the people concerned are all experienced I find it surprising that they would fail to look.

I'll just shut up now....

[hurn]

If that is indeed the situation, why have we not been informed that MA are no longer involved?It HAS been mentioned on the VttS website and also in the weekly email newsletters.
Sure, they might not have announced it outside your house via a megaphone, but it's not like it been kept a secret.
Our team now have M5 accreditation from the CAA for ‘Maintenance to a Vulcan’ – probably the last people ever to win this prestigious certification! This means that we can approve all work that is described in the Vulcan technical documentation, only referring back to the design authority (Marshall Aerospace) when something out-of-the-ordinary is needed such as a modification.Vulcan To The Sky - Winter Service update (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/325/82/Winter-Service-update.html)

TVOC being able to carry out work themselves is a good thing. It lowers costs by keeping the work in house and means they aren't reliant of MA being available to sign work off.

[whitworth]

It would appear I have made a small error in my post regarding the last MA involvement (nuts well an truely chewed by former colleague!). The last MA maintenance involvement was the 2010/2011 winter maintenance.

It seems TVOC managed to go a whole season before writing off two, as BEagle correctly pointed out, irreplaceable engines!

He's surprised they managed that long. Unfortunately, he won't go into detail. Think I need to take him out for a beer or 10 :)

[whitworth]

TVOC being able to carry out work themselves is a good thing. It lowers costs by keeping the work in house and means they aren't reliant of MA being available to sign work off.

What's the cost of a couple of new donks, then, Hurn?

[hurn]

What's the cost of a couple of new donks, then, Hurn?
No idea, but how would MA doing the servicing have made any difference to the wrecking of the two engines then?

[whitworth]

I really don't know!

What I do know, the two engines wouldn't have been trashed by dessicant bags!

As has been said before, nobody is perfect, but this is, in all honesty, outrageous. Two people missed the dessicant bags. :=

Systemic failure, lackadaisical attitude or simple error? That's for the investigators to determine.

I've posted my thoughts here and elsewhere, I'm not repeating myself

[Winco]

Hurn
You just don't get it do you?
Apart from the cost of two engines, it could have cost the lives of three aircrew! Grow up man and open your bl00dy eyes. This isn't a trivial thing, this serious stuff man! It's not just a simple mistake like you say!!

[hurn]

What I do know, the two engines wouldn't have been trashed by dessicant bags!
How so? As far as I'm aware MA didn't see the aircraft off. That was always left to the tvoc groundcrew, so any silicon bags would still be there regardless.
The only way I can see your argument being valid is if you know that MA would never have allowed dessicant bags in the first place. Is that what you're implying?

Winco, please don't try and patronise me just because I pulled you up for talking complete bollocks. I'm fully aware of what might have happened but unlike you I don't go getting all outraged about it. You only appear from the woodwork to slag off tvoc anyway so just leave the debate to the grown ups, there's a good chap. :ok:

[wiggy]

As non-Vulcan person :\ following this sad incident with interest can I ask does anybody know how big these bags would have been?

[Old Speckled Aircrew]

Wiggy

Allegedly the bags are pictured here:
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09 (http://www.iconicaircraft.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66729#p65377)
Not particularly small items.

[whitworth]

Hurn

Let me try to educate you. It is irrelevant who saw the aircraft off. The prep work is done well beforehand, by those doing the Before Flight service. This is when the dessicant bags would/should have been removed. Oh yeah, and certified as removed, as part of the aforementioned Before Flight.

This is the failure area, not the seeing of of the aircraft

[hurn]

OK then, before flight service. Were MA doing that in 2011 or the TVOC groundcrew?

I'm not here trying to defend tvoc, but establish whether in fact it would have made any difference had MA been in charge of servicing this year.

As far as I was aware, MA did the winter services back then, but once that was done then TVOC's engineers ran the show unless any major problems occurred. I know they hired an MA guy to be part of the groundcrew for a year or so, but I think that was to sign off any repair work they needed doing urgently.

If MA were responsible for the BF the last few years then I can see your point, but if not I don't see how the outcome would have been any different.

[Fris B. Fairing]

Allegedly the bags are pictured here:
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09
Not particularly small items.

That big blue bag must have held 100kg of the stuff!

[Winco]

hurn,
It always makes me laugh when people like you, who are clearly out of their depth, resort to personal attacks on others. It is a clear indication that you are wrong and you cannot sustain your pathetic argument in support of TVOC. You even sound like them!

Re your comment below:

'TVOC being able to carry out work themselves is a good thing. It lowers costs by keeping the work in house and means they aren't reliant of MA being available to sign work off'

That pretty much sums it up, especially the very last bit about things not having to be signed off! hmmmm, says it all really.

Oh dear, the CAA are going to love this!

[Blacksheep]

It would seem that such a procedure was not in force with XH558.If they are using the original maintenance procedures - as they should be - the pre-flight inspection (in common parlance a BF) includes a visual check of the engine intakes. The engine fitter doing the BF would wheel a servicing platform round the aircraft so he could see down there. He would commonly get one of the other ground crew to assist him with this, but he could do it on his own if necessary. Incidentally, during my time in aviation maintenance (a mere forty six years) I have never encountered any practice for leaving anything in the engine intakes other than intake blanks. I'm puzzled as to what benefit these silica gel bags were supposed to provide?

[BEagle]

Although individuals occasionally suffer from human error, the whole purpose of job cards, oversignatures and the supervisory system is to ensure that no single person's error can lead to a catastrophic failure.

This is true no matter which organisation prepares the aircraft for service.

However, in this incident the system appears to have broken down, leading to the destruction of two irreplaceable engines.

To dismiss this incident as 'someone made a mistake' is unacceptable. If the crew landed the aircraft wheels-up because 'someone made a mistake', would the same people be equally dismissive?

I've been a flying supervisor and flight safety officer in my time and am frankly astonished at the naive attitudes displayed by some on various websites discussing this incident.

In 10000 hrs of flying I always had full trust in RAF engineering supervisory processes. They may have been time-consuming on occasion, but were always safe.

Those who support the aircraft financially,if they are to continue their support, may reasonably require adequate assurance from the investigation that the cause of this incident has been clearly identified and appropriate action taken.

[hurn]

MorningWinco. Still outraged I see. :ok:

I'm having a civil conversation with Whitworth about procedures and asking questions if that's all right with you, like grown ups do on forums.
At least I ask questions though, rather than just ranting on about things like 'enthusiastic volunteers' as though they are fact.

Now I'd be grateful if you left us to it old bean, many thanks. :ok:

The question still stands though Whitworth. Prior to this season were MA responsible for the before flight services?

[srobarts]

I notice from GINFO that the permit to fly renewal application was received by the CAA on 25/05/12 with an expected processing date of 31/05/2012. Not the best timing!

[His dudeness]

As has been said before, nobody is perfect, but this is, in all honesty, outrageous. Two people missed the dessicant bags.

Many moons ago I knew a crew that readied a KingAir 200. The dude working the R/H side 'missed' the air intake cover. The covers were kept in a large bag.
The crew departed onto a checkride and nothing was amiss, no indications of the abnormal sort. Immediately after the checkride I was to take the airplane for a flight, on the walk around I spotted red colour in the air intake. The cover (basically a piece of foam covered in red PVC) was sitting all the way down the air intake right in front of the oil cooler...(reverse airflow, the PT6 is best, f... the rest :-) )

From then on only one person would collect the stuff and the other crew member had to count them. 2 pitot covers, 2 heat exchanger covers, 2 air intake covers, 2 gen cooling air intake covers and 2 prop holders. 10 items or we don`t fly.

Bottom line: mistakes/errors/mishaps happen, learn from it, move on and everything is fine.

And IMHO, the types that brag about that these things never happen to them are the most dangerous...

[Winco]

Morning hurn,

still got your head up your ar$e I see??

Instead of me wasting my valuable time trying to explain the simple things in the aviation world to you like deliberately leaving FOD down Jet engine intakes, I'll leave it to BEagle who always manages to put it far better than I do.

But one last question if I may....
You are clearly 'in the know' about who is (and who isn't) responsible for the servicing and maintenance of 558. So, would you care to tell us all here just exactly what 'qualifications' these people, who did the BF and see of, have please? I don't want any names, I just to know what civilian, legal qualifications you claim that they ALL have to work on this aircraft?

Standing bye............................................

[Agaricus bisporus]

Whatever the reasons behind this there is one, and only one overriding error, one of the most basic, fundamental and important principles of Airmanship.

The preflight inspection was NOT conducted properly. That's all there is to it.

How anyone can launch into the luft without having examined the intakes, or had them examined by someone else is simply beyond belief.

It matters not whether pilots or engineers do this, the fact is that it wasn't done, and if you employ such a bizarre practice as deliberately leaving fod in the intakes how can there not be a) an accounting process to ensure ensure it is removed pre-flight, and b) an additional specific and independent procedure to verify the fod is removed before flight in addition to any normal preflight inspection.

[Blacksheep]

It matters not whether pilots or engineers do this,In fact, both are required to do this prior to any flight. The maintenance engineer signs in the Tech Log (F700 in the RAF) for completing a Before Flight Inspection and the aircrew sign to accept the aircraft as fit for flight after performing a walk round.

[hurn]

MA had NO maintenence input, post the 2010/2011 winter service.

Prior to this, the MA guys where responsible not only for the pre-flight certification but the PMR release, too.Thanks. So tvoc have been going it alone for about a year then. I wonder what the CAA will make of it going forward.

Winco, I don't personally know any of the tvoc team or what their particular civvy qualifications are, BUT the people who count do, and that's the CAA.

If tvoc are maintaining the Vulcan without the aid of MA, then you can be damn sure it's with CAA approval and that they've got the right qualifications in place to do it.
The CAA certainly wouldn't let a bunch of 'enthusiastic volunteers' as you put it, loose on what is deemed a complex aircraft. You don't have to be 'in the know' to understand this.

There's some information on the groundcrew and their backgrounds here: 2011 Ground Team | Vulcan To The Sky (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/faq-contact/2011-ground-team.html) if you're interested enough to look.

[deltapapa]

According to one of the FAQs they guys have done a 12 week training course

extract....

There are significant barriers to using voluntary help with engineering activities on the aircraft itself, including the need to go though our 12-week Vulcan technical training path leading to technical qualification,

I think this was with MA but not sure.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The standard AF/BF on A Vulcan included a Sooty wheeling a Giraffe round the pan and clambering into the intakes to take a shufti down the intake for nesting birds, skiving riggers etc.

Which clearly didn't happen, and that's just an unbelievable omission.

But as someone else has said, what happened to the fod in the other two engines? How can that be explained, and a procedure of that importance that is only partially completed is probably a far more serious failure than one that was just honestly omitted.

I expect this will give the CAA a serious cold over the entire engineering and management integrity of this project. What else is being forgotten? It will take many months of trawling to find out and I think we all know what that means, even if no further bollixes are found...

[His dudeness]

But, it matters not how many procedures are in place if people choose to ignore them.

Whitworth, to me the answer - and I might be totally wrong cause I really don´t know to much how this happened - is: less procedures.

But procedures one can easily follow.

Now the only thing that remains to be done is to check how this happenend.

Whos attention was lost for what reason? If they know that, they can work on it. IF it just was a f... up, well then someone needs to get the boot. IF someone deliberately did not follow procedures...likewise.

Its not the end of all times and I just feel sorry for the guys that devoted a lot to this project and the people who gave a lot of money.

Still, we are humans and I personally refuse to think someone did that deliberately. I have made stupid errors myself. I was lucky enough none led to something as expensive as this one and I managed not to do the same cock-up twice, still....

[Old Speckled Aircrew]

Does anyone know if any silica bags were fitted to the starboard side in 3&4 engine intake and if so did they get removed or found after the incident without causing damage to said engines?

I see a similar question posed above, so must remember to update page before posting in future.

[hurn]

The latest VttS newsletter has winged it way into my inbox and can be viewed online here: Vulcan to the Sky Newsletter (http://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/wlnk/c/1216/r/16346/e/382)

One point that stood out was this: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch has confirmed that, as the damage to the engines was contained, the incident is not reportable to them.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch has confirmed that, as the damage to the engines was contained, the incident is not reportable to them.

I always understood that flight (for accident purposes) began when an aircraft first moved with the intention of taking off and ended when it first came to a complete halt after landing - but maybe I'm out of date.

So I find this amazing - am I alone?

[srobarts]

The definitions of accident and serious incident are here:
Air Accidents Investigation: Definition of Accident and Serious Incident (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/reporting_an_accident/definition_of_accident_and_serious_incident.cfm)
My reading of this would regard it as a serious incident from the way the state of the engines have been described.

[srobarts]

Accident:
It does not include engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories

Serious incident:
Aircraft structural failure or engine disintegration which is not classified as an accident.

As I understand it there was engine disintegration.

The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags. The most likely sequence of events was that material was ingested by No.1 engine, which surged and suffered LP compressor blade failure. Debris was then sucked into No. 2 which then also failed.

Is that not disintegration?

I should perhaps also add:

"Serious Incident" means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Had the problem shown itself a minute or two later the outcome could have been very different.

[Shell Management]

Which clearly didn't happen, and that's just an unbelievable omission.

But as someone else has said, what happened to the fod in the other two engines? How can that be explained, and a procedure of that importance that is only partially completed is probably a far more serious failure than one that was just honestly omitted.

I expect this will give the CAA a serious cold over the entire engineering and management integrity of this project. What else is being forgotten? It will take many months of trawling to find out and I think we all know what that means, even if no further bollixes are found...

Clearly there is a need for some decent compliance monitoring.

They seem to have enougth money to buy in an expert in compliance monitoring.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478253-diamond-jubilee-vulcan-flying-3.html#post7219924

[jindabyne]

Pragmatism might indicate that it's time to draw a line under the project. I have always been a wary supporter of the project thus far, and raised not insignificant monies for the TVOC, but this event highlights the fact that what used to be a military operation, handled with the commensurate procedures of the day, was always to be a potentially precarious venture in an 'airshow' environment. It was a fine and inspired venture, gave pleasure to many thousands, but I wouldn't want to se it being dragged back for a few more displays, at great expense and effort, only to suffer some other unpredicatable, ignominious and crippling event. It has been a truly laudable but perhaps an inevitably flawed exercise, and now it's reached the point, has it not, to quit whilst the memories are good?

[PPRuNe Pop]

There is no doubt that a seriously significant postmortem will be conducted and it serves no purpose here for anyone to assume ANYTHING. This is a huge setback for 558. An issue such as this is therefore massive. Decisions as to what happens next and how much it will cost is a matter to follow but not to speculate upon.

I strongly suggest that facts, and ONLY facts, are now discussed without recourse to silly and unfounded posts.

[GAZIN]

srobarts
The engine did not disintegrate without good reason, it suffered damage from an identified foreign object, whilst the aircraft was on the ground.
To me it clearly falls into the first category that you quote in your post.

[srobarts]

There is no doubt that a seriously significant postmortem will be conducted
PprunePop, by whom will the postmortem be conducted? If TVOC have convinced the AAIB that this is not a serious incident or accident and doesn't need to be reported who will determine the truth?

[srobarts]

Gazin you are quite correct, it didn't fall into the first category of an accident.
However in my view it did fall into the category of a serious incident.

[Winco]

I guess that to the letter of the law, the AAIB did not get involved because what happened didn't tick any of the boxes as an accident. It did however tick every box for a very serious incident, and calls for the CAA to be (heavily) involved I would suggest. Two different organisations with very different remits.

The CAA are not fools, and I have no doubt they they will study long and hard the catalogue of events leading up to this costly mistake, and I cannot see them allowing an aircraft, whose primary role is to entertain the public at airshows, to continue in the culture and manner to which it has been.

The incident itself and the subsequent statements from TVOC raise even more questions than they answer and with the CAA's primary remit being one of public safety, the future of the project, I think, looks pretty bleak at best.

hurn
I looked at the list of so-called groundcrew as you suggested. I think if I had been you, I might have kept that to myself. I personally don't regard suppliers, IT staff, Logistics staff et al as groundcrew at all I'm afraid, but I will let the others on this forum make their own judgement. The real groundcrew are the likes of Taff Stone, and they don't appear to be in abundance on your list do they?

His dudeness
Sir, this is a monumental f***up, as you put it, on so many levels, not just a single person;

1. Putting a known FOD hazard in (at least one) engine intake
2. Not leaving an open entry in the F700 pointing out 1) above
3. If there was an open entry, then not clearing that prior to departure
4. Incorrect pre flight inspection by groundcrew and aircrew
5. Lack of supervision of ALL of the above
the list goes on and on and displays systematic failures virtually at all levels of the project.

Whilst I hate to say it, I think jindabyne may be right in his suggestion to call it a day. If this had happened at an airshow, God only knows what we would be discussing here now.

[Dr Jekyll]

The CAA have been looking closely at this project for nearly 20 years, if they felt the ground crew were insuficiently qualified surely they would have said so by now.

[hurn]

I looked at the list of so-called groundcrew as you suggested. I think if I had been you, I might have kept that to myself. I personally don't regard suppliers, IT staff, Logistics staff et al as groundcrew at all I'm afraid, but I will let the others on this forum make their own judgement. The real groundcrew are the likes of Taff Stone, and they don't appear to be in abundance on your list do they?Why on earth would I want to keep that list to myself? It's there in the public domain on the Tvoc website for all to see.
You seem to be selectively picking out certain sections and ignoring the obvious, which are the six names under Taff Stone.
You say the CAA are no fools, so why do you still seem to think they'd allow any old jack to work on the aircraft?
The people listed may not be good enough in your eyes for the job, but obviously the people who matter, the CAA, think they are. Whether that is still the case, time will tell.

[avturboy]

I've worked in aviation on civvy street for 20 years, so no experience of military flight ops.

I have a couple questions which I would be interested to hear the answers to.

When the Vulcan was in service were the silica gel bags used?

If yes, were there any reported incidents of this nature?

Are there any other aircraft types which require the use of silica gel bags in the engine intakes?

Again, if yes, any knowledge of similar incidents?

[Jhieminga]

Just to add my 2 cents:
- engine disintegration is when the structural integration of the engine is compromised, for example when discs or the casing become heavily damaged.
- Blade failure is when one or more blades are compromised, i.e. snapped off, heavily damaged etc.

The statement that the failure was contained is important here as that means that although several blades were damaged, probably beyond repair, no blades or other items left the engine by any other path than the normal airflow path. In such a case the engine may still be knackered but the CAA sees no reason to investigate as the safety of the aircraft wasn't compromised by this. Keep in mind that an engine failure is something that can be reasonably expected in day to day operations, and is taken into account.

[srobarts]

The statement that the failure was contained is important here as that means that although several blades were damaged, probably beyond repair, no blades or other items left the engine by any other path than the normal airflow path.
Jhieminga, I understand your point here. But the fact that debris from the first engine failure went on to cause the second engine to fail in my view makes it more than just an engine failure. The consequences of a double engine failure in the climb-out, if the failure had occurred after take-off, is quite frightening.
I was an undergraduate apprentice at R-R at the end of the sixties. One of my summer vacations was spent in the drawing office at Parkside in a team which amongst other things had to review parts that had been manufactured outside specification to determine if they still could be used. One of the engines was the Olympus for the Vulcan. There was sensitivity about certain parts as it was known then that failure could lead to taking out the other engine in the bay.

[BEagle]

If one engine fails in Vulcan, the assumption was always that the adjacent engine would probably be damaged through debris ingestion.

The aircraft has ample power to cope with a double failure from decision speed even at high AUW. When airborne, full rudder with 5º AoB is sufficient to maintain a steady departure heading, then the landing gear is raised and the RAT deployed. Once Initial Climb Speed has been acheived, bank can be relaxed to about 2º and the aircraft can be accelerated to Pattern Speed, only 93% RPM is required to obtain around 1500 ft/min climb rate. Up to 25º AoB is easily available, but above 195000 lb AUW only 15º should be used.

When level, various FRC actions are conducted, but the aircraft flies quite happily with only 80% RPM on 2 engines.

On the approach, landing gear is selected down, and mid-drag airbrake extended. Only about 75% RPM is needed to maintain speed at around Approach Speed and the aircraft handles in a very benign manner.

So, losing 2 engines at the very light weights at which 558 operates is very unlikely to cause any handling problems whatsoever to a Vulcan pilot. All the flyiing controls will remain powered and the only hydraulic services required are those to lower the landing gear, power the wheelbrakes...and open the AAPP intake scoop ;) GSU!

We used to practise DEFATOs on virtually every trip at much heavier weights than those at which 558 now flies.

[KING6024]

The Hairy Moments page in a recent Aeroplane Magazine describes graphically a fully loaded Vulcan losing a pair of engines on take off,a bird strike I think.
Colin.

[srobarts]

BEagle, thank you for that very clear explanation. Much appreciated.

[avturboy]

In general my thoughts follow the likes of BEagle ...

I work in the fuelling business ... myself and folks I work with have written acknowledgement of incidents which have escaped the attention of both pilot and engineering professionals during their pre-flights and which have been observed by fuelling operatives .... undercarriage pins left in ... damaged tyres ... fuel system leaks ... airframe hull damage ... aircraft arriving with way less than minimum fuel .. to name but a few ... yes even the highly paid professionals make mistakes ...

The Vulcan incident is shocking beyond belief and is of great concern .... but you know it might not be as isolated as you might want to think ...

[quadradar]

Unbloodybelieveable .......:ugh:

[Jhieminga]

The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags. The most likely sequence of events was that material was ingested by No.1 engine, which surged and suffered LP compressor blade failure. Debris was then sucked into No. 2 which then also failed.That's from the statement by the VTOC.

Jhieminga, I understand your point here. But the fact that debris from the first engine failure went on to cause the second engine to fail in my view makes it more than just an engine failure.
From the first quote I read that the no.1 engine surged, now when an engine does this it basically spits out huge amounts of air and in this case it included a few compressor blades for good measure. This travelled back up the intake and these bits where then ingested by no.2 engine. This is a pretty normal event for engines which are installed closely next to each other. It is something which we are not used to anymore as these engine installations don't occur anymore on the current Boeing/Airbus fleets. BEagle already explained that double engine failures were catered for in the training programme.

So in my view this was still a 'normal' engine failure with the sad outcome that it caused two engines to end up as scrap metal. All the bits traveled through the normal gas path, albeit in the wrong direction, but that still makes it a contained failure. We have to keep in mind that what we find 'normal' these days is not the same as what was 'normal' in the days when the Vulcan was designed.

[ZH875]

IIRC, IX Sqn had a double engine problem in the early 80's, the fire panel on the port side of the nose opened on the take off run, and a fire glove was ingested by (probably) No2 engine which promptly damaged itself and spat out the offending detritus which was ingested by No1 engine, this then gave a hissy fit and made a mess of itself. End result, aborted take off, crew safe, 2 engine changes required. Nothing unusual, nothing the crew could not handle.

[DaveReidUK]

I think that the majority of those posting their speculative rubbish on here are the ones who have spent large amounts of money to help get 558 in to the air again.

All that really remains is for the reason to found why FOD was left in the intakes, and then for the company to modify their operating procedures.

Oh, and an apology to aforesaid contributors for p*ssing away around £½million of their hard-earned dosh in an act of unbelievable carelessness.

[amberleaf]

Above the Clouds
Agreed but there is no point in people venting their spline and feeding the authorities by posting all sorts of spectculative crap at those involved with the project, this event is no different to any other walk of life:-

Big Boys Toys = Big Bills if you cannot afford the tyres then dont get involved, aeroplanes, race cars, race boats you name it they are all the same, sh1t happens and it rolls down hill.With respect, what a load of utter garbage. People like me have not contributed our hard earned cash to this project in order to win a jolly in XH558, like buying a track day round Brands Hatch for instance. We have donated for entirely altruistic reasons, to keep a precious relic in the air for as long as possible.

But someone has screwed up and wasted our money and we are entitled to be angry about it. Furthermore we are perfectly entitled to express our anger and disappointment on this and other forums; we've paid to do it.

DaveReidUK is right to expect an apology from VTTS - and so do I.

[EGCA]

Surely in a situation like this, (allegedly) missing something during the pre-flight checks, you try and ensure "human error" is minimised. In layman's terms that means something left in an engine intake has a long cord attached, with a large red warning sign on the end: "Remove before engine start" which dangles well out of the intake and is very difficult to miss on even a basic walk-round.

Or is the layman being too simplistic? I dont think so.

EGCA

[eagle 86]

I grew up in the fifties/sixties when a lot of today's "warbirds" were in frontline service being serviced and flown by people very "current" and there were still many incidents/accidents. Without inflaming the debate what is the experience of those involved in this project? A search of other forums will reveal an enthusiastic warbirder involved in an accident where he and his pax lost their lives when he took to the air allegedly after his licence had been cancelled by the authorities for a number of previous violations.
I was first on scene in an EMS helicopter after a Strikemaster suffered an in flight structural failure - two dead. The coronial inquiry has turned over a number of rocks with the usual results. My advice at the time, when interviewed on national TV, to any of my family/friends was not to fly in warbirds.
GAGS
E86

[Kitbag]

amberleaf et al, yours is the last post to make it clear you are angry and resentful about this event as are many others. I would point out that lashing out in anger now will see the project finished and then your donations will really be down the drain.
I very much doubt that any member of that team went in that morning thinking 'I know how to screw the project, I'll omit to do ...'
If an error was made, then we should be looking at why it was made; that will then lead to measures to reduce the likelihood of recurrence, eg follow the suggestion by EGCA.
If any member on this forum can honestly deny that they have an 'I learnt about flying/engineering from that' story then they very probably don't fly or maintain aircraft.

[BEagle]

If any member on this forum can honestly deny that they have an 'I learnt about flying/engineering from that' story then they very probably don't fly or maintain aircraft.

While I agree that human error is always a risk, it is the scale of the error and the evident failure of the associated supervisory system which is the point here.

For 2 irreplaceable engines to be destroyed in the way they were is far from a mere 'I learned about servicing from that' situation.

[longer ron]

Absolutely agree Beagle...If one decides to purposely leave FOD in ones intakes then one must have a physical 'independent' check prior to starting engines - purposely leaving FOD in intakes is a very unusual procedure and therefore open to criticism if things go pear shaped !

rgds LR

[jindabyne]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'purposely'!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'purposely'!


They are. Those bags didn't get placed in the intakes by accident; they were deliberately placed there. Having deliberately placed FOD in the intakes, one would think there'd be a backed up backup and primary and double checked procedure to ensure the FOD is removed before the aeroplane leaves the hangar.

Putting things in intakes, especially if they are out of sight unless you climb up and peer in, is fail-unsafe. At some point someone will forget to remove them; it's the human condition. Hence the need for some procedure to ensure that even in that event there is a process in place to ensure the presence of the FOD cannot be overlooked.

Of course the wisdom of deliberately placing fod in the intakes is very questionable for this very reason. Any benefit the silica gel brings surely ain't worth the risk that what did happen would happen.

[BEagle]

No, purposely placing the bags in the intake area for some specific-to-type preservation procedure is one thing (however misplaced), failing to develop and apply an associated pre-flight procedure for their safe removal is quite another.

I am 100% certain that no-one intended to leave the silica gel dessicant bags in such a hazardous area.

But was a safe pre-flight servicing schedule developed to accomodate the procedure? Well, that's an entirely different question....

[Dr Jekyll]

A search of other forums will reveal an enthusiastic warbirder involved in an accident where he and his pax lost their lives when he took to the air allegedly after his licence had been cancelled by the authorities for a number of previous violations.


And the relevance to XH558 is?

[longer ron]

Yes to clarify my earlier post the bags were deliberately placed in the intakes to reduce moisture and therefore cut down on blade corrosion etc...please note ...I am not playing the blame game but it is a really unusual procedure and with very high intakes it is obviously difficult to check the intakes are clear.
With only a limited stock of spare engines - then a (stamped/signed for) independent check of the intakes would surely be a good common sense precaution !

rgds LR

[eagle 86]

Dr Jerkle,
Smart@rse reply not required - I am on the other side of the world and my peripheral experience of the warbird scene is that, to put it euphemistically, it is supported in the main by a lot of enthusiastic amateurs, some who believe they are a law unto their own. I say again what is the core experience of those that maintain and fly this aircraft?
Once again thanks for your intelligent input Dr Jerkle.
GAGS
E86
The peripheral is close - a mate of mine, Navy A4 pilot of 30 years experience then QANTAS pilot and godfather of one of my daughters was killed along with a fare paying pax when the back end of the Mig 15 he was flying caught fire near Canberra airport in March '93.
GAGS

[deltapapa]

Eagle 86, As posted earlier in the thread this link gives the whole of the ground team - 6 out of the first 7 are the engineers and only those service the aircraft...

2011 Ground Team | Vulcan To The Sky (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/faq-contact/2011-ground-team.html)

As you can see they are all ex RAF aircraft trades and completed a 12 week technical course on the Vulcan before they get near 558.

[Kitbag]

It is obvious that there are two fairly well defined camps on here now and we seem to be moving towards thinly veiled insults. That is not neccesary; this incident will undoubtedly inform the CAA's view wrt operating complex aircraft (eg ex mil 3rd gen fast jets) even if they do not hold a formal investigation.

To try to keep this on track; there are some questions regarding 'amateurs' in the upkeep of XH558. What do you see as appropriate qualifications or experience to be part of this or any warbird project?

[longer ron]

Kitbag - from my point of view (I am an aircraft engineer) ...I do not think this incident has anything to do with the vulcan being a complex a/c.
It may be more to do with procedure(s),If I decided to leave some large bags in an a/c intake,common sense would tell me to (hate to use the expression !) do a 'risk assessment' - obviously the worst case would be if the bags were forgotten and left installed!
A procedure to ensure that worst case scenario did not happen would have to be implemented ... as I said previously this is a very unusual procedure,I have never seen anything like it in 40 odd years working on a/c.
I personally have found fod in an intake of an a/c which had not flown for about a week - in that time it had been signed as having 3 'after flights' which should have included intake/fan inspection.
As an aircraft techie (or even pilot) - distraction has to be guarded against at all times but the potential for it is always present unfortunately !

rgds LR

[Kitbag]

LR, point taken regarding aircraft complexity and this incident, and I wholly agree. I was trying to tease out where the limits are, and whether early jets compared to later jets may have different limits in terms of maintenance requirement.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Fact is there are just far too many holes lining up in this particular Swiss Cheese.

1) An apparently local procedure of dubious usefulness and high opportunity for hazard was instigated in the first place. The RAF never seemed to think it necessary so what do these people know that the crabs didn't?
2) Whatever accounting procedure - if any - that was in place to safeguard this procedure did not work.
3) Worse, it would seem whatever procedure was employed worked on three of the engines but not the fourth. This is a very serious anomaly indeed unless it was only one engine that needed/got the dessicant treatment which seems unlikely.
4) Additionally, very clearly the preflight inspection failed to be done correctly. That can be nothing but utterly inexcusable.

That's a chain with some very worrying and at present unexplained links. It does not smack of good practice on a number of levels to put it mildly and must lead one to wonder what else is being done as sloppily.

[Dak Mechanic]

They should have said it was a bird strike :p

S**t happens and I'm just glad it had a safe outcome. Actually, I would not have announced the cause until after a full investigation had been completed, just attributing the failure to FOD of an unknown nature until that time.

There is such a thing as being too open - the muck slinging has been far more detrimental than the engines crapping themselves IMHO.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Dak Quack, take a look at post 3 on page 1. I don't think they had much option. The only mitigating fact in this entire sorry saga is they fronted up with a frank (and damning) explanation right away. That at least was done in a professional manner.

[Rhinosteve]

I'll start with a confession or two. I have no inside knowledge or contacts, I am not from an aviation background and I have chipped in to help get and then keep 558 in the air.

That said I offer a few thoughts and observations that I would like to make. The first of which is to say that seeing and perhaps more importantly hearing the Vulcan at the shows I have managed to attend has been a real joy and something that I have been able to share with my son who was too young to see the final RAF display seasons. I congratulate and thank all that have made that possible.

My impression and again I stress no insider knowledge or contacts, is that the operations of TVOC are well run and I hope that they can get 558 back into the air.

I find the positions adopted by some contributors to this thread reactionary in the extreme. Conclusions drawn from supposition based on limited facts do not form a strong basis for a witch hunt. We have proper procedures administered by competent authorities, in place to examine what went wrong, who was responsible and what corrective action needs to be taken. I do not dispute that from what we know at present, something does appear to have gone wrong, but until the various investigations have been completed I think we should all hold off on the blame game. Especially when it involves throwing mud at an entire organisation.

This is not to suggest that I am not as baffled as everyone else as to how this could have happened or to deny the potentially serious nature of the incident.

I would also question whether "Volunteer" and "Competent" were mutually exclusive as appears to have been implied over the matter of who maintains the Vulcan.

Finally I think it is to the credit of TVOC that they quickly made a clear statement as to what they believed had happened and how it had been initiated. Hopefully they will continue to be as open as to the how the silica bag(s) came to be in the intake.

[jindabyne]

Jolly Good!

[srobarts]

Rhinosteve

I have no inside knowledge or contacts
Said twice so you obviously do.

Conclusions drawn from supposition based on limited facts do not form a strong basis
So how come you are so supportive of TVOC - oh I see, refer back to point one.

[Dak Mechanic]

I take your point Aggie Bipolar ;) but the statement on post 5 is where it should have ended until a full report is made at a later date, in the fullness of time after due consideration of the facts....... In other words when the majority of people had forgotten about it.

On the other hand I may have been in the Civil Service for too long!!

It's a PR disaster basically.

[Exrigger]

Dak Mechanic:

It's a PR disaster basically.

Not so sure about that, as the funding requirements prior to the incident was some £20,000 short by the time the deadline had been reached and post the incident an anonymous donator coughed up the shortfall and a bit extra and the core supporters are also re-donating to help with the additonal cost burden, if what I read around the forums is correct.

[deltapapa]

Not as much of a PR disaster to claim a bird strike and then have it come out it was FOD caused by human error!!

Now that would have been a disaster and the sooner the results of the inquiry are published the better!

[M100S2]

My impression and again I stress no insider knowledge or contacts, is that the operations of TVOC are well run Yes, so well run they stuff a random number of objects down the engine intakes and then forget to remove them. A simple basic check as drummed into student pilots in the first few hours of their training would have enabled this error to be detected, missing something that was put in there on purpose is inexcusable.

I think we should all hold off on the blame game. Especially when it involves throwing mud at an entire organisation Some would have issue with the use of the word 'organisation'

If it had been a simple but unavoidable bird strike then the subsequent loss of the engines would have been sad but paltatable, the fact it was self inflicted leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth and a bunch of cash that will now go to far more worthwhile causes.

[amberleaf]

With steady progress on reconnecting various systems to the replacement engines, there are only a few small tasks to perform before we can consider taking XH558 outside to the engine ground running pan to begin preparing her for engine start and ground running.

This will be undertaken in well-defined procedures to test all connections and ensure engine parameters are as expected, before the engines are run for some time, first at idling speed and then intermediate settings, during which we will undertake various inspections and measurements.

Providing all is well, and no further rectification work is needed, we then progress to high power runs.
And with any luck, someone will have a quick shufti down the intakes before they start........:ugh:

[Hasel Checks]

To even think of spooling up before a full inquiry has finished, AND proper checks, safeguards, and procedures are instituted, AND drummed into heads of all hands, is foolhardy. WAIT Gentlemen, just wait and think...

[BEagle]

Full power engine runs on the new engines have now been conducted. Some adjustment and minor rectification work is now needed before system tests are completed over the next few days.

Although we still await the incident report, the engineering work during this double engine change has progressed very well indeed.

[Groundloop]

To even think of spooling up before a full inquiry has finished, AND proper checks, safeguards, and procedures are instituted, AND drummed into heads of all hands, is foolhardy.

So by your reckoning, any time an airline has an incident then the entire airline should be grounded for days, weeks, months.....

[spekesoftly]

I notice from GINFO that the permit to fly renewal application was received by the CAA on 25/05/12 with an expected processing date of 31/05/2012. Not the best timing!

XH558's Permit to Fly has now been renewed by the CAA, and is valid from 1st July 2012 to 24 June 2013.

[Winco]

Hasel checks

I understand your concern but I don't think it's necessary to wait until the outcome of then inquiry is announced before proceeding with the work to get 558 back into the air. Airliners DO get grounded after an incident involving another of same type, but it's primarily to establish what went wrong. In the case of 558 this was established pretty quickly!

I am sure that a very costly lesson has been learned by everyone involved, from Pleming downwards, and I can't see it happening again. I am equally certain that a more 'formal' routine will be firmly in place to prevent the same occuring again. I just hope that the top management have leatrned their lesson though.

BEagle, do they do the old Slam checks still on 558? and is there any reason why the CAA awarded a 51 week P to F and not the full 52 weeks?

Hope to see her at RIAT maybe??

Winco

[Hasel Checks]

Groundloop: As has been pointed out, any responsible airline would certainly ground all of the same type involved until the cause is properly discerned, and permanently fixed, and measures taken to prevent a recurrence. To compare a government regulated airline with this group of self-regulating happy amateurs is a false comparison. As is perfectly obvious to any dispassionate observer. If they view themselves at the same level of professionalism as an airline they should hold themselves to the same standards.

[Hasel Checks]

Winco: I've read, and agree with, your previous comments in this thread, all except your last one. As a schoolboy, I rocked on my heels in awe as a Vulcan roared 200 feet above my head as we camped at the end of the runway at RAF Valley in the 1960s. I understand the thrill and eagerness to pass it on. But these people have shown themselves to be far from competent to manage a Vulcan safely. It simply is not enough to "hope they've learned their lesson", they clearly need to be disciplined and regulated by competent people. Unlike you, I can easily see this sort of thing happening again, if they are allowed to just potter on, and next time schoolboys underneath it may well perish. It's not worth the risk of letting the same people continue.

[bvcu]

i think to be fair the conditions they operate under with the CAA permit is probably stricter than an airline operation. with major commercial pressure these days, or operational pressure for the military guys how often these days does anything come to a grinding halt for a full investigation ? all rubberstamped by the authorities !! this sad incident was a simple error , similar ones happen regularly but avoid any damage to aircraft.

[bobward]

Just skimmed this before coming to work today, so apologies if I misquote. The way I read this, '558 will fly during 2012, then will probably be grounded, as they will not have any spare engines. Flypast were asking readers to vote on whther or not she should be kept able to taxi, or become a musem piece.

So the suggestion is, see it NOW or possibly miss it forever.:sad::8

[amberleaf]

bvcu wrote:

this sad incident was a simple error , similar ones happen regularly but avoid any damage to aircraft. Yes, a simple error, and for me that's what hurts.

Maybe it's jst me, but in a project entirely funded by public/private donations, shouldn't the check systems be as tight as tight can be to avoid unnecessary expenditure, like the replacement of 2 formerly perfectly serviceable engines? People make mistakes, of course they do, but this seems to me to be less forgivable than a similar screw up in, for instance, the commercial or military arenas.

And AFAIK, nobody has yet said sorry or showed any sign of contrition to the army of faithful donors out there.

[deltapapa]

So does this from the Newsletter 2 days after the incident not count?


"We are deeply sorry that this incident has happened, and at this time in 2012. The additional unplanned costs are clearly very worrying as resources are, as ever very tight" said the charity's chief executive, Dr. Robert Pleming. "We are actively working on a plan to recover our Jubilee season schedule and we will share this with you as soon as practical via the newsletter, Facebook page, Twitter feed and the web site."

With many thanks to all for continuing to support Vulcan XH558.

[hurn]

is there any reason why the CAA awarded a 51 week P to F and not the full 52 weeks?According to one of their engineers on the VttS forums 'they got the renewal in early' and it's valid from the date issued rather than from when it previously ends.

To compare a government regulated airline with this group of self-regulating happy amateurs is a false comparison.Oh here we go again. Why do people still seem to think they are self-regulating amateurs?
The aircraft is regarded as Complex by the CAA therefore it comes under all the rules and regs that that entails. The CAA just wouldn't let them fly otherwise.

I'm not making excuses for this balls up, but the AAIB aren't pursuing the matter and it doesn't seem like the CAA are grounding them pending an investigation. If the cool heads at the top are satisfied then that's that regardless of what anyone here thinks.

So the suggestion is, see it NOW or possibly miss it forever.Given all the funding and serviceability issues in the past I've treated every display I've seen since 2008 as though it could be the last.

[Groundloop]

Airliners DO get grounded after an incident involving another of same type

Groundloop: As has been pointed out, any responsible airline would certainly ground all of the same type involved until the cause is properly discerned, and permanently fixed, and measures taken to prevent a recurrence.

This virtually NEVER happens. Only in VERY extreme cases - eg. Concorde after Paris, DC-10 after Chicago (and then only in the US).

If is happened after every incident popular aircraft like the 737 and A320 would not fly very often!

[Winco]

Hasel Checks,

I very much take your point, and I hope you don't think I am going soft on the Vulcan management team, because I am not. I am quite comfortable to use the words 'Negligence' and 'Incompetence' when it comes to this incident. Of that there can be no doubt. And I stand by my comments concerning a very lucky escape and the very real possibility that this could have resulted in a fatal air crash. But I do believe that those responsible will have learned a lesson, and I hope (and I can only very much hope) that the good Dr P has finally used some of the management and leadership qualities he is famed for, to ensure that the correct procedures are now in place to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and also Joe Public.
I still don't understand the Permit length issue - as far as I am aware, a P to F lasts 1 year from date of issue.

Groundloop: It DOES happen in the airline industry after a major incident like this. Remember the BA 777? The difference here is that it was obvious within seconds what had happened and there was simply no need for an investigation into what the cause was.

hurn: The AAIB aren't pursuing it because it does not fall within their remit. It was NOT an accident and more importantly nobody was injured or killed. Whilst the CAA have not grounded 558, I am fairly certain that they will be taking a very close look at the operating procedures of TVOC.

bvcu: "the conditions they operate under with the CAA permit is probably stricter than an airline operation" Sir, that is so bizarre it's quite funny.

Winco

[bvcu]

Winco , ref BA 777 how many aircraft got grounded ? Some procedural changes until mods carried out eventually . My point re the strict permit operation is that an airline with its own engineering has its own QA system in house and runs itself subject to audits from relevant authorities. In my experience not closely monitored in reality. An operation like the Vulcan has a very limited permit and wont have much scope compared to a large approved organisation in theory.

[Groundloop]

Groundloop: It DOES happen in the airline industry after a major incident like this. Remember the BA 777?

What, were all 777s immediately grounded? An A340 mysteriously disappears in mid-Atlantic. Where all A340s immediately grounded?

[JEM60]

Didn't know Frogair had lost an A.340 in the Atlantic as well as a 330. Very careless of them don't you think?:)

[Groundloop]

Didn't know Frogair had lost an A.340 in the Atlantic as well as a 330. Very careless of them don't you think?

Oops, careless mistake. Better ground myself to investigate!

[Frankie B]

Canada's only Lancaster, belonging to the Hamilton Warplane Museum, was flying proudly as usual June 16 & 17 at the annual Hamilton Air Show. Sends shivers down my back every time I see it.

FB

[Cows getting bigger]

Ahhh, the Nuclear word. Of course that makes it even more dangerous, regardless of context. :)

[LookingNorth]

Yes, part of the approval process for getting a permit to fly is of course checking out what random anonymous people have posted on internet forums. I think it's on page 567, just after the section on consulting random people in SE Asia. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

You've obviously flown many nuclear bombers, Hasel. You sound like an expert of many years experience in these matters.

I'm sure the CAA are taking due note of your posts.

[hurn]

Wow, never thought I'd hear someone intimate that the CAA aren't strict enough. :p

[KING6024]

On a more positive note the engine changes and testing are complete and they are waiting for the results of a risk assessment so they can commence test flying,all being well XH558 should resume her display season at Fairford.
Colin.:D:ok:

[lakerman]

Sorry Groundloop, you were wrong about the DC10 as well.The world fleet was grounded for quite a while, not as long as in the US but they were grounded. I was working for Freddie Laker at the time and we were trying to run Skytrain with B707 and we did not have enough aircraft to cover a lot of our schedules.
This incodent was nowhere near being a fireball hole in the ground, having worked on Vulcans myself in the sixties, I am suprised they got as far as applying takeoff power before the engines coughed. Idle thrust was enough on the XM series to see water being lifted off the ground into the intakes. You never stood anywhere near an intake of a Vulcan if the engines were running.

[kiwibrit]

4) Additionally, very clearly the preflight inspection failed to be done correctly. That can be nothing but utterly inexcusable.

As a former Vulcan SEngO, that's how I see it, too.

[Hasel Checks]

Quote: 4) Additionally, very clearly the preflight inspection failed to be done correctly. That can be nothing but utterly inexcusable.As a former Vulcan SEngO, that's how I see it, too@Kiwibrit: Interesting mixture. I hope you got the best parts of each parent! :)

You're qualified to make such an assessment, as are many others here, who concur.

The irresponsible comments from those excusing the inexcusable confirm the judgement.

The dismissive attitude of the circus indicates they have not learned the lesson, and wish to press on with the "beer and bombers" culture that precipitated this shocking calamity.

The aircraft is innocent, the fault lies entirely with all the personnel involved.

[Agaricus bisporus]

No, buddy, no!

Not necessarily "all" the personnel involved, more all the personnel "involved" if you make the distinction.

The ultimate line of defence agains this sort of f***up is the walkaround. Regardless of what atrocities - and I use that word deliberately - were committed in engineering and control practices in the hangar beforehand the ultimate responsibility for the safe departure of any aircraft, balloon, microlight, helo orthe space shuttle itself is a thorough and punctilious walkaround.

Compounding the self evident shocking lapses in engineering controls that allowed this unbelievable occurrence to be set up in the first place is the clear, blatant and utterly unforgivable failure to carry out a competent walkaround. There can be no excuse for this whatsoever, absolutely none.

Someone (or two, or five) need/s to do the decent thing and fall on their sword/s. Or perhaps, under the circumstances, people need to be put to the sword which given the absence of honourable or Professional behaviour alluded to above is clearly necessary now.

Most unimpressed.

[Jambo Jet]

Bit of another Vulcan Incident that I know scared the pilot in this montage

Church Fenton Airshow July 1992 - YouTube

[Winco]

Agaricus bisporus

Amen to that Sir!

[deltapapa]

The aircrew can't see in the intakes so are they supposed to drag steps across the pan or should there be a cherry picker on hand?

They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?

Not having a go just wondered where the line is drawn.

[Winco]

dp

You are absolutely correct about the crew checking the intakes aswell as the point about when you take the word of the groundcrew, I couldn't agree more with you, and I do believe that it would be a fair assumption for the crew to make, in believing that the intakes had been checked for FOD. But, as we know, that wasn't the case, and I think both you and I agree that this was a very lucky escape for all concerned. Not least of all for the groundcrew who, had this incident ended much worse, could well have faced some very serious charges.

Of course, there is a very simple answer to all this - don't put anything,(ANYTHING AT ALL) down an engine intake. I have spoken to lots of engineers since this incident and not a single one of them has ever heard of placing silica or anything else down the intake of an aircraft, which brings me back to my original point some time ago ref 'enthusiastic amatuers'

[kiwibrit]

The aircrew can't see in the intakes so are they supposed to drag steps across the pan or should there be a cherry picker on hand?

They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?

Sorry, I don't inhabit this section of pprune much, and had assumed - wrongly, that language here was not that specific. So let me clarify. Clearly engine intakes must always be checked before start up. In the case of a flight, that means the engines must be checked pre flight. However, I agree that for the Vulcan, a signed up B/F used to suffice. That said, I remember one crew member who was meticulous on his walk round; it wouldn't have surprised me at all if I had seen him perched on a safety raiser, looking down an intake.

I promise to be more careful with my wording if I comment in AH&N again!

[hurn]

Sources are reporting that XH558 is airborne right now on an airtest and display practise. :ok:

[alC]

It flew over Scunthorpe 25 minutes ago.

[Chris_H81]

Flew over the end of my street in York bang on 1pm, heading West.

[Chris_H81]

...and again just now, towards Elvington

[hurn]

Tuesday's test flight went well and Vulcan is now airborne again for display practice. :ok:

[Dr Jekyll]

So what actually happened at Church Fenton?