Spotters do you mean? Are these not the very species that all this fuss/enthusiasm/money/hassle is aimed towards?
Probably not.
Spotters Spot, they don't do airshows as people get in the way. Some spotters do photoshoots and get irate if people are allowed on both sides of an aircraft as legs spoil the shot.
At the Waddo airshow they will park on the Harmston Road for the Gnd to Air shots and not pay a penny. Even object to buying a programme.
Then why are they investing all this time/effort/money/hassle to get this old aeroplane back in the sky? Who is it for? If you remove the legions of "idiots and their little aluminium step ladders", then it seems like a massive investment in time and money for ....who?
A question for the good Dr Plemming.......(although I don't expect a reply, but you never know) Sir, you say..........
VTS club members and friends (over 22,000 individual records) who would wish to attend would render the first test flight impossible, because it would legally become a display
Has someone at the CAA really said that, or have you just made it up for some obscure reason? Perhaps in the absence of the good Dr, some of the other 'experts' at Bruntingthorpe could shed some light on the statement?
If it isn't correct (and I will check with the ANO and other CAA docs') then it's yet another instance of more rubbish coming from this organisation.
BEagle. I wonder how many of those 'idiots' have donated to this cause? It is a little unfair of you to condemn them for having a real passion with aircraft. You and I have the same passion, the difference is that we have both been fortunate to let Mrs Windsor pay us for the privilage haven't we? Don't be too harsh on them.
Yes, I attend several every year, though not always by pure choice. Sometimes it's my turn.
Quite, never paid for an airshow once but been to many. Good fun flying through, better fun flying and landing, and not bad in lounger suit with free sunhat and shades.
See you didn't comment on my point between freebie viewing and the paying public. One problem with the Vulcan though, it is so large that huge numbers will be getting a freebie anyway. Unless that is the police prevent off-site parking near the show.
Dr Robert Pleming gained his Doctorate at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Oxford University . After a successful career in IT with IBM, in 1994 he moved to become the UK Technical Director for Cisco Systems, at a time when the company had only 18 employees in this country.
As an air cadet in 1968, Robert gained an RAF Flying Scholarship, and soloed in a Cessna 152 at Luton Airport . In the mid-'90s, a conversation with David Walton, owner of the recently grounded Avro Vulcan XH558, sparked the idea of putting together a formal proposal for the return of the awesome Vulcan to flight.
...
Robert built a team of expert advisors to investigate what needed to be done, and to guide the project's direction. This approach established sufficient credibility with British Aerospace and the Civil Aviation Authority for the decision to be taken to proceed with the activities necessary to achieve the return to flight.
In April 2000, with technical feasibility proved and the decision from British Aerospace to support the project behind him, Robert moved on voluntarily from his Cisco career to the full-time unpaid role of Project Director for what was then the Avro Vulcan XH558 Plan-to-Flight Project.
Since that time Robert has worked to bring the engineering project to the position in which it stands today, and his experience and lifelong enthusiasm for aviation contribute to ensuring a successful return-to-flight for this historic aircraft.
----------------------------
Name & Registered Office:
THE VULCAN OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED
LACEYS SOLICITORS
5 POOLE ROAD
BOURNEMOUTH
DORSET BH2 5QL
Company No. 03787161
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 10/06/1999
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9999 - Dormant Company
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2006 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 30/04/2008
Last Return Made Up To: 10/06/2007
Next Return Due: 08/07/2008
cyclic_fondler wrote -
"But wouldn't they miss out on a massive PR opportunity by not announcing the first flight date?
If they are worried about safety, why not make it an official event. Sort out parking on the airfield and charge the spectators a small nominal fee to see the aircraft getting rolled out, made ready for flight and then the taxi and the take off. Any monies made could go to the fund. Invite the press.
I'd rather turn on the news on BBC/ITV etc and hear ".... and thousands turned up to see the historic Vulcan Bomber XH 558 take to the skies again" rather than a damp squid in the form of "And finally an old RAF bomber flew again after restoration"
Article 80 of the ANO applies to any flying event where it is advertised and open to the public. It does not apply to aircraft at such an event that are landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. I doubt if any court would find this first test flight to be normal aviation practice.
If the event is private and not open to the public then Article 80 does not apply.
Should the first post restoration flight of the Vulcan ever take place then the last thing needed on that day is a huge crowd of onlookers, many of whom would be somewhat disenchanted at the almost inevitable holdups. I am sure the planned flight test crew would agree.
Yes, we can recall that first flight of Concorde so memorably described by Raymond Baxter at Toulouse. By all means invite the media but no others please.
Essential personnel only should be there and, despite their generosity, this does not include those whose cash has made the restoration possible.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
and charge the spectators a small nominal fee to see
Therein lies the difference. You charge a fee - you're responsible. No problem with that. What Dr Pleming seems to think is that he can keep the whole thing a secret to prevent people from, quite legally, turning up on the perimeter.
It has been mentioned about the obvious pre-flight preparation, taxi tests etc. It would be naive to think that there will be no spotters waiting for the first sign of movement let alone first flight.
It would be equally naive, although this is apparent in other spheres all the time, to ignore the speed of modern communications.
A stray bird is spotted and the cars arrive in minutes. 558 moves and people up to 50 miles away could be there in less than an hour. At my local airfield there are always cars in the car park watching and waiting 7 days per week good weather of fowl. (sic) In fact I would not mind betting they are there now. There will be people near Brunt with Airband receivers tuned and internet connections open ready to broadcast to the world.
Sir, might I point out that the opening two lines of article 80 of the ANO states... 'Article 80 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 (ANO) provides for the regulation of flying displays and contains a requirement for prior permission from the CAA for such events'
As this is a test flight and will most certainly NOT be part of a flying display, would you be so kind and point me in the direction of the ANO that states otherwise?
The air test will almost certainly be conducted wholly at medium or high level, well out of the view of the public and it will certainly not form part of a flying display. I'm not even convinced that inviting the paying public constitutes a flying display in its own right either, but I will check on that.
I am curious to know why you are so against members of the public witnessing the first, and subsequent, air tests of this aircraft. Its the public that have, by and large, paid for the aircraft and its' restoration. Why do you now want to deny the very people responsible for its existance the opportunity to see it lift off again on its maiden flight? Its almost as if you have something to hide from them?
Even BAe don't make as much fuss about their test flights of MR4 and other aircraft. What is the problem?
Winco,
A flying display is defined in the ANO as "any flying activity deliberately performed for the purposes of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public".
Make no mistake the flight will be seen as being both an exhibition and an entertainment for those present if it takes place at an advertised event open to the public such as you and others are promoting.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Wader 2, remember the hanger has a web cam, who needs to be camped near the airfield. Your right though, strange bird and the twitchers turn up within hours from all over.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
I was under the impression that the first flight was to be an air test? Now if you would like the official definition of an air test, whether it be post servicing, post rebuild, post whatever, then I will gladly supply you with one, but we both know that it will NOT be for 'purposes of providing an exhibition or entertainment at an advertised event open to the public' as you seem to suggest.
That is why, IMHO, it DOES NOT constitute a flying display. It will be part of a well documented, legal requirement to satisfy certain criteria prior to (hopefully) a permit to fly being granted by the CAA as you well know.
Of course, I am willing to be proved wrong, and await your further comments. Kind Regards
Winco, I wonder if it's simply a case of being ultra-careful?
If the team getting 558 airborne start advertising the fact that they're about to conduct the first flight, it is inevitable that people will turn up in some numbers to watch.
And it would seem - sadly - that it'd be just as inevitable in the current climate (where you can find someone mean of spirit close at hand wherever you turn) that somebody would file a complaint that the publicity was a means of circumventing the spirit of the ANO - i.e. although not billed as a display, that's exactly what the first flight was. Otherwise, the argument would be, why publicise it unless you wanted the public to turn up to watch?
It might also be contended that by publicising it, the event was being made open to the public, even if they were having to jam up the lanes around the airfield to get a vantage point. While I would personally view such a complaint as petty and - to borrow from Sir Humphrey - 'placing a greater epistemological burden upon the English language than it can reasonably be exepcted to bear', I can equally see why the team might not wish to run the risk.
Also, if - as has happened on several occasions in aviation history - some snag materialises on the day of the publicised first flight and the Vulcan can't get airborne, imagine how disastrous the PR would be.
Forget wrote - "You must be on a different water supply."
Yes indeed. Clean and totally unpolluted, thank the Lord. Others are not so lucky these days.
I fear the unbridled passion of those who want to attend in vast numbers will continue to promote the idea. I sincerely hope they fail to do so.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Could be that 1000's of bodies turning up at Bruntingthorpe would interfere with the non aviation activities - I would be worried as well. The last thing they need is loads of people lurking on the off chance that 558 will fly, and some of the locals have a bad case of the nimbys at the best of times.
Out of interest, where will she be based when flying?
It's been nice to pop in and see the old girl when we've been testing there.
Linear Mode
