Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated

Old 5th Nov 2015, 19:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Exeter
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated

Seems the CAA are looking into the Vulcan..............


Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News


Hopefully nothing will come of it
N.HEALD is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 19:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hopefully nothing will come of it
A slapped wrist at the most I fancy. Wish I'd seen it.
goudie is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 20:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 64
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That'll be that grounded then.... Oh wait, er.....
Always a Sapper is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 20:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rural England, thank God.
Posts: 719
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
Police stations around the country are being closed due to lack of funds. But the Fun Police have endless resources.....
skua is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 20:15
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,624
Received 65 Likes on 40 Posts
Looks like that big r/c model....
sycamore is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 21:24
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Frensham
Posts: 837
Received 88 Likes on 46 Posts
Not sure how they will explain this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsN...ion_3387090003

Wokkafans is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 04:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up "ALLEGED BARREL ROLL"

Alleged?

I thought it was a F@*king good one!
Checkmate is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 05:37
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 7 Posts
Just deny it - 'It was the camera angle that made it look like that - yer Honour'.

I wonder what Roly Falk is thinking as he watches this from his cloud up there!

Old Duffer
Old-Duffer is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 07:36
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just outside Newbury
Age: 55
Posts: 288
Received 28 Likes on 4 Posts
What a great idea to role an ageing airframe in light of what happened at Shoreham. It is a shame the Vulcan has finished but the level of irresponsibility is extraordinary for such a professional team. I hope this wasn't true but if it was, count your lucky stars that you got away with it.

As for those supporting such an action on this site, try examining the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread. PPrune - the first P stands for professional.
Maxibon is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 08:23
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
When he visited Farnborough once, Roly Falk told us the Vulcan, being a 'big' Avro 707, was stressed for and should have been able to do everything the '707 did. The '707 could be barrel rolled hence.....
chevvron is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 08:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: england- up north (where it's grim)
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A little over the top there Maxibon don't you think? Even if this were confirmed as actually happening, it is not as if he flew under Tower Bridge inverted in the dark and in IMC.

There is absolutely no correlation between the Shoreham accident and a Vulcan being barrel rolled.

There was no 'getting away with it' the aircraft allegedly did something which it is absolutely more than capable of doing, in the hands of someone who was absolutely more than capable of doing it.

Unless you have an inside scoop on the actual cause of the Hunter crash to compare it with, then i suggest that we just calm down a little.

Counting one's 'lucky stars' that they got away with it seems a trifle dramatic.

Even the CAA spokesman has said

BBC News:

"A spokesman for the CAA said it was looking whether the Vulcan "may have performed a roll manoeuvre".
He added: "This did not occur during an air display. Although not normally allowed under its current permissions to fly, a roll is a benign manoeuvre and the Vulcan's maintenance support organisation has confirmed that the aircraft is safe to fly."

and

"The CAA said the measures taken in the wake of the Shoreham air crash were primarily applicable to air displays."

Last edited by the_flying_cop; 6th Nov 2015 at 08:32. Reason: added CAA quotes
the_flying_cop is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 09:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Originally Posted by the_flying_cop
...the aircraft allegedly did something which it is absolutely more than capable of doing, in the hands of someone who was absolutely more than capable of doing it.
So this manoeuvre was cleared by the DO, the original release to service, the operating authority, the permit to fly and taught to crews?

If so then there is nothing to worry about at all and I am surprised that the CAA are even looking at it.

If the aircraft and crew are cleared and capable why is the manoeuvre not more commonplace?
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 09:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, I'll bite.

I'm not sure that the age of the airframe is relevant; if it was I would suggest that all those high energy manoeuvres carried out by the large number of pre 1960 (XH558's build year) aircraft, including Spitfires and the like, might be severely restricted to the point of grounding, nor is "what happened at Shoreham"; something which is under investigation by the AAIB, which respected body has yet to complete its report, although the interim release may have set a few hares running.


The airframe is either capable of a positive G rolling manoeuvre, as Roly Falk demonstrated in 1955, which means that it is, or it isn't. During its service life, I would suggest that Vulcans (generic) were subject to significantly greater manoeuvring stresses than the alleged roll being discussed here. Unless there was a specific airframe restriction placed on XH558, then I can't see why the manoeuvre is up for discussion. Incidentally, the restrictions placed on high performance civil operated jet aircraft following the accident at Shoreham relate to air displays and, in my opinion, owe more to the perceived need of the CAA to "be seen to be doing something" than to response based on known facts. No Hunters, apart from UK civil operated aircraft are grounded. Yes, Shoreham was a tragic accident and the outcome of both the AAIB report and the CAA review into airshows will prove interesting, as will any police investigation.

As for the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread, I wonder how many of them are from people who meet either, or more especially both, of the first two Ps of this forum? I doubt that we will ever know, because we all hide behind our user names.

Last edited by octavian; 6th Nov 2015 at 09:40. Reason: Removing phrase "piston engined" relating to Spitfires. Don't know of any turbine powered Spitfires!
octavian is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 09:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That quote from the CAA spokesperson sounds to me very like someone giving the preliminaries to saying that the CAA is going to take little or no further action.
Capot is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 09:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
In the 1960s at RAAF Pearce a Vulcan did a barrel roll during the climb out from Take-off, mag bloddy nificent it was.

When an aerobatic manoeuvre is defined as more than 90 of bank we are a nanny state for sure.

Done by people who knew what and when to do what was in the capability of the equipment, go for it, we may NEVER see it again more is the pity
greybeard is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 10:05
  #16 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
IIRC the Release to Service permitted rolling G of 1.75 on a one off war mission, We were not permitted to practise the escape manoeuvre. I think we went to about 1.5 g during evasive bomb runs.

As for the alleged barrel roll, it was stated that the two films of the alleged roll were not video files but constructed from a number of still frames.

As the film was a construct it is also open to deconstruct and potentially invalid as evidence.

"Did you?"

"No, I didn't"

~~

"Call expert witness #1"

"What is your expertise?"

"I am a former display pilot."

"Did you observe Vulcan XH558 perform a manoeuvre where the aircraft became inverted and otherwise known a a barrel roll?"

"I saw the Vulcan from .... and saw it bank away. I did not see it the whole time."

"Call the next witness."
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 10:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Your recollection is incorrect, Pontius. The 'g' limits were significantly higher and we often flew sustained 60° AoB turns at 300'.

The Vulcan was cleared for manoeuvres 'appropriate for a medium bomber'. Barrel rolls were neither common, nor were crews taught how to fly them.

When the Vulcan was displayed at Farnborough, it was carefully inspected before and after each flight - which involved a technician going inside the wing to check the leading edge structure.

Ill-disciplined RAF pilots' mishandling probably damaged VX770 before it crashed at Syerston as a result of structural failure when the aircraft was being flown inside the approved flight envelope.....

If XH558 was rolled in the manner alleged, the culprits deserve no sympathy.
BEagle is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 10:45
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely if the CAA say that the manoeuvre was "not part of a display" there is, ipso fatso, no case to answer.
Dougie M is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 10:58
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was the Vulcan ever cleared for a LABS manoeuvre, if that's a question anyone is allowed to answer?

I'm thinking of course in connection with a weapons delivery profile.
Treble one is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 11:10
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,475
Received 2,597 Likes on 1,099 Posts
It ISN'T cleared Aerobatics on its 2008 permit, hence it is breaching the regulations, do you think the CAA will turn a blind eye to that, I don't, especially post Shoreham..

See para 6.2

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf


..

Last edited by NutLoose; 6th Nov 2015 at 11:21.
NutLoose is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.