Vulcan tried to escape from Wellesbourne, 16th Sept 2022

[Jhieminga]

Judging from the images, the Wellesbourne Vulcan tried to get away but was reined in before it jumped the boundary fence. I hope everyone is safe and sound. I'm sure the airframe will find its way back onto terra firma soon.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x2000/6a742e02_45f7_407f_8169_050cb686a64b_bcaf2389f8205824fd34017 734d18a7aa0c47444.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/89a5b520_179b_4d4d_aba2_85f8b48c9ecd_cd08f9d4cef3aab4d822eb3 d37419add5bbdfd01.jpg
Images courtesy of cg_341 at this UKAR thread (https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=929364#p929364).

[treadigraph]

Bet there is a good selection of skid marks... in several very different places!

[Jhieminga]

I only thought that…
There is a video here.... https://twitter.com/PilotHusky/status/1570770772964290560?s=20&t=U0f0Idf0VPdasj_bbu_qlw

Please go to the UKAR thread using the link at the end of my previous post to see the video.

[134brat]

Wot no drag chute?

[Sleeve Wing]

One of those "Oh sh*t" moments. Not giving up without a fight, is it ?

Another excuse to close such "a dangerous airfield" ...........

[Expressflight]

Sometimes the SEN Vulcan does a run down the runway without a drag chute but never up to that sort of speed. Their higher speed Open Day runs require the drag chute to be serviceable and it's always deployed.

[Yellow Sun]

Wot no drag chute?

No allowance is made for the Brake Parachute in the Stop element of the takeoff calculation. The chute only figured in the brake energy calculation where you could find the Normal and Emergency Maximum Brake speeds (NMBS/EMBS) with and without the ‘chute. In any event, the brake parachute is more effective at high speed, When you realise you’re going to overrun it’s probably not going to make any difference.

It’s important to bear in mind that takeoff performance calculations only assume a failure of the most adverse power unit. No other failure is allowed for. This is why when carrying out a deliberate accelerate/stop manoeuvre you have plan it very carefully as there are additional factors in play. It pays to be very conservative in your approach and execution.

It is many years since I did any Vulcan takeoff performance planning.and IIRC the philosophy was a “high” V1, called Decision Speed in those days. Lower figures would be Vmcg limited. This of course would not apply in a pre-planned accelerate/stop where it might be prudent to restrict the speed below what would theoretically be possible.

It will be interesting to learn what actually occurred but I fear it might be a “Shoreham” moment for accelerate/stop demonstrations.

YS

[excrab]

Out of interest which authority would regulate that. If it’s an aircraft which is no longer allowed to fly by the CAA for whatever reason how can they claim to control it. It’s no longer an aircraft, it’s a funny shaped ground vehicle being driven at high speed on private land, like a farmer driving above the speed limit in a private field. Totally different, I would have thought, to Shoreham, which was an airworthy aircraft overseen by the authority.

[Una Due Tfc]

Close one. Glad everyone is okay and the bird suffered minor if any damage.

[Yellow Sun]

Out of interest which authority would regulate that. If it’s an aircraft which is no longer allowed to fly by the CAA for whatever reason how can they claim to control it. It’s no longer an aircraft, it’s a funny shaped ground vehicle being driven at high speed on private land, like a farmer driving above the speed limit in a private field. Totally different, I would have thought, to Shoreham, which was an airworthy aircraft overseen by the authority.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the CAA have no jurisdiction or interest and the AAIB would probably decline to offer any input, even on a consultancy basis. Whether any investigation could lead to a prosecution is anyone's guess, it gets a bit complicated when both volunteers and employees are involved.

YS

[134brat]

Yellow Sun

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me now that the chute would 'soak up' lots of the initial inertia and leave the brakes less to do. I fear that others who have posted responses are correct and this event will curtail further fast taxi demonstrations. Another little chip away from our aviation heritage.

[zambonidriver]

Didn't get airborne, that's that 😝

[MENELAUS]

Yonks ago our squadron rules ( unofficial of crse) were if you deployed the chute on the Hunter you got to repack it with the SE guys. Until we had a couple of close calls (St Athan and Brawdy in the wet rings a bell) then that got binned. Sharpish.

[Jhieminga]

It didn't do a Victor.... but it was still a pretty decent attempt at leaving the reservation.

[common toad]

Lucky they didn’t leave the ground. Can’t imagine the condition the PFCU’s would be much cop after 38 yrs of no maintenance.

[ZH875]

Wot no drag chute?
would need to be deployed before it set off as not a very long runway and wouldn't have enough time to deploy and inflate to be of any use.

[NRU74]

Yonks ago our squadron rules ( unofficial of crse) were if you deployed the chute on the Hunter you got to repack it with the SE guys.

On Victors, if you diverted, you had to pack it yourselves ....and it was an absolute barsteward to do. No SE guys to help, you needed one of those giraffe thingies and three of you carried it up and then placed it in the form of a 'Z' and trampled on it in the hopper (having tripped the circuit breakers in the cabin first).

[uxb99]

That's an interesting use of the word Carnage.

[goofer3]

From the website;

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1565x334/vulcan_65e44a0ed5edb7d4a44028e20f936d41040295b5.jpg

[Cuillin Hills]

No Vulcan expert but don’t the spoilers get extended on landing (or RTOs) for additional weight on wheels (and increased braking efficiency)?

[EbonyGrove]

Be interesting to see their risk assessment (if it exists) on doing a fast taxi towards a main road and a pole which says "Gas Main" on it, with a non-airworthy aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

While the Vulcan may not be air-worthy or covered by any CAA regs, the aerodrome itself is and is licenced and thus must ensure that all activities on the licenced area, whether air-worthy or not, are safe and reduce the risk to members of the public to ALARP.

[sycamore]

Basic maths-Equations of Motion(s,u,v,a,t) should have been used in pre-planning,instead of reliance on the ASI.Most mobile phones will give a good Groundspeed read-out,and a stopwatch for timing,Markers along the edge of the runway for distance to `stop`...Going for a practice `blast`,after low speed steering and braking check seems a little `enthusiastic`....

[Jhieminga]

The BBC has a couple of photos: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-62930756
The gear doesn't appear to have suffered a lot, but that's speculation of course.

[DaveReidUK]

One of those "Oh sh*t" moments. Not giving up without a fight, is it ?
The thought did occur that maybe the airfield owners had tampered with the brakes or chute !!?
Another excuse to close such "a dangerous airfield" ...........

Let's hope they - or their lawyers - don't read PPRuNe.

[Two's in]

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the CAA have no jurisdiction or interest and the AAIB would probably decline to offer any input, even on a consultancy basis. Whether any investigation could lead to a prosecution is anyone's guess, it gets a bit complicated when both volunteers and employees are involved.

YS

I can't help thinking that throwing 170,000lbs of 4-engine Bomber down a runway at a CAA licensed aerodrome, ultimately resulting in a near miss with a public highway is going to make somebody curious from a regulatory and safety viewpoint. "The ASI wasn't working for 2 seconds" does not suggest an obvious multi-layered approach to risk assessment.

[Runaway Gun]

They saved flying 7,999 miles to almost miss the runway.

[jumpseater]

I can't help thinking that throwing 170,000lbs of 4-engine Bomber down a runway at a CAA licensed aerodrome, ultimately resulting in a near miss with a public highway is going to make somebody curious from a regulatory and safety viewpoint. "The ASI wasn't working for 2 seconds" does not suggest an obvious multi-layered approach to risk assessment.

A quick look at CAP168 indicates these sections are likely to be of interest.
Ch2 App 2E
Ch3 App 3I
Ch9
The fact it wasn’t ‘airworthy’ will mitigate some issues, obviously at an unlicensed aerodrome or non aviation site it’d purely be an HSE issue incident. The fact Wellesborne is licensed will probably attract aviation regulatory interest, and perhaps consideration of appropriate RFFS category. It’s currently A1 + A2 on request, that’s assuming there’s no additional cover deployed when these tests/demonstrations take place.

[common toad]

If only there was a second ASI in the cockpit…

[Krystal n chips]

This has obviously attracted a lot of attention elsewhere ...some reports saying this was going to be the last fast taxy run for example, others saying the last one was five years ago, so presumably they've been doing regular anti-det runs in the interim...along with speculation this will be the end of such runs and a significant hike in insurance for types that can still be ground run.

There again, the Vulcan has always had an all terrain capability....three managed to land on Halton's grass runway after all.

Possibly it got a bit fed up looking at the same view day after day and decided it wanted a look down Tiddington Road....which is one of the more expensive in the UK.

[45989]

There will always be a gob****e with a yellow jacket nearby....

[brakedwell]

Was the man in the left hand seat an ex Vulcan pilot?

[Diff Tail Shim]

This has obviously attracted a lot of attention elsewhere ...some reports saying this was going to be the last fast taxy run for example, others saying the last one was five years ago, so presumably they've been doing regular anti-det runs in the interim...along with speculation this will be the end of such runs and a significant hike in insurance for types that can still be ground run.

There again, the Vulcan has always had an all terrain capability....three managed to land on Halton's grass runway after all.

Possibly it got a bit fed up looking at the same view day after day and decided it wanted a look down Tiddington Road....which is one of the more expensive in the UK.
​​​​​​The TBAG Buccaneers and the BCWM Jaguar always use first reference for speed from a GPS Speedo on a mobile phone. They also have worked out from the ODM the info for conditions of the day and time /distance. ASI can be another instrument used, it is never the primary (as not accurate at low speeds) and never alone in the two organisations mentioned. My comments about this on their FB group are not complimentary. Seems they have always allowed ego to overtake common sense in previous runs where they end up just short of the end of the runway.. They too a risk too far and are lucky that their airframe still has legs on it. Just been chatting to another CWJ fast taxi driver and he is nothing but damming about the professionalism shown yesterday.

[Busta]

A hand held satnav might have been useful

[chevvron]

Judging from the images, the Wellesbourne Vulcan tried to get away but was reined in before it jumped the boundary fence. I hope everyone is safe and sound. I'm sure the airframe will find its way back onto terra firma soon.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x2000/6a742e02_45f7_407f_8169_050cb686a64b_bcaf2389f8205824fd34017 734d18a7aa0c47444.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/89a5b520_179b_4d4d_aba2_85f8b48c9ecd_cd08f9d4cef3aab4d822eb3 d37419add5bbdfd01.jpg
Images courtesy of cg_341 at this UKAR thread (https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=929364#p929364).
Wellesborne is a FISO unit; they can't clear it for a high speed taxy.

[dixi188]

What sort of anti-skid system does the Vulcan have?
If it is MaxArret type, I would have expected to see some rubber on the runway as the brakes locked and then released, assuming someone had there toes firmly on the pedals.

[45989]

Be interesting to see their risk assessment (if it exists) on doing a fast taxi towards a main road and a pole which says "Gas Main" on it, with a non-airworthy aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

While the Vulcan may not be air-worthy or covered by any CAA regs, the aerodrome itself is and is licenced and thus must ensure that all activities on the licenced area, whether air-worthy or not, are safe and reduce the risk to members of the public to ALARP.
Amazing to see the boring "health and safties" wade in as usual. GET A LIFE!!

[Martin the Martian]

And with one mighty bound, he was -oh bugger.

[CAEBr]

Amazing to see the boring "health and safties" wade in as usual. GET A LIFE!!

Fair enough if they were playing with their own toys in private. However, this came very close to being an event where it went through the hedge and hit passing traffic, at which point we would be into a Shoreham Pt 2. If that were to occur then just as we have seen airshows and historic jet operations hughly affected then similar taxi runs would be closely controlled or scrapped even if they were sensibly undertaken.
These type of operations have been under the radar for a while (perhaps excepting the Bruntingthorpe Victor) They will only remain so if they are performed sensibly and H and S professionals aren't given a reason to investigate.

[spekesoftly]

Any news on how the recovery operation is progressing?

[Two's in]

Fair enough if they were playing with their own toys in private. However, this came very close to being an event where it went through the hedge and hit passing traffic, at which point we would be into a Shoreham Pt 2. If that were to occur then just as we have seen airshows and historic jet operations hughly affected then similar taxi runs would be closely controlled or scrapped even if they were sensibly undertaken.
These type of operations have been under the radar for a while (perhaps excepting the Bruntingthorpe Victor) They will only remain so if they are performed sensibly and H and S professionals aren't given a reason to investigate.

Exactly this! Nothing to do with Health and Safety zealousness, everything to do with ensuring you have a comprehensive and complete safety and risk assessment for an aviation event involving the general public. I'm sure all the Hi-Viz yellow jacket jokes are just as hilarious to the families of the 11 deceased at Shoreham as they are here.

[ciderman]

These thing are always fraught with uncertainty. Landing at a given speed with a known amount of runway left is calculable. Realising the ASI isn’t working, an “oh gawd” moment before the brakes come on and you can see the results. Thank goodness for a long hot summer. I remember a Canberra went off the end of St Mawgan after running up to EMBS for TV cameras, forgetting the premise on which that is based, namely the brakes will be kaput. Glad nobody hurt and I am sure more care will be taken next time to have a reliable speed source. A light airframe and 4 Olympus is a rocket ship.

[reds & greens]

ASDA
ASDA
ASDA

[blimey]

Was James May at the controls?

(see Grand Tour S5).

[Krystal n chips]

Any news on how the recovery operation is progressing?

They may possibly be searching for Tracjacks and Trolley Salvage carriers.....and towing bridles

[Pypard]

They may possibly be searching for Tracjacks and Trolley Salvage carriers.....and towing bridles

Doubtful; a couple of strops should do it. Nice and simple.

[Yellow Sun]

No Vulcan expert but don’t the spoilers get extended on landing (or RTOs) for additional weight on wheels (and increased braking efficiency)?

The Vulcan has airbrakes (2 position - medium and high drag), they have no spoiler effect. They are manually selected and the approach is flown with High Drag airbrake. The SOP for a RTO was to extend the airbrakes after closing the throttles (thrust levers in modern speak). PNF would stream the TBC if speed <75 and >145.

ciderman

These thing are always fraught with uncertainty. Landing at a given speed with a known amount of runway left is calculable. Realising the ASI isn’t working, an “oh gawd” moment before the brakes come on and you can see the results.

I could not agree more! An accelerate stop manoeuvre requires very careful planning, it's not in the ODM or Performance Manual and you need to go back to first principles to work it out and and ensure that you have sufficient safety margins. Just trying to compute it using a LDR calculation on an assumed reduced runway length isn't adequate. The 2 second delay quoted by the operator in their statement would seem indicate that no margin existed.

Just for reference, you would plan to use less that maximum braking for an accelerate/stop demonstration whilst for a full blooded high speed RTO you apply the brakes fully and at once. If you've ever experienced a RTO in modern aircraft fitted with autobrake you will know that the RTO Brake setting is fierce to say tthe least.

Finally, someone asked about the Vulcan anti-skid system? It was a Maxaret system and worked quite well.

YS

[BEagle]

I recall the saga of 'Roadrunner 1' in around 1978....

A Waddington squadron's aircraft had been snagged for excessive nosewheel shimmy, which the engineers then repaired. However, it was necessary to check that the problem had been fixed by conducting a fast run on the RW, to around 90KIAS.

"Any one free to do a taxy check please?" asked the engineers. Whereupon a recent ICC graduate co-pilot said that he was, grabbed an unsuspecting AEO and went to the jet. All went OK during start up, but realising that they didn't have a call-sign, he announced that he was 'Roadrunner 1' for a taxy check. ATC cleared him; there was no Duty Pilot in the tower as no Waddo aircraft were within 100nm, so off our hero went....

Roaring down the into wind RW, all was well - the engineers had indeed fixed the snag. "Better do another run just to be sure", announced the pilot and thundered off downwind. Again all went well - until he tried to stop! The brakes had more or less had enough as they were so hot, so 'Roadrunner 1' trundled off the end of the RW and onto the grass just short of the A15.

[Krystal n chips]

Doubtful; a couple of strops should do it. Nice and simple.

No sense of humour then...

[uxb99]

Lots of negativity on here but I hope they can keep doing their fast taxis. Gives a few more people the experience of a live Vulcan even if not a flying one.
Maybe change the fast taxi to several engine run ups and some slow taxis would be a better experience for the enthusiast.
The part of these events spectators want is the noise. If you can have the noise without the risk everyone is happy.

[DaveReidUK]

If it is MaxArret type

In all the years since my first introduction to Maxarets, and being shown how to check them on a PDC, the derivation of the name had never dawned on me, until now.

[treadigraph]

In all the years since my first introduction to Maxarets, and being shown how to check them on a PDC, the derivation of the name had never dawned on me, until now.

Took me a long time to realise after I first heard of the system and followed a difficult dive into the admittedly shallow depths of my schoolboy French! Think I was reading someone's autobiography when the bulb lit...

[Pypard]

No sense of humour then...

Oh I'm sure you must.

[dixi188]

In all the years since my first introduction to Maxarets, and being shown how to check them on a PDC, the derivation of the name had never dawned on me, until now.
I had forgotten the spelling so went for the origin in french. Was it a French invention?
Only a/c I worked with them was the Viscount.
I recall if maximum braking was used there would be a series of tyre marks on the runway as the wheel started to skid and then the brake released. I wondered why there are no marks on the runway behind the Vulcan. Did the pilot not use max braking even when they were near the end of the runway?

[SASless]

Tis a shame...was hoping to see the Vulcan flying again doing displays!

Hope it all turns out for the better as I know it was heartbreaking for those trying to get it back into the air.

[Diff Tail Shim]

No sense of humour then...
They got it out with kit borrowed from VTTS (tow bridal) a firm with diggers and other companies with the vehicles and hardware to do an off runway recovery. And a lot of hard work. They admit that they would not have been able to do it without help. I would sack the driver and get a proper regime in place s I do with my jet car.. Reminds me of the Victor last flight. I was working on a project today with its team leader and mentioned the person involved with that. Bill said he had met the guy and was so unimpressed with the actual professionalism of him. Bill wasn't the first with the same opinion mentioned to me.

[DaveReidUK]

Tis a shame...was hoping to see the Vulcan flying again doing displays!

Hope it all turns out for the better as I know it was heartbreaking for those trying to get it back into the air.

No Vulcan will never take to the air again.

The one that's the subject of this thread last flew nearly 40 years ago.

[MAINJAFAD]

Amazing to see the boring "health and safties" wade in as usual. GET A LIFE!!

These boring people are the professionals!!!! To do this sort of thing, the Aircraft has to be insured (I'm in a team that does this exact type of activity).Anything that drives that insurance cost up is not good, especially when a bunch of what can only be described as cowboys fail to account for the fact that the aircraft is not serviced at the same level that it was while in service and fail to have a back up method of ensuring that the "Jet Car" safely stays on the runway. In the video below, the Driver had both a motile phone on the HUD and had placed ground markers along the runway!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqdGD0gLy64&t=658s

[Specaircrew]

I recall the saga of 'Roadrunner 1' in around 1978....

A Waddington squadron's aircraft had been snagged for excessive nosewheel shimmy, which the engineers then repaired. However, it was necessary to check that the problem had been fixed by conducting a fast run on the RW, to around 90KIAS.

"Any one free to do a taxy check please?" asked the engineers. Whereupon a recent ICC graduate co-pilot said that he was, grabbed an unsuspecting AEO and went to the jet. All went OK during start up, but realising that they didn't have a call-sign, he announced that he was 'Roadrunner 1' for a taxy check. ATC cleared him; there was no Duty Pilot in the tower as no Waddo aircraft were within 100nm, so off our hero went....

Roaring down the into wind RW, all was well - the engineers had indeed fixed the snag. "Better do another run just to be sure", announced the pilot and thundered off downwind. Again all went well - until he tried to stop! The brakes had more or less had enough as they were so hot, so 'Roadrunner 1' trundled off the end of the RW and onto the grass just short of the A15.

Spookily I was just recounting this very story to my ex USAF brother in law after he pointed the story out on t’internet! Whatever happened to Frank?🤣

[JEM60]

Reported on another site as to having been already winched out, and is on hard standing.

[longer ron]

I had forgotten the spelling so went for the origin in french. Was it a French invention?


No - the maxaret system was developed by Dunlop in Britain AFAIK - I have always assumed the name was just a clever play on words :)

[sunnybunny]

i've got a copy of Guy Martin's Last Flight of the Vulcan. Theres a scene where he is allowed to do a fast taxi in that same aircraft at Wellesbourne, don't know if it was exaggerated for the camera but it appeared to be a bit of a faff stopping in time.

[Krystal n chips]

The report on this incident should make for very interesting reading both from the operating aspect and the engineering maintenance regime in equal measure. Be interesting to learn when it was last jacked and the wheels spun / maxarets checked.

Who conducts it is a bit of a moot point really....strictly speaking, no injuries, thankfully, not airworthy so not usual AAIB territory...but there again, it came far too close to endangering the public so possibly with this in mind.

[DucatiST4]

I doubt that anyone will be interested in producing a report other than perhaps the insurance company. After all nothing happened after the Victor "flight" and that was potentially much more serious (and from an active airfield at the time as well).

[Airbanda]

I doubt that anyone will be interested in producing a report other than perhaps the insurance company. After all nothing happened after the Victor "flight" and that was potentially much more serious (and from an active airfield at the time as well).

The AAIB didn't report but IIRC, although I cannot locate a copy on line, the CAA did.

[uxb99]

These boring people are the professionals!!!! To do this sort of thing, the Aircraft has to be insured (I'm in a team that does this exact type of activity).Anything that drives that insurance cost up is not good, especially when a bunch of what can only be described as cowboys fail to account for the fact that the aircraft is not serviced at the same level that it was while in service and fail to have a back up method of ensuring that the "Jet Car" safely stays on the runway. In the video below, the Driver had both a motile phone on the HUD and had placed ground markers along the runway!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqdGD0gLy64&t=658s

Interesting you mention ground markers. Isn't just plain maths your friend here. Calculate the optimum acceleration at a given throttle setting. Factor in a margin of error and then put a post beside the runway that means "Cut engines" and you should be fine.
Of course, what happens if the engines don't cut. Can you have a runaway at max power?

[uxb99]

I doubt that anyone will be interested in producing a report other than perhaps the insurance company. After all nothing happened after the Victor "flight" and that was potentially much more serious (and from an active airfield at the time as well).
I wonder what the law says in these incidents. It's not an incident until it's an incident so can you be prosecuted for nearly, but not quite having an accident? Thought Police might like to reply?

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Amazing to see the boring "health and safties" wade in as usual. GET A LIFE!!

Would you still be saying that if the ground had been harder and it had ended up through the fence and into the traffic on the road?

Given that the other Vulcans which do "high speed taxi runs" operate on runways of twice to almost three times the length of Wellsbourne, was this ever a good idea?

By far the biggest consideration in any risk assessment should be the danger to people completely uninvolved in the activity.

They have a right to keep the life they have already got whist you "get" yours!

[DaveReidUK]

The AAIB didn't report but IIRC, although I cannot locate a copy on line, the CAA did.

It wasn't a reportable event per Annex 13, as nobody had boarded the Victor with the intent of flight. :O

[DaveReidUK]

The report on this incident should make for very interesting reading both from the operating aspect and the engineering maintenance regime in equal measure. Be interesting to learn when it was last jacked and the wheels spun / maxarets checked.

Judging by the reports of late braking, it doesn't sound like the anti-skid was at fault.

[DucatiST4]

That's it. My friend was doing some fast taxi runs in his plane when it accidentally took off. At that time he had no paperwork for it. Unfortunately he managed a stall spin and destroyed the thing. Because he didn't set out with the intention of committing aviation the AAIB/CAA were not interested beyond him submitting his own report for the monthly bulletin.

[45989]

A great shame to watch things being destroyed from a distance...............

[scifi]

What with all the pipework of the ASI, I wonder if there is any time lapse in the readings. Some of the older ( phlorescent.) WD instruments could also have friction in their gearing. I suppose they did remove the Pitot Cover..!

[Krystal n chips]

Judging by the reports of late braking, it doesn't sound like the anti-skid was at fault.

Fair enough, but, I would still be very interested in examining the system.... and the servicing history

It's a little concerning really, to read comments that suggest an investigation is unwarranted. Almost as if a Vulcan leaving the runway, stopping short, just, of a very busy road I know well, is an everyday occurrence ...which it clearly isn't.

I feel an investigation, based on the event, and what has been alluded to concerning the operating culture, is more than justified.

[Jhieminga]

I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.

[Yellow Sun]

I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.

This has nothing to do with aviation but the occurrence falls firmly within the remit of the HSE (https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/when-how-investigate.htm). It would be prudent; to say the least; for 655MaPS to refer the matter themselves as the incident and its circumstances could quite readily be categorised as a dangerous occurrence.

YS

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.

That, in itself, doesn't prove that it was an acceptably safe thing to do. It may or may not have been, I am not saying it wasn't based on this one incident alone.

I assume there was a detailed risk assessment in place? Were all the agreed criteria met? Were any boundaries "pushed" given the pressure of being ready for a ticketed public event the next day?

"A story from the flightdeck explaining what happened" is an important part of any accident investigation. However many other aspects need to be fully investigated.

[DucatiST4]

The HSE's remit is Health and Safety at work. This wasn't a workplace incident.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

The HSE's remit is Health and Safety at work. This wasn't a workplace incident.

"Work" includes activities involving groups of volunteers. As does employer's liability insurance. It doesn't matter whether the workers are being paid or not.

[chevvron]

That's it. My friend was doing some fast taxi runs in his plane when it accidentally took off. At that time he had no paperwork for it. Unfortunately he managed a stall spin and destroyed the thing. Because he didn't set out with the intention of committing aviation the AAIB/CAA were not interested beyond him submitting his own report for the monthly bulletin.
Then there was the Lightning doing a high power run with an engineer on board.
It overode the chocks and the engineer (who was not a fullly qualified pilot) took off did a crcuit and landed safely.

[kenparry]

Not quite. Chocks did not come into it. The Wg Cdr engineer was on one of Lyneham's runways; the problem was that, having engaged reheat to troubleshoot a problem with an alternator dropping offline, he could not find out how to deselect it, so got airborne in the absence of any means of stopping.

[DucatiST4]

"Work" includes activities involving groups of volunteers. As does employer's liability insurance. It doesn't matter whether the workers are being paid or not.

Only if the organisation involved has at least one employee. 655MaPS who look after the aircraft and were involved in the incident is entirely voluntary. Granted its not totally clear how the aircraft being owned by the airfield might affect this position but there would seem to be no employer - volunteer relationship which means that Health And Safety laws do not apply.
."When health and safety law does not applyIn most cases, health and safety law does not apply where volunteering does not involve an employer."

[Krystal n chips]

Only if the organisation involved has at least one employee. 655MaPS who look after the aircraft and were involved in the incident is entirely voluntary. Granted its not totally clear how the aircraft being owned by the airfield might affect this position but there would seem to be no employer - volunteer relationship which means that Health And Safety laws do not apply.
."When health and safety law does not applyIn most cases, health and safety law does not apply where volunteering does not involve an employer."

I hate to shatter your delusion here...H n S legislation most certainly does apply to volunteers ...the railway I was on had it in their various regulatory notices ..not that they actually bothered with such until the ORR arrived and forced them to start complying...but H n S is applicable across just about every organisation...."duty of care " mean anything to you at all ?

In case you were wondering, for me the purpose of an investigation is to establish what went wrong....and why. Not a "blame game " exercise...that's counter productive in flight safety, albeit for some organisations it's sadly still in place. The only time I'm in favour of finding fault and attributing blame is when it's warranted by virtue of those involved being cavalier and indifferent to the rules they feel don't apply to them.

Remember also, this aircraft, whilst it's not flying, is still a working and functioning aircraft and the public can get very close to it. Once you allow the public to be in close, or even relatively close, proximity to a complex and potentially very dangerous piece of machinery, then you need to ensure all measures that can be taken for their protection can and will be, in place.

Think about it, all of us who have been involved with live aircraft had the dangers and safety aspects drummed into us from day 1 and continuously after that. Most of the general public don't and are therefore dependent on organisations and trained personnel who do.

[common toad]

Then there was the Lightning doing a high power run with an engineer on board.
It overode the chocks and the engineer (who was not a fullly qualified pilot) took off did a crcuit and landed safely.

Wing Commander Taff Holden trained on the Tiger Moth, Chipmunk and Harvard. He held RAF wings.

[Yellow Sun]

Only if the organisation involved has at least one employee. 655MaPS who look after the aircraft and were involved in the incident is entirely voluntary. Granted its not totally clear how the aircraft being owned by the airfield might affect this position but there would seem to be no employer - volunteer relationship which means that Health And Safety laws do not apply.
."When health and safety law does not applyIn most cases, health and safety law does not apply where volunteering does not involve an employer."

Not a FMOTL are you? Just asking.

The airframe is owned by a “shell” company which has some form of contract with 655MaPS to maintain and preserve the airframe and presumably to organise events to fund its activities. 655MaPS would appear to be a voluntary unincorporated body and does not seem to be registered as a charity. Whether it conducts its business through elected officers or has appointed trustees is unclear. The significance of unincorporated status is that although you may effect insurance to mitigate personal loss, all members of the society have unlimited liability should anything go wrong. The trouble with insurance is that you never know if it will work until you need it. A sobering thought!

Now, the “shell” or holding company also owns Wellsbourne Mountford Airfield but plainly neither manages or operates it. The management is contracted out to another company which, according to their last published accounts, employs an average of 9 people. 655MaPS will have to have some form of contract with the management company who will have a duty of care to ensure that activities conducted on the site are done so in a safe manner. This will include ensuring that proper risk assessments are carried out.

It seems pretty clear that although the company owning the site has no employees and 655MaPS is voluntary the incident occurred on a site for which the management company, which has employees, has overall control. Were I a director of the management company I would have had an urgent meeting with responsible officers of 655MaPS and advised them to make a short factual report of the incident to their insurers, the HSE and the local authority. I would also advise them that my own reports would be filed in 2 hours time.

YS

[jumpseater]

The HSE's remit is Health and Safety at work. This wasn't a workplace incident.

Seeing it happened at a licensed aerodrome, where employees and the general public have access, the location is certainly under legal definition a ‘work place’. Also CAP168 certain safety criteria need to be met for a license to be issued.

I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a subsequent official overview, HSE and/or CAA aerodrome licensing, of their procedures to ensure that their procedures are robust in the event of an over run. Hopefully that’s already included in their airfield risk assessments anyway. If it is, and they worked, then there’s nothing to see, if not we can assume changes in the future.

[Richard Dangle]

Having looked at the images, and the location on Google Maps, I am a little surprised that this sort of activity by this sort of aircraft is permitted at this site, when no traffic lights appear to be im place controlling the traffic..or have I missed them????? I operated for many years on an aircraft of similar vintage, on a runaway with a public road crossing at one end, and there were traffic lights controlling traffic for all arrivals and departures. This beast came within a gnat's c**k of creating some much larger headlines. I would suggest that someone, somewhere has dropped the ball a little from a risk assessment perspective. No doubt that will now be rectified - both here and elsewhere - albeit I suggest the cost and inconvenience of implementing traffic control measures might be undersireable given a simpler, more obvious and cost-free solution.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Having looked at the images, and the location on Google Maps, I am a little surprised that this sort of activity by this sort of aircraft is permitted at this site, when no traffic lights appear to be im place controlling the traffic..or have I missed them????? I operated for many years on an aircraft of similar vintage, on a runaway with a public road crossing at one end, and there were traffic lights controlling traffic for all arrivals and departures. This beast came within a gnat's c**k of creating some much larger headlines. I would suggest that someone, somewhere has dropped the ball a little from a risk assessment perspective. No doubt that will now be rectified - both here and elsewhere - albeit I suggest the cost and inconvenience of implementing traffic control measures might be undersireable given a simpler, more obvious and cost-free solution.

Whilst it is usual to have traffic control if a road passes very close to the end of a runway, normally it is only used for an unusually large aircraft taking off or landing. I live in a city that has a airport with just such a setup.

I don't think I have ever known it to be used for something that has no intention of leaving the ground but might smash through the perimeter fence! To be honest, if that is necessary then it is difficult to see that the operation was ever a good idea.

Does the ploughed field normally have crops? If so, would they have operated had there been standing corn? If so and the same had happened it would presumably have caught fire!

[rickyricks]

Does the ploughed field normally have crops? If so, would they have operated had there been standing corn? If so and the same had happened it would presumably have caught fire!
There is no ploughed field at the end of the runway at Wellesbourne airfield, just the normal mown grass as would be expected. However, it might be prudent to do future runs in the reverse direction, as there are a lot more fields to cover before the Loxley Road is encountered.

[TEEEJ]

t4EfdNq_-0o

[sycamore]

Anybody got an idea of the weight of the aircraft for these taxi runs...?

[Yellow Sun]

Anybody got an idea of the weight of the aircraft for these taxi runs...?

IIRC the ZFW used to be around 100K and 655 is likely to be a bit less than that. So, how much fuel would you put on, 10K all in the 1 and 2 tanks? Certainly less than 120K probably below 110K.

YS

[chevvron]

Whilst it is usual to have traffic control if a road passes very close to the end of a runway, normally it is only used for an unusually large aircraft taking off or landing. I live in a city that has a airport with just such a setup.

No it all depends on what the airport operator decides; even something like a C150 could present a hazard when departing in some places.
I used to work at an airfield which had both 'on airfield' traffic lights plus another set outside the airport and both were set to red for all takeoffs and landings.

[common toad]

Luckily they didn’t have a strop snap during the pull. Otherwise there might well have been more than a Vulcan in the dirt. Idiots!

[Bill Macgillivray]

Sycamore, I would hazard a reasonable guess that the auw for this "exercise" would be about 108 -109 k. (going from my old op. manual).

[Fris B. Fairing]

So why all the earth works in front of the aeroplane?

[teej013]

So why all the earth works in front of the aeroplane?

If you refer to the 1st picture, you will see that the AC came to rest against the hedge along side the road. so the A/C has already been pulled back some distance.

[Dan Winterland]

Out of interest which authority would regulate that? Simple answer. None!

[Krystal n chips]

There's an interesting video on YT entitled Recovering Vulcan XM655 At Wellesbourne Airfield...it's about 20+mins long. I can't post a link because I'm a little uncertain as to copyright......however, there are some very "interesting " sub titles and commentary....."Green Flag " get a mention, as does...gas pipe...the weight is stated as 50 tons and those on board "get mentioned "...

[FullOppositeRudder]

So why all the earth works in front of the aeroplane?

Speculation on my part, but probably just restoring the area to its original state. It's a bit far over the horizon from here to be totally confident, but my theory would be that they removed the top soil from the tracks the aircraft was going to be taking on it's journey back to the hard to reduce as much as possible the obstruction it would present to the rolling of the wheels. The subsoil could be quite firm by comparison and present a suitably firm base for the tow out. I'm just basing this on occasional first hand experience in rescuing non aviation vehicles from somewhat similar situations.

[FullOppositeRudder]

Luckily they didn’t have a strop snap during the pull. Otherwise there might well have been more than a Vulcan in the dirt. Idiots!

Perhaps a rather harsh judgement? I would suggest that a lot of thought would have gone into the suitability and safety of both the process and the equipment. I don't think that luck played very much of a role here.

[mahogany bob]

Did they use full power??

I seem to remember that taking off with full power in a ‘light ‘ Vulcan was very exiting!
The acceleration was enormous and V rotate came up very quickly!

Below a certain AUW 85 % thrust was used for t/o.

Why were the air brakes not deployed ?

(Hazy memory recalls a Hunter going into the water at Gib doing brake checks- in the 70s ??)

[nipva]

'(Hazy memory recalls a Hunter going into the water at Gib doing brake checks- in the 70s ??)'

Not quite right - he narrowly managed to avoid a dip in the harbour by selecting the undercarriage up on the emergency override system and remained on the runway edge - just.. He was indeed doing a brake check following a brake change. His first run was on the westerly runway followed by a return run on the easterly. He then decided to do one more run 'just to be sure' . Now those of you that know the Hunter will know that a) it did not have maxarets and b) it was notorious for brake fade. The outcome was thus no surprise! From memory this was in 1977 as the detachment finished after 12 years in 1978.

[sycamore]

nip, the Hunter does have `maxarets`,or at least the ones I worked on at Halton,and later flew,had them....

[nipva]

nip, the Hunter does have `maxarets`,or at least the ones I worked on at Halton,and later flew,had them....

You are of course quite correct. It is 41 years since I last flew that lovely aircraft. Despite some 800+ hours on it my memory let me down. Thank you for correcting it.

[Diff Tail Shim]

There's an interesting video on YT entitled Recovering Vulcan XM655 At Wellesbourne Airfield...it's about 20+mins long. I can't post a link because I'm a little uncertain as to copyright......however, there are some very "interesting " sub titles and commentary....."Green Flag " get a mention, as does...gas pipe...the weight is stated as 50 tons and those on board "get mentioned "...
Let us see how gash they were? Lots of mates with diggers that one would struggle to get from a hire company next day. No wonder they got it out so quickly.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Did they use full power??

I seem to remember that taking off with full power in a ‘light ‘ Vulcan was very exiting!
The acceleration was enormous and V rotate came up very quickly!

Below a certain AUW 85 % thrust was used for t/o.

Why were the air brakes not deployed ?

(Hazy memory recalls a Hunter going into the water at Gib doing brake checks- in the 70s ??)
I bet they did. Get the howl and the nose up. We do with XX741. But have more reliable speed sensing equipment in use. Our first test runs were 100 knots that was 125 first time. XX741 would have flown at that speed and weight..80 max now. Spoke to a regular jet car driver (and professional military pilot as day job) and he was not impressed by the show last weekend. Was unprofessional in his book.

[ZH875]

XM655 has Olympus 301 engines, so with the enlarged air intakes doesn't produce the Vulcan howl that the 201 engined aircraft did.

[BEagle]

Full power was always used in the Vulcan for take-off; a 4-eng go-around normally required 80% thrust; a 2-eng go-around required 93%. In a 200-ser aircraft anything more than 93% would cause the howl, particularly it the throttles were opened briskly at low speed....

300-ser aircraft were de-rated until the South Atlantic campaign, so didn't howl. The 'cruise' limit setting was then the same as the 'take-off' limit setting for 200-ser aircraft and 300-ser were always flown in 'cruise'. But those who had flown them years earlier when full power was available advised that the howl they made would shake Lincoln cathedral!

Anyway, '655 is now back on the pan with fully serviceable brakes and steering. At present there is no suggestion that there won't be any future taxy runs.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Beagle, how right you are regarding 300-ser. aircraft in "cruise". The "cruise/take-off" limiting switch (yes -switch! ) was mounted on the throttle quadrant and wire locked in "cruise". I do remember, however, when giving displays overseas with friendly crew chiefs, that frequently the wire locking was "broken" and the switch was in the take-off position. Who was I to change it?!!! glad 655 is now "S", many happy memories! Bill

[GrahamO]

Back where it should be - nothing obvious in the way of damage.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_9836_7fd53040e136d03b67982a4def4f22ae1df75138.jpg

[Yellow Sun]

Beagle, how right you are regarding 300-ser. aircraft in "cruise". The "cruise/take-off" limiting switch (yes -switch! ) was mounted on the throttle quadrant and wire locked in "cruise". I do remember, however, when giving displays overseas with friendly crew chiefs, that frequently the wire locking was "broken" and the switch was in the take-off position. Who was I to change it?!!! glad 655 is now "S", many happy memories! Bill

I vaguely recall picking up a 300 series aircraft from St Athan and finding the governor switch in Takeoff. As it was ex-major all the role equipment had been removed and the ZFW was somewhere in 80s. I only vaguely recall the departure as it didn’t take long and everything happened extremely quickly! I do recall that an unusually large amount of up elevon was involved.

Happy days
YS

[Krystal n chips]

Back where it should be - nothing obvious in the way of damage.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_9836_7fd53040e136d03b67982a4def4f22ae1df75138.jpg

Well as that's a long distance shot, and, in all probability there isn't any damage, well to the aircraft at least, then you can't say for certain there's no damage until you jack the wheels and carry out a detailed close inspection and functional checks.

However, watch the arrival of the aircraft on YT at Wellesbourne and note the stopping distance along with the aircraft taxiing clear...now I don't know what the landing speed / weight would have been on the day, plus, it had five crew on board, but compare the safe arrival..... to the fast taxi event....

[ZH875]

On arrival she was travelling fast enough to deploy the tail braking chute. Fast taxi could not use the chute. You're comparing apples and pears.

[hurn]

Back where it should be - nothing obvious in the way of damage.

Apparently they've damaged an engine, which will need to be replaced.

[DaveReidUK]

Apparently they've damaged an engine, which will need to be replaced.

I'd have thought that 3-engined taxy runs might be a tad safer. :O

[sycamore]

DR,longer accel. distance to achieve speed........

[DaveReidUK]

DR,longer accel. distance to achieve speed........

In other words, lower speed for the same acceleration time. :O

[hurn]

I'd have thought that 3-engined taxy runs might be a tad safer. :O
Depends. A four engined taxi run at low speed would be safer than a 3 engined taxi run at high speed.

[DaveReidUK]

Depends. A four engined taxi run at low speed would be safer than a 3 engined taxi run at high speed.

I suspect that, whether or not they manage to restore 4 serviceable engines, the speed at which they perform taxi runs is going to be reviewed in the light of the incident.

[GrahamO]

Recovery video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60HCitYhAFE