Vulcan XH 558 Threads (merged)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know. I only found out this am when I logged on to the club forum.
Due to ill health I have taken a back seat this year, so not got any facts yet.
I am awaiting information along with some very pissed off Club members.
As soon as my grapevine kicks in I will let you folks know. Needless to say I am extremely pissed off/livid!!!!
Due to ill health I have taken a back seat this year, so not got any facts yet.
I am awaiting information along with some very pissed off Club members.
As soon as my grapevine kicks in I will let you folks know. Needless to say I am extremely pissed off/livid!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: lincoln
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ptf
the problem is the PTF expired on the 2nd july and the application wasn't submitted to the CAA until the 26/6.
CAA rules state that a permit to fly authorisation takes on average 15 days to process,so make your own minds up where fault lies.
There's gonna be a lot of angry people at Waddo this weekend after last years no show on the sunday and all the hard selling this week about the formation flying with the reds and the breitling team.
Unfortunately i expect the blame to be apportioned elsewhere as i dont expect the management to accept responsibility.
Unfortunately i fear this could be the first nail in the coffin as mr general public won't buy many more excuses especially when it appears to be down to total incompetence by a very amateur outfit.
CAA rules state that a permit to fly authorisation takes on average 15 days to process,so make your own minds up where fault lies.
There's gonna be a lot of angry people at Waddo this weekend after last years no show on the sunday and all the hard selling this week about the formation flying with the reds and the breitling team.
Unfortunately i expect the blame to be apportioned elsewhere as i dont expect the management to accept responsibility.
Unfortunately i fear this could be the first nail in the coffin as mr general public won't buy many more excuses especially when it appears to be down to total incompetence by a very amateur outfit.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Downtown Hook
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft is fine and working order. Yes - C of A is up and I think you will find that one of the main engineering companies behind the project forgot to do some NDT/paperwork in time for yesterdays submission.
It will get the C of A next week I expect but it does not do anything for the people behind the Waddington air show this weekend and the many many people Q'ing up right now at the gates expecting to see it fly later.
It will get the C of A next week I expect but it does not do anything for the people behind the Waddington air show this weekend and the many many people Q'ing up right now at the gates expecting to see it fly later.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is what has happened it is a pretty disgraceful state of affairs. There are enough hurdles for it to overcome without being airworthy and grounded due to an oversight.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is correct, then this is the Foxtrot Uniform of all time, and this project has had far more than it's fair share to start with.
How can that possibly get overlooked?
and finally
How can that possibly get overlooked?
and finally
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Twitter Service' is an official source of news for XH558 run by someone close to the project. This has been said:
Now I'll defend things like going unserviceable as that's part and parcel of old aircraft.
But this........
No flying this weekend.
Aircraft serviceable but conditions of renewing permit to fly have not been met as a structural inspection of XM603 that CAA wanted has not been made.
We are as disappointed as you.
Aircraft serviceable but conditions of renewing permit to fly have not been met as a structural inspection of XM603 that CAA wanted has not been made.
We are as disappointed as you.
But this........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This begs further questions - such as:
How can a structural inspection of XM603 be a dependency on the granting of a CofA for XH558? What relevance could it possibly have?
In any case, I thought '603 had been/was about to be scrapped? What good would a structural inspection of that airframe do now?
I'm sure that's the mere tip of the iceberg as far as incoming questions goes.
Unbef*ckinglieveable.
Edit: I'm well aware that '603 is an agreed organ bank for '558, and I can understand that the CAA might want to know the condition of some or all of the spares on hand to grant the PF or CofA, but I very much do not believe that any of '603's structure will be on the donor parts list.
How can a structural inspection of XM603 be a dependency on the granting of a CofA for XH558? What relevance could it possibly have?
In any case, I thought '603 had been/was about to be scrapped? What good would a structural inspection of that airframe do now?
I'm sure that's the mere tip of the iceberg as far as incoming questions goes.
Unbef*ckinglieveable.
Edit: I'm well aware that '603 is an agreed organ bank for '558, and I can understand that the CAA might want to know the condition of some or all of the spares on hand to grant the PF or CofA, but I very much do not believe that any of '603's structure will be on the donor parts list.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby UK
Age: 59
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be a destructive test of a sample of material from the airframe to look at material degradation, age hardening etc.
so it is a sample of a similar age that can be tested in a lab for life evaluation etc.
couldn't do it on 558 without damaging it in a key area of the structure.
standard stuff for extending airframe life.
Geoff
so it is a sample of a similar age that can be tested in a lab for life evaluation etc.
couldn't do it on 558 without damaging it in a key area of the structure.
standard stuff for extending airframe life.
Geoff
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official statement released: Vulcan To The Sky News
As part of the 2005-7 Major servicing, a number of structural inspections had to be deferred, because it was not feasible to complete them on XH558’s airframe. It was planned by VTST and Marshal Aerospace, in agreement with BAE Systems and the Civil Aviation Authority, that these inspections would be carried out before the renewal of XH558’s Permit to Fly on 3rd July 2009, using the airframe of BAE Systems-owned Vulcan XM603 at Woodford, as part of the scrapping process of this aircraft. Unfortunately, despite best intentions, it has not yet proved possible to complete or establish mitigations for all these inspections. Consequently, we have currently not fully met the conditions that would enable the issue of XH558’s Permit to Fly renewal.
XH558 is however is fully serviceable and ready for flight, and Marshall Aerospace together with VTST and BAE Systems are doing all they can as quickly as they can to resolve this unexpected, one-off issue within the next few days. We are very sad that it is not going to be possible for the Vulcan to display at Waddington over the weekend of 4th/5th July.
XH558 is however is fully serviceable and ready for flight, and Marshall Aerospace together with VTST and BAE Systems are doing all they can as quickly as they can to resolve this unexpected, one-off issue within the next few days. We are very sad that it is not going to be possible for the Vulcan to display at Waddington over the weekend of 4th/5th July.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, as you know, I don't post up very much any more on the subject of 558, as to be totally honest I've had a gutful of it all. Having had a little more 'behind the scenes' experience than others, and having personally experienced the full effects of the appalingly bad 'management' on many seperate occasions, My patience has been tested to the point where I no longer have any interest in being associated with the whole debacle, however....
Having just heard and read about all of this, and especially the quite frankly ridiculous press release posted above, complete with TVOC's attempts to shrug it off as a "one off" occasion despite "best intentions" I feel that I'd quite like to vent my spleen a little and throw in my 2p worth!
There is only really one place where the buck stops here, and that is firmly at the door of the self appointed "Engineering Director" or "Engineering Manager" or whichever grandiose title he has decided to award himself this month. Unfortunately, with such a position, comes certain responsibilities and one of those is the ultimate responsibility for all engineering matters. Whether or not he chooses to delegate the matters elsewhere to people who are more suited or capable is immaterial. Ultimately, he is the end of the road and should take ultimate responsibility. The fact of the matter in this case is that the Structural Sampling tests, which have been known about for over 2 years now, have not been completed, despite the fact that the CAA have mandated that these are essential conditions of the permit being renewed, and as the Engineering Manager, ultimately, he is responsible for ensuring that the Sampling was completed in time for the renewal. Simple as that really.
The checks being discussed originally formed part of the original RAF Major servicing, which was being carried out alongside all of the Enhanced inspections and modifications XH558 recieved during her restoration. Originally, as the name suggests, the sampling checks were carried out across a percentage of the fleet, to give a broad idea of the condition of the fleet, and were not carried out on every aircraft undergoing a major. Due to this fact, and because of the depth of some of the sampling checks, which included such inaccessible items as the Fin attachment bolts for example, it was agreed during discussion with the CAA etc that the checks could be carried out on XM603 as technically she was part of the fleet, and any damage, dissasembly required would not incur the headaches it would with 558. All well and good, and required much good will from the CAA really. The conditions imposed by the CAA for this however, was that the work would be carried out prior to the next Permit application. A little like an ADF in principle. This gave TVOC a window of over a year to do this work and present the results. This work was then left incomplete and therefore, quite rightly the CAA have refused the application. What is particularly outrageous about all of this is that this has clearly been known about for a VERY long time, and has taken place through a year where for a large chunk, there has been very little for the engineers to do, and despite the protestations that will inevitably follow, that is an inescapable fact. Obviously, these are only my own opinions, but to allow this to reach the stage where we now have a grounded aircraft and a refused Permit, smacks of either incredibly incompetant engineering management, or blatent arrogance and disregard of aviation legislation and rules that are in place for everyones safety. On a more sinister note, it begs the question as to whether the application for renewal was put in by TVOC quietly, with the hope that it would simply be renewed. Either way, the buck must stop somewhere, and how many times can events like this be tolerated and simply glossed over with a little "It's a one off" spin?
Sorry if you disagree with any or all of my post, but I am sat here fuming and utterly utterly disgusted on all levels, and to be totally frank, embarassed to have been associated with TVOC in any way at all.
Rant over...
Flipflopman
Having just heard and read about all of this, and especially the quite frankly ridiculous press release posted above, complete with TVOC's attempts to shrug it off as a "one off" occasion despite "best intentions" I feel that I'd quite like to vent my spleen a little and throw in my 2p worth!
There is only really one place where the buck stops here, and that is firmly at the door of the self appointed "Engineering Director" or "Engineering Manager" or whichever grandiose title he has decided to award himself this month. Unfortunately, with such a position, comes certain responsibilities and one of those is the ultimate responsibility for all engineering matters. Whether or not he chooses to delegate the matters elsewhere to people who are more suited or capable is immaterial. Ultimately, he is the end of the road and should take ultimate responsibility. The fact of the matter in this case is that the Structural Sampling tests, which have been known about for over 2 years now, have not been completed, despite the fact that the CAA have mandated that these are essential conditions of the permit being renewed, and as the Engineering Manager, ultimately, he is responsible for ensuring that the Sampling was completed in time for the renewal. Simple as that really.
The checks being discussed originally formed part of the original RAF Major servicing, which was being carried out alongside all of the Enhanced inspections and modifications XH558 recieved during her restoration. Originally, as the name suggests, the sampling checks were carried out across a percentage of the fleet, to give a broad idea of the condition of the fleet, and were not carried out on every aircraft undergoing a major. Due to this fact, and because of the depth of some of the sampling checks, which included such inaccessible items as the Fin attachment bolts for example, it was agreed during discussion with the CAA etc that the checks could be carried out on XM603 as technically she was part of the fleet, and any damage, dissasembly required would not incur the headaches it would with 558. All well and good, and required much good will from the CAA really. The conditions imposed by the CAA for this however, was that the work would be carried out prior to the next Permit application. A little like an ADF in principle. This gave TVOC a window of over a year to do this work and present the results. This work was then left incomplete and therefore, quite rightly the CAA have refused the application. What is particularly outrageous about all of this is that this has clearly been known about for a VERY long time, and has taken place through a year where for a large chunk, there has been very little for the engineers to do, and despite the protestations that will inevitably follow, that is an inescapable fact. Obviously, these are only my own opinions, but to allow this to reach the stage where we now have a grounded aircraft and a refused Permit, smacks of either incredibly incompetant engineering management, or blatent arrogance and disregard of aviation legislation and rules that are in place for everyones safety. On a more sinister note, it begs the question as to whether the application for renewal was put in by TVOC quietly, with the hope that it would simply be renewed. Either way, the buck must stop somewhere, and how many times can events like this be tolerated and simply glossed over with a little "It's a one off" spin?
Sorry if you disagree with any or all of my post, but I am sat here fuming and utterly utterly disgusted on all levels, and to be totally frank, embarassed to have been associated with TVOC in any way at all.
Rant over...
Flipflopman
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipflopman,
Great post, bang on the money. This is but one item where the buck should stop nowhere else. Engineering and airworthyness / safety are obviously priority without question, just add fundraising, communications, accountability, marketing, PR etc etc etc to the list.
Wonder when anyone there will accept any responsibility for anything. Nuff said.
Great post, bang on the money. This is but one item where the buck should stop nowhere else. Engineering and airworthyness / safety are obviously priority without question, just add fundraising, communications, accountability, marketing, PR etc etc etc to the list.
Wonder when anyone there will accept any responsibility for anything. Nuff said.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipflop, I know how much effort you've put into 558 and I feel for you - genuinely. Having had the pleasure of meeting you (and with a lifetime in the company of other 'aircraft people') I'd like to suggest that you consider the up-coming position of Engineering Director/Manager. I'm serious. Any seconders?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In A House
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can the project survive this ?
FFM, is spot on, they've known for over a year this inspection / testing was required, hardly a one-off!
Someone has to answer some questions, and fast!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: lincoln
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply.Apparently they've not even had the decency to answer questions around the vulcan now in static limbo.Suppose they'll leave it to the volunteers on the vulcan village to take the flack.I suspect that excuse for an official statement is all we will get
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume it will have to stay at Waddo untill a new PTF is issued, which I also assume it won't be until the work on 603 is carried out. So how long will that be?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it takes the CAA 15 (working?) days to process application and the inspection of 603 still hasn't happened, then Yeovilton and Fairford must be doubtful to say the least.
Time for Mr Pleming to come clean?
Time for Mr Pleming to come clean?