Spewing Stew

Looks brilliant, my support is as strong as ever & will increase my S O very soon. Thanks PA28 for your hard work

Load Toad

The English Russia link has an interesting picture...

English Russia Abandoned Military Object

airsound

I hesitate to rake over coals that have by now lost much of their earlier white heat. But a new development has belatedly poured some extinguishing water on an unpleasant conflagration. And at the risk of stretching this metaphor beyond twanging point, I feel that that earlier heat singed so many feathers that the new circumstances deserve wider dissemination.

After the regrettable events at Waddington, when a serviceable XH558 couldn’t fly because her permit had expired the day before the show, a huge amount of abuse was hurled around by all and sundry, much of it aimed at the Vulcan To the Sky Trust. My attempts to defend VTST put me firmly in the firing line of some heavy-duty slagging off on this forum, some of it official. I retired temporarily hurt, sense of humour failure light flashing.
(Page 125 of this thread, and many pp thereafter)

So it was with some interest that I read an interview with Padhraic Kelleher, Head of Airworthiness at the CAA, by Gary Parsons of Key Publishing. There’s plenty of interesting stuff, but the interview starts with the Vulcan permit problem. Mr K comes down firmly on the side of VTST.
and
You can see the whole thing at
Right to reply: the CAA speaks: Key.Aero, Airshows



sean
airsound
commentator for Vulcan XH558

andrewmcharlton

Thanks for that Airsound. However, does it clarify why wthe application was rejected / refused / not filed in time and who is accountable for that aspect of things?

I see from the website that we're edging closer again to a pass that hat or else scenario or am I reading too much doom in to their published figures (for which I do commend them).

AMC

airsound

Andrew M
Mr K doesn't commit himself too firmly on that score, but he is quite firm about who was not accountable - that's to say VTST.

On your other point, I'm sad to have to say that I believe that the
is going to continue to be the periodic norm unless and until some major commercial sponsorship comes along. Enormous efforts are being made in that direction - one small example of which is the short film that I'm sure you've seen

YouTube - Avro Vulcan XH558 2009

and indeed a new Chairman (and Deputy) of the Trust have recently been appointed with a view to further sharpening the push to get to an appropriate level of sponsorship.

airsound

Treble one

If You are going to selectively quote from this article, may I join in please?

key.aero: “If we could start with the Vulcan; I think everybody knows that the CAA has been quite supportive. It’s flown, but we had the issue in early July where the Vulcan flew in to Waddington’s International Airshow on the Thursday, but then on the Friday the Vulcan Operating Company said, “We can’t fly, our permit’s run out”. Now, a lot of people know the problem lay with the operators as the paperwork wasn’t in order, but there’s also an undercurrent that’s thinking the CAA could have been a little bit more flexible, maybe given an extension to the permit for a few days to allow it to fly at the airshow. Can you tell me what actually happened behind the scenes and all the efforts that were made to make it happen?

Padhraic Kelleher: “I’m pleased to have the opportunity. I remember hearing the howls of protest and seeing some of the more respected journalists carrying effectively one rumour built into another, and suddenly that became ‘reality’. If it was just a simple matter of extending the permit for a couple of days, that would have happened. It wasn’t the case; sitting behind the Vulcan’s Permit to Fly is an understanding about how safe that machine is. Behind that are teams of people, not at the CAA, but in the Vulcan to the Sky Trust and Marshall Aerospace – behind those there are probably dozens of other specialist companies, and many of them very well known in the industry, who in their own way are offering support, proof, taking care that things are safe.

“The reality was that one of those very large specialist organisations was telling us they were not content with the structure of the aircraft – this only came to a head at the unfortunate time when the permit was due for renewal. In the end, when we had got the right analysis done and the right assurance in place, we had a letter that said, ‘We’ve done the work.’ That was turned round here the same day. So what was the CAA’s role? Frankly, our role was holding the ring for the other players. The thing I was amazed at was the announcement that the CAA had grounded the Vulcan! Well, I would have been the one who did it, and I can tell you I didn’t. In fact, I didn’t even have the opportunity to do so!

“We took a lot of care before committing real lives getting airborne in this machine; we’re equally committed to making sure that that’s the ongoing situation as well. We’re also concerned about what will happen to onlookers and the local population if anything goes wrong. This aircraft is such a huge symbol of what the airshow circuit can do, but we don’t want it to go horribly wrong and completely tarnish that image. There’s a lot riding on getting this one right.

“It would be wrong to say the Vulcan to the Sky Trust was trying to get it airborne come what may. In fact, they were fully on board with saying they couldn’t proceed. They behaved impeccably, and just what you would hope for an organisation that’s in charge of such a fabulous symbol.

“Behind the scenes engineering tests were being done, analysis was ongoing, and there comes a point where either those are all in place to allow you to continue, or there are doubts; and where there are doubts, and they’re about issues that are significant from a safety point of view, you don’t want to commit to something that you don’t feel confident about, and that was certainly the case here.

“We’re all enthusiastic to see the aircraft safely commit to the sky. I was quite pleased that at the end of that weekend we had a nice little note from the Trust to acknowledge that we had guys working on Saturday trying to make things happen for them, but when you don’t have to hand the proof, the assurance that you know you need from an engineering point of view, it really is folly to try and press ahead, and that’s where we were.”

Just making sure that the context is correct, if that's OK?

BTW Good luck to all the VTTS team and their fundraising efforts.

flipflopman RB199

Treble One,

I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that!!

Airsound, with respect, your post has not only a spectacular amount of spin contained in it, but also, as Treble One picked up on, an enormous amount of omissions. I have stayed away from this topic for as long as I possibly could have, but your post has forced me to comment due to the unbelievable amount of spin you have put upon Mr Kelleher's statement. Allow me to elaborate...

Padhraic Kelleher in his statement referred to the CAA having to be satisfied as to the structural integrity of the aircraft, and how "several large specialist organisations" were not "content" with the state of the aircraft. Those organisations were none other than BAE Systems and Marshall Aerospace, due solely to the fact that TVOC had not carried out the Fleet Sampling checks that were mandated by these organisations to be carried out upon XH558, as it was the only Vulcan in the fleet. Talks between TVOC, BAE, Marshall Aerospace and the CAA lead to a concession that the checks could be deferred and taken place using XM603 as sample due to the fact that the areas concerned (Fin Bolts etc) would be in a similar condition, having been preserved under a layer of sealant, and would be acceptable from a safety point of view. Flight then took place, along with an extended period of "Servicing" during which time TVOC had the opportunity to carry out the neccessary work on XM603. This work never took place during this time, for reasons best known to TVOC and so the situation occurred at Waddington where the aircraft was without a permit due to a situation that could, and indeed was resolved within a short period of time with the work being swiftly carried out and letter of "We've done the work" being sent to the CAA, and the CAA stamping the permit that day

Unfortunately, the problem is not, nor ever has been with the CAA, more the enormously inept and unqualified "Management" that afflicts it...

I could go on and on on this subject, but shall withdraw gracefully...


Flipflopman

Tim McLelland

It would be wrong to say the Vulcan to the Sky Trust was trying to get it airborne come what may. In fact, they were fully on board with saying they couldn’t proceed. They behaved impeccably, and just what you would hope for an organisation that’s in charge of such a fabulous symbol.

I think a lot of us would take issue with part of that statement. The Waddington fiasco was clearly not the CAA's fault. No matter how you look at the saga, it was VTTS/TVOC that created the problem. They were fully aware of the fact that the aircraft would not be permitted to fly and yet they still allowed the aircraft to be flown to Waddington and even fly a rehearsal display before being grounded. Clearly, this gave the impression to everyone (ie- every potential show-goer) that the aircraft would fly during the show, even though it must have been clear to all concerned that it would not. So, VTTS/TVOC wilfully misled the public. It wasn't the fact that the aircraft didn't fly which annoyed people, it was the fact that VTTS/TVOC could have informed the public of the situation before they turned-up and paid their money.

Nobody expects these people to perform miracles but this kind of cynical manoeuvring does nothing to restore people's faith in an organisation which has consistently relied upon non-communication and half truths for years. Claiming that they "behaved impeccably" is stretching things way too far!

hurn

Flipflapman, you said:
Regarding the parts I've highlighted in bold; we simply don't know why the work on XM603 wasn't carried out. It could have been anything from TVOC lacking the manpower to BAe not allowing them onsite to carry out the work during that period. We all know it should have been done, but unless you can inform us exactly why it didn't occur, it's probably a bit unfair to speculate it was all TVOC's fault.

The other point is that I thought that the permit, when given, was just a three month extension to the current one and the work on XM603 still had to be done. I could be wrong, but that's how I saw it.

The whole Waddington issue as I understood it was because TVOC had been given assurances they could get a three month extension to the permit, and for whatever reason that didn't happen on the day despite all the efforts to get it sorted.


Tim, you said:
Your statement that TVOC misled everyone is a little unfair I feel.
From what I've read and heard, it seems that, as I said above, TVOC were given assurances that a three month extension would be given to the permit to fly, even right up to Waddington.
They flew there with a day remaining on the permit, and I can only think that they were fairly certain that the paperwork would all be sorted that evening, allowing them to fly the next day. Alas we know something wasn't right and they didn't get the permit.
As to who's to blame, whether that be TVOC, Marshalls or both, one things is for sure, and that's TVOC had to rightly or wrongly suck it up and take a hefty kick in the knackers for it.

Given that a few days later, and at the last minute, the extension to the permit was granted, they got the Vulcan down to Yeovilton pronto, and in pretty bad conditions to make the following days show.
I really don't think they intentionally went out to mislead the public at Waddington, I think they went there in good faith that the permit would be given and they'd be able to display.
Also when you consider some of the lengths they've gone to to get to displays in 2009 (Dunsfold is one good example) then I only feel they've tried their best to display to the public whenever possible.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I'm no TVOC fanboy, but sometimes I feel they get a lot of flack when perhaps it's not all entirely their own fault.

flipflopman RB199

Hurn,

Whilst I admire your loyalty and desire to keep an open mind on the subject, having spent much time 'behind the scenes' and in regular contact with those directly involved with the situations you allude to, obviously I have a much different viewpoint from yourself.

I certainly cannot tell you exactly why the work was not done, and am at a loss to explain that myself, but I certainly can tell you that it was not due to any manpower issues, any access issues or anything else. I can also state this based upon first hand knowledge, and not upon information released in TVOC press statements. I also know that throughout the year, the need to sort out a trip to 603 to carry out the work was mentioned several times and put off several times, however, you're quite correct, I cannot tell you exactly why the work was not done.

Without wishing to resort to cliches, as I remember, the saying goes "Never assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME" - Regardless of placations, the job of management is to ensure that things run correctly and smoothly, and to assume that the CAA would simply grant an extension, regardless of what they were supposedly led to believe (which in itself is laughable), without having any form of written and solid confirmation displays at best naïvety in the extreme, but in reality, displays the level of arrogance and ineptitude shown by the current management who despite having had no previous experience in aircraft operations, insist upon attempting to control all aspects of XH558's flight ops, to the point of alienating those who have spent their entire careers in that department.

Anyhow, I digress. Paradoxically, I really do not wish to become involved in a drawn out TVOC bashing argument on here. My main reason for posting, was to add a little balance to Airsound's select and biassed snippets from the interview with the CAA's Padhraic Kelleher. I have a great respect and affection for many who are currently working hard to 'do their bit' for 558, via stalls on Lincoln Christmas Market or other means, and I have no wish to disrespect these efforts, so shall draw a line here, suffice to say that I feel that TVOC's current management are not only failing to make best use of the donations, but are also perhaps discouraging others, myself included, from donating further.


Flipflopman

andrewmcharlton

Isn't it the simple case that no matter what assumptions, verbal assurances or promises were made by whoever, the operator is responsible for securing the PtF and making sure that any conditions are met?

Airsound's slant on it isn't what's actually written.

He doesn't actually say anything of the sort, he just says they agreed with the CAA verdict and behaved well.

I wish the team well in raising the funding to keep her flying in 2010.

Tim McLelland

I really don't think they intentionally went out to mislead the public at Waddington, I think they went there in good faith that the permit would be given and they'd be able to display

I don't think that at all - and many other people don't either. I think it's pretty clear that they knew only too well what was likely to happen. It was either a cynical attempt to pressure the CAA, or an equally cynical attempt to persuade people to pay-up and attend a show in order to see an aircraft fly that clearly wasn't going to fly at all.

The most generous explanation that anyone could seriously offer is that they simply hoped that the situation would be resolved - hardly a professional approach, is it? Either way it was a very shabby episode which did VTTS/TVOC no favours at all.

PPRuNe Pop

Please avoid knocking! IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE REASONS it is not at all fair play to assume one way the other who did or did not do what - YOU thought they should have done.

We have been down this route before and some have had egg on their faces. AFTER Waddington the aircraft flew many displays and was received with admiration up and down the country.

And for those who cynically say "I suppose they will be after our hard earned again" get real - it is a racing certainty unless a sponsor supports it.

Tim McLelland

I disagree. Everybody is entitled to have a view. More importantly, the Vulcan has been financed by donations, HLF funding and air shows, therefore almost all of us have contributed to the aircraft either directly or indirectly and if that doesn't entitle us to a view (misinformed or otherwise) then I don't know what does. If some people have not got an accurate grasp of the facts then surely it's the responsibility of TVOC/VTTS to put the matter straight - if they have any inclination to do so?

Tempsford

Three issues here,

1. Keeping it airborne. Some hard lessons have hopefully been learnt. All involved should have a better understanding as to how to keep this aircraft in the air for some years to come.
2. Fund raising. PPP is right, let's get real. If the public want to see this very expensive aircraft, then they will have to pay for it. It is even more unliklely in the current economic climate that new, major sponsors will be forthcoming.
3. Bookings. As long as the aircraft has a high degree of reliability. (We have to be talking at least 95% + here) the UK bookings will continue for a few more years yet. Of that I am reasonably sure.

Well done to the hardcore who improved the reliability after the already discussed setbacks to enthrall the masses this summer. You have done an excellent job.

The Vulcan is a show stopper, a show maker and a show breaker all in one.

Let's hope for a good year for the aircraft in 2010.

Blacksheep

You can get 95%+ despatch reliability (departure within 15 minutes of schedule) out of a modern, digital heavy, but the Vulcan never got anywhere near that when it was the latest and greatest. As a historical reconstruction it'd be fantastic if it achieved 90% (departure within an hour of schedule). What was the actual figure for 2009?

Tempsford

Blacksheep,

That was going to be my next question as well.

Based on the current utilisation, the type of flying that the aircraft is doing compared to when it was in service and the fact that we aren't talking of +15 mins on STD, but an actual apperance at a booked display what is the reliabilty target?

It would also be interesting to see how many flying displays the Vulcan was booked to do this year and how many it actually did. I am sure the figures are somewhere, but I bet someone looking at this thread has the info to hand.

bubblesuk

Last season XH558 made 62 appearences give or take and missed 4.

hurn

Flipflopman, thanks for your input.

Tim, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on any cynical TVOC motives regarding Waddo and the PtF.

Tempsford and Blacksheep, have a look at the link for a list of the displays and flypasts that 558 did in 2009.

Save XH558 - Avro Vulcan Bomber - Flight Information/Air Shows

Not bad if you ask me.

XH558 Press Office

XH558's 50th Birthday Appeal has broken £150,000!

We need your help to push for the next £50,000 this side of Christmas.
www.vulcantothesky.org

Thank you.