Fluffy Bunny

So rather than actually try to explain to someone what you would say in that very circumstance you spout said Bolleaux trying to wriggle out....
Typical "not my job guv" attitude.

Or is it that you can't explain because you don't know either.

Also isn't it very apt that you allow yourself to badmouth others but can't take any yourself and instead resort to mild threats and a "holier than thou" attitude.....

How about you read what's on the bottom of the forum here and apply the cap that fits.....

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

simplethings

Was looking for the 'rolling on the floor lmfao' icon, but couldn't find it! This will have to do.........

Zero-1

Why not? You started the brickbat throwing or is it a case of, as FP said “do you really know if what you said was true?.. “

Quote:

It's nice to see somebody wishing to expand their knowledge, but don't come here, rolling you eyes at someone you don't know. Save that for when you KNOW someone's spouting bolleux.

Can’t comment on that because as I said I don’t know about their expertise…

Those that can do...

GINFO Search Results | Aircraft Register | Safety Regulation

Before you lot start again.......................

PPRuNe Pop

Zero-1

Now that you have showed us an example of your use of colours you can now cease please.

Please stick to the default colour, which is black and the type is Verdana and the size is 2.

Thank you.

PPP

Zero-1

Timed at 18.55 24/June/2011.... By the way I have just checked my recalcitant post and my bit actually conforms with the above stated rules, whereas everybody else is a non-standard colour....Blue

PPP is that better,above, the blues came from original post the blacks are now mine?

very sorry but couldn't figure out how to break up the original to answer questions posed and still make sense... again sorry....

but I think I have now found an alternative method?

Scuse me though... why is everything defaulting to blue then?.... just wondered?
Also I didn't change the type it just came out like that??

simplethings

Zero

Ok you win! Your quote is just about there. However you're confusing the compressors with the compressed gas. As your quote says, surging is the complete breakdown of flow and compression, caused, generally, by the compressor blades losing 'lift' and stalling. This can happen for any number of reasons, which, as before, you can search for. This 'stagnation' in flow results in the, relatively, HIGH PRESSURE gas, downstream of the area of stall reversing flow into the LOWER PRESSURE area, forward. This is generally quite a violent action, causing the engine to pop, bang and fart, sometimes with disastrous results. The crew will hear and feel this, along with yawing, especially in a twin, due to the loss of thrust, but they'll also get indications on their instruments, such as a rise in TGT, RPM changes and, if used, EPR changes.

The problem with 'Sad Sams' explanation is that he obviously doesn't know how the engine works! Those who know how a gas turbine works could see the error immediately. The gas is constantly being pressurized through the compressor so that, at any given point, the pressure is s set value, ish (again, lots of variables. Google 'Gas Turbine Theory'

So, completely the the wrong end of the stick! As I said, anybody with a basic grasp of schoolboy physics would be able to tell you that a low pressure gas CANNOT flow into a high pressure one.

There now....satisfied

Vulcan Rigger

As it happens I do have a pretty good idea how the engine works, I simply made a mistake for which I apologise.

Thank you for pointing it out to me, I have now corrected my post.

I try and keep the information I post on the forum fairly simple as a lot of the members are not technically minded. I must admit I could not have posted anything as technically perfect as your post, nor would I want too as most of the forum members would just say "huh?"

I am, as I have said on the VTSC forum "proud and honoured to be the last Vulcan Rigger" not the last Sooty, that would be Ray.

Fifty years ago there were thousands of people in this country actively involved in building Vulcans and thousands more involved in operating them. Thirty years ago I was proud to be part of the team that serviced them and today I am proud to be the end of that line.

If you know of anyone else who is employed as a Vulcan airframe technician ("Rigger") please let me know and I will gladly change my signature to read "one of the last" or something similar.

Zero-1

Satisfied?.... completely.. and in view of Sam admission of error you are indeed vindicated... many thanks..you have proved that you do appear to know what you are talking about and not spouting B******s

See?.... if you had reacted in this way in the first place things would not have got so heated... as I said many thanks, for a 67 year old..with no mechanical engineering qualifications, telecommunications was my field...I have, indeed learned a lot today..cheers

Winco

Does anyone know if the Permit has been igranted and ssued yet?

If the expected date of processing is the 29th of this month, it doesn't leave much flex for delays with the post, last minute glitches etc (as was the alleged reason for the ba££s up in 2009?)

Could someone from VTS please confirm the current 'airworthy' position/status of the airacraft please and advise if she will make it to Waddo?

Winco

hurn

Quite. Sadly this thread has little interesting debate these days and has just become a playground for attacking certain people within VttS.

I can only presume Simplethings was merely jumping on the bandwagon, although now that the victim of his wrath seems to be posting here perhaps he might not be as rude in future.

Zero-1

Oh come on Winco... with your track record of slagging VTTS off, do you really think they would come on here to be a target?
Lets face it apart from Sam who only came on to defend himself, there is only me with any sort of connections with the project that posts on here and I left them in 2009, so I now know very little...

May I suggest you follow this link...

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... gmark=VLCN

Winco

Zero,

I can see why people get irritated with you now. Where do you think I got the processing date from in the first place? Plucked it out of thin air?

My personal views on this whole fiasco are well known and, in the main, are agreed with by a great many. It is an appalling way in which to treat people, but hey, thats life. That said, it certainly does not preclude me from asking a perfectly reasonable question about where things stand on the matter of the permit to fly at the moment.

If, of course, it is all too difficult for any of the 'in the know' Vulcan people to answer, then I well understand. We certainly will not be getting a responce from anyone high up in the project, that is for sure.

I would just hate to see the many thousands of people that go to Waddington every year dissapointed by yet another VTS fiasco.

Delta15

I followed the link, is this the info you wanted?



Application Type Received Date Expected Date of Processing
A8-20 PERMIT RENEWAL 23/06/2011 29/06/2011

surely Mr Winco only the CAA can answer your question not vulcan to the sky people?

Vulcan Rigger

558 is currently serviceable in the hangar at Doncaster.

The plan is to go in on Tuesday give her another wash and brush up so that she looks her best for her adoring public.

On Wednesday we'll drag her out and do most of the flight servicing.

Thursday is a crew training day with a departure to Waddington sometime in the afternoon.

If you look at post No.3223 by "Those that can" you will find the link to the "GINFO" page (which I think you have already looked at.)

You could also look at this thread on the VTTSC forum: Vulcan To The Sky • View topic - Permit to Fly 2011/12

You will then know as much as anyone about the permit (and certainly as much as anyone employed by the trust.) As Taff has explained the paperwork for the permit is processed by MA, they have had the info for some time and the application is with the CAA.

Hope this is the information you were looking for.

Fluffy Bunny

Indeed D15

As it stands the aircraft is currently airworthy and has it's current (yes, due to expire next week) A8-20 PtF.
The renewal of this is in the hands of Marshalls Aerospace and the CAA.
The VoC has produced and delivered all maintenance evidence and paperwork to the relevant authorities for audit and inspection in a timely manner. Any further problems are not of the VoC's making.

So if you've any further problems, I would suggest that you take issue with Marshalls or with the CAA direct...

simplethings

Fluffy

Delta is spot on ......if only you'd bothered to follow the link posted by Zero, and read it! The clue might be in the 'date received' - 23 June 2011. So, nothing to do with Marshalls at all then.

Hurn

If pointing out a glaring error by someone purporting to be an engineer is rude, then so be it. The fact that they came on here admitting the error is laudable, but it wont stop me from pointing out these or any further errors! By its very nature a debate has those that agree with something and those that disagree. In this instance, I disagreed with some information posted elsewhere and said so. Maybe not in terms that you liked, but that's your problem, not mine. Again, in this instance, my objections where 'vindicated'. As for interesting, I can only presume you know all about compressor surges, but decided to keep your own council.

Zero

I'm so glad you feel that the originator of erroneous engineering information, coming on here vidicates me and makes me 'appear' to know what I'm talking about!

Vulcan rigger

No apology necessary. As long as the information is correct now. None of us are infallible. Are there not people at Marshalls? I only ask as they have been involved in the winter servicing. Would that not require them to have the necessary tickets, too? I'm not entirely conversant with A8-20 regulations and their interpretation, so I may be wrong (I'll have a look in BCAR's when I get the chance).

Those that can do...

VTTS are not responsible for the PtF.

Marshall Aerospace are. They are the engineering authority.

If you are going to badmouth people please badmouth the correct people.

Winco

ttcd, fluffy, d15

Whilst it may well fall to Marshalls to do the A8-20 work and possibly submit the recommendation to the CAA, surely both the VoC and Marshalls know that they are cutting it fine to say the least.

I think the CAA website is currently saying something along the lines of it taking 25 working days to process a Permit. If that is the case, then there isn't much hope for Waddo.

Fluffy, you can hardly say that submitting all the relevant paperwork on the 23/6 with an expiry date of the 29/6 is in a 'timely manner' can you? I mean, come on, it's not even a week for goodness sake. This is where the management of the VOC should be sorting things out. They should know how long a permit takes to process and allow sufficient time for it to be completed. Perhaps more sensibly, rarther than have the renewal in the middle of the airshow season, why not bring it forward 6 months so these problems are sorted before the public want to see her at public events such as airshows? Seems fairly logical to me

I should have expected the VOC to have learned their lesson 2 years ago, when they got the aircraft to Waddo and then blamed the CAA for everything, when clearly it was their own fault.

Doesn't look like much has changed does it? Still, lets wait and see and keep our fingers crossed that she will make it to Waddington.

Fluffy Bunny

Simplethings,

I have indeed read the link.

As engineering authority for XH558, Marshalls are the organisation which has to apply to the CAA for the PtF.
The VoC present the evidence and documentation to the Eng Authority for them to audit and validate. This is then passed onto the CAA, who after making any necesary checks with the Eng Authority, issues the PtF.

Does this make things any clearer?

Wingco,

Yes the submission date was the 23rd. This was when Marshalls, NOT the VOC submitted the paperwork to the CAA.
Also note the "Expected date of processing" not expiry date which is the 29th.
This would place the PtF issue fit quite nicely before the expiry of last years (01/07/11).


The work and audit (mostly done during winter service) was completed some months ago and was ratified by Marshalls.

I do agree the date of renewal for the PtF is not the best but having a winter/spring date of renewal isn't particularly helpful either as the A/c would most likely be in winter service and thus not available for a CAA Test Pilot to take a "check ride" should there be a need. Which for this year was done at the time of the move from Lyneham to Finningley.