airsound

When I posted the details of Dr Pleming’s appearance on Today I knew I was, once again, poking my head into the lion’s den. I’m not sure why I do it. Except that I do believe that this is still a fantastically worthwhile project. And I would like to say that I listened, live , with a broadcaster’s ear, to Robert P on Today, and I thought he did fine. I have listened again since, and I still think the same. I’m not sure that the people who are criticising his interview have any idea how difficult it is - you only have to see what a pig’s ear many experienced and media-savvy politicians make of their time on Today. Robert didn’t do that - within the confines of the questions asked by Jim Naughtie, he did fine. And you may note that the VTTS website is still prominent on the Today site - not something Today does for everybody.

So, as far as post 666 is concerned, about possible alternative spokespeople, I can only say, nwest, that you might think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment. Thanks for the thought though.

But let’s get back to basics. What a lot of people don’t seem to realise is that this extraordinary, one-of-a-kind project, this amazing plan to get a Vulcan back into the sky, has always teetered on the knife-edge of success, with deep abysses of failure on either side. There have been many times when the whole thing was within an ace of disaster, only to be pulled back from the brink by courage and teamwork. But it’s still there, on that knife-edge, and still avoiding those falls - just. And also, never forget, XH558 has actually flown, and that is something a lot of people said would never happen.

But what’s really extraordinary is that nothing like this has ever been done before. VTTS, VOC, whatever, are writing the book as they go along, and stumbling frequently. There seems to be a consensus on this thread that something either dishonest or totally incompetent is going on. Well, for what it’s worth, I see absolutely no evidence of that. And I remind you that, as forget points out
Sir Mike has since stepped down for personal reasons quite unconnected with the project. His place has been taken by Keith Mans, who is an equally distinguished aviation person, the CEO of the Royal Aeronautical Society, no less.

And although you might wish for much more openness about many things, the fact is that most of the unwillingness to talk in public is, and always has been, due to serious issues of commercial confidentiality. And that’s not confidentiality for the Vulcan people, but for the big companies that are supporting the project.

I can tell you, though, that the latest iteration of this not unfamiliar crisis came about largely because the major engineering contractor overspent its contracted price by significantly more than 100%, partly because it had badly underestimated the time required for the work. And before you say, why wasn’t there a fixed price contract, I can also tell you that such a thing was never available, nor ever likely to be. Same with any kind of insurance. There was nothing to be had.

It has always been the case that the aircraft would never cover its costs from fees, which is why a major commercial sponsor has always been an essential part of the financial framework. Incidentally, the price to an air show organiser for a Vulcan display will be something around the £7000 mark - not dissimilar to the cost of getting the Reds. But that major sponsor has so far proved elusive, despite much expert and tenacious searching. The timing has been unfortunate, because just at the time when the first flight had been expected to stimulate potential sponsors, the credit crunch and general financial downturn rendered big companies completely unwilling to contemplate significant sponsor schemes. But all is not lost, and several avenues are being voraciously searched as we speak.

Incidentally, it was mooted earlier that Robert Peming (and I) had been swanning around ‘at an air show’. The suggestion from the famous grunge band ‘Monkey and the Swinging Winco’ was that he, Pleming, should get
But - an air show in mid-winter, in Belgium? I think not. No, as I said, we were at the annual convention of the European Air Show Council, and we were there at our own, not insignificant, expense. This is exactly the kind of forum where useful leads for the whole project can and do present themselves. And now that the convention is over, Dr P has indeed got his backside back to Blighty to continue with his punishing workload trying to make sure that XH558 continues to progress safely along that knife-edge until she finally emerges into the air show circuit this season.

airsound

Lancasterman

Flipflopman, Just want to say a big thank you for all your help and support with the vulcan and regular updates on the forums!!

Tim McLelland

Have to disgree airsound - I've done enough interviews myself to know it's not that difficult and Pleming's performance was rubbish, especially when he's getting paid handsomely to be the "figurehead" of the project. If he can't say what needs to be said then why is he there?

Re- the hangar fees, I believe the fees may have dropped or been waived again now? They were (as I understood it) only charged because of the long-gone Felicity Irwin who effectively forced Walton to make the charges. But I assume the situation may have improved since her useless presence was finally ended?

Anyway, I see the thread's drifting again. All the talk is fine but it would be nice if this going-round in circles stopped and the main issue of what to do about it was addressed. Sorry to see that the Pprune moderators ignored my plea to leave a separate thread about the latest developments - oh well, I did try!

off centre

"You there. Yes, you, old woman........"

andrewmcharlton

Airsound,

you make some good points which are generally accepted, however:

Incompetence - If you see no evidence of incompetence I fear that you have some very rose tinted specs. Aside from anything else, the trust is in breach of its statutory duties (not to mention any moral ones) in failing to submit either acocunts or annual returns. Apart from that the trust has an obligation to those funding it to be transparent and honest at all times, not when it suits them. Commerciality of certain contracts can be protected when needed but it is a right, not a priviledge, for the supporters, donors and indeed the tax paying public to know what is going on and they don't.

Sponsor - The credit crunch etc has zero to do with this. Since day one (and mentioned in the last available accounts) there has been no major corporate sponsor. The standard line of "lets ring Branson" gets rolled out and well meaning but inappropriate efforts in the old forum to "email Shell as they make pots of money" or similar. The lack of a sponsor has been ever present since inception. It's also a well know marketing fact that the most succesful companies spend more on sponsorship and advertising in a downturn than when the economy is bouyant.

Interview - at best average but criminal that the main man didn't make the points that needed to be made. If he wasn't used to doing these things (which I think he is) someone more suited should have done it.

You make the pint that the operators and their predecessors are making up the rules as they go. I can't agree. A huge number of projects have been undertaken worldwide to restore various engineering edifices of days gone by succesfully. If this one could not be adequetely costsed, project planned and managed with appropriate contingencies then it should never have been undertaken.

Everyone is 100% full of admiration for the work done and the achievements of those who were at the coal face throughout. Nobody seems full of admiration for the communication, management and running of the project as a whole.

In the words of Leo Amery (borrowed from Cromwell I believe), "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Time to change at the top or call it a day.

The Swinging Monkey

airsound,

At a time when even the strongest supporters of this project are questioning the whole 'Vulcan Saga' you still continue with your undying support for Pleming and the others. Whilst that is admirable, might I ask at what point are you going wake up and see reality yourself ?

At a time when I am being accused of being The winco, I am no longer convinced that you are not infact.....Dr Robert Pleming!! You will not have a single bad thing said about him. Did you actaully hear the interview last week?? I have listened to it several times, and it was appalling, and if he can't do any better, then tell him to find someone who can. This project is, as you say, 'teetering on a knife edge' and his efforts last week did absolutely nothing to help the cause frankly.

Instead of you telling us all well things are going, why don't you start answering some of the difficult and tricky questions that are being asked of this project, such as those posed by BEagle, Vickyv, Tim McL and AndrewCharlton? and allay some of the concerns that many have? Why is it that no one from Brunters ever answers difficult questions? Why don't you do it for them?

I can't believe that you are still so positive about it all and have such faith in a management team that (IMHO of course) seem to be bordering on incompetance! Who is running the accounts?

I know the first few papragraphs of your reply will begin with you accusing me and the others of being the 'doom and gloom' squad. But please, spare us all that rubbish, and answer some of the questions, please!

Tim McLelland

We can go round in circles discussing the project but I think we can almost all agree theat, regardless of the history of the project, it is the present situation which matters?

Okay, well rather than simply moan and argue about it, can we not look at what could be done about it?

Fundamentally, the one action needed to stop all the fuss, is for TVOC to provide the public with a clear, concise and properly-detailed account of where all the money has been spent - and I mean all of it. They must have accounts so they have no reason to withold them. Additionally, we need to know which people work for free and which get paid, either a wage or expenses, and we need to know what they get paid, and what they did/do in exchange for the money.

If we had that information, there wouldn't be any argument, would there? At least, not unless the information revealed some less-than satisfactory facts?

So how can we demand that information from TVOC? That's the most relevant question I think. My own view is that it is only that can insist that the information be made available, so as I've already said, surely there must be someone on PPrune who has some legal experience, that can persuade HLF to make this information available, so that we can either rest assured that the project is being handled properly, or find-out once and for all what has really been going on, before it's too late?

Surely, this is the only practical step we can take instead of just batting questions and comments backwards and forwards forever, while the project goes nowhere?

vickyv

with regard to some peoples' view that the project has been difficult for the management because they have been feeling their way etc iwould like to say that all thge way along the management of the project have been able to draw on the experience and suggestions made by those engineers provided by Marshalls.The advice has included ideas to save money and time on the project.Unfortunately ,due to their arrogance and shortsightedness the managers have chosen to reject or ignore such help.
There seems to be a definate divide between who is TVOC and who is not. In my book if people are so arrogant that they will not accept advice and help from others then they deserve to go down.
There are 2 Lightening aircraft at the airfield that deserve all the financial support we can give and i am fast coming round to the idea that we should ditch the arrogant sods at the vulcan and invest in people who sre worth it.
Apparently smiler has indicated on the TVOC forum that there is not a problem with the CAA.

LIAR...

andrewmcharlton

It's interesting that the crew at Thunder City can get 2 Lighting Two Seaters and a pair of single seat Lightnings, a Buccaneer and a Hunter airborne without all this drama.

The Helpful Stacker

You aren't comparing like-with-like.

For starters TVOC are having to deal with the Campaign Against Aviation.

harrogate

Not so much interesting as irrelevant.

That's a bit like saying "interesting to see the Iranians hanged all their gays at the weekend without any protests".

Different laws innit.

Safety_Helmut

Any particular basis for that, blanket stacker, or just quoting from earlier posts ?

S_H

GeeRam

In fairness, it is true, essentially the person responsible for overseeing the SA Lightnings/Buccs is the same person who spent 10 years trying to get those same Lightnings flying in the UK, and finally gave up, sold his toys to Thunder City and then moved out there to oversee the rebuild and training of their team there and getting them in the air.

However, the SA rules are still quite restrictive on the Lightnings ops there, and it's only because of the close proximity of Cape Town Int and the coast that allows them to operate the way they can away from populated areas.

I also agree though that there's really no valid comparison between the Vulcan situation and the Thunder City operation...

The Helpful Stacker

Ah bless, SH made a funny based on the fact my former illustrious trade trade are known as blanket stackers.

Did a grown up help you with that?

As GeeRam says, the CAA hardly have a great reputation for supporting attempts to operate military aircraft types in civilian ownership.

Safety_Helmut

That's pretty witty stuff THS. I asked a sensible question, so I will ask again again. Are you speaking from any experience or are you just recycling the comments of others, as you so often seem to ? Stick to a subject you know something about pal !

GeeRam, agreed, there may be some basis for holding that view of the CAA. Personally, I don't share it. However, THS has a habit of spouting on subjects that he knows very little, and of recycling other peoples comments and views.

S_H

Safety_Helmut

Perhaps you could pass on some of your expereiences of dealing with the CAA to the chap below.

Have a look here: http://www.caa.co.uk

No, I thought not.

S_H

The Helpful Stacker

No you did not. You made a facetious comment as a vehicle for what you believed was wit; ie: the use of 'blanket stacker' in a comment directed at me in place of my standard login name, which you actually managed to use in the post I quote from.

To be honest I don't really give to hoots about being called a blanket stacker, I've been called it by bigger and better people plenty of times, I do object though to the fact you are to convey its use as part of a sensible comment rather than the childish "he's a stacker, what would he know" that it is.

Can you point out these many examples or are you just 'spouting' as usual?

Dis Gruntled

Surely the latest begging for funding has not been caused by the engineering contractor without whose very generous wiping of debts the project would of died in the middle of last year. Or is this another case of biting the hand that feeds you.

The blame unfortunately can only be sent in one direction TVOC. Why again and again reading these posts all people seem to want is information, and they bury their heads in the sand and hope a magic benefactor appears with a bigger and bigger wad of money is beyond me.

kwh

That is, if you don't mind me saying so, complete and obvious rubbish. Particularly in the context of 'confidentiality for companies supporting the project', whose shareholders would love to know that their company was secretly and expensively supporting a charitable exercise for no PR or publicity benefit. Not.

Commercial negotiations with potential but as yet unsigned sponsors may be confidential. Everything else should be absolutely transparent, to a fault. There is no question that should remain unanswered, no dark corner unlit.

'Don't worry, everything is fine, although the project is about to fail in two weeks unless you all donate a lot more right now and some of what we've told you in the past would seem in hindsight to have been quite possibly untrue, but we are all doing a great job, we just can't tell you about it because it's a secret, so you have to trust us or you are just being negative' just doesn't wash, when we are where we apparently are now.

The lack of transparency (not at an engineering level, at a financial, a commercial and an organisational level), along with the ongoing assertions that 'everything is fine, we are doing a great job' would seem on their own to be prima facie evidence that everything isn't fine, and that somebody isn't doing a great job. Transparency is free. Cheaper and easier than secrecy, certainly. So I find myself wondering what there is to hide.

'Nothing'? Then be transparent. No transparency, no confidence from me, no more money from me. Even if it later turns out you really are doing a brilliant job in secret. Generally, though, people doing a great job are all in favour of transparency, people riding gravy trains, or making a pigs ear of their jobs often aren't...

'Chuffer' Dandridge

So who exactly does support the 100 or so ex-mil jets, ranging from JPs to Sea Vixen that are currently operated in civvie hands in the UK? More than any other European country I believe. Maybe not enough thought & support has been given to their own project by the VOC?? Maybe certain parties have been blinded by enthusiasm and nostalgia, without seeing the reality of the HUGE money pit that is an aircraft such as the Vulcan? Do they really think they can run it on air display revenue and donations alone?

PS Airsound is not Dr Robert, as I was also "swanning around at an airshow in Belgium" last week and saw both of them there.