Vulcan at Uffington, Sun 30 Aug
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOTF
Please don't get the impression that military aircrew dislike enthusiasts. Spotters maybe, but not true enthusiasts.
I think what has rankled Flaps and Stop Start is the fact that you have called into question the professionalism of 558s crew. That is a pretty serious accusation to make. Asking if the weather is suitable as per your original post is fair enough. Posting photos trying to back up your uninformed opinion that it wasn't is something I thought only a Sun reporter would resort to.
By the way, the weather in the photos looks more than good enough for the flypasts.
Please don't get the impression that military aircrew dislike enthusiasts. Spotters maybe, but not true enthusiasts.
I think what has rankled Flaps and Stop Start is the fact that you have called into question the professionalism of 558s crew. That is a pretty serious accusation to make. Asking if the weather is suitable as per your original post is fair enough. Posting photos trying to back up your uninformed opinion that it wasn't is something I thought only a Sun reporter would resort to.
By the way, the weather in the photos looks more than good enough for the flypasts.
Champagne anyone...?
Perhaps slagging off a mere enthusiast gives you a kick
I have plenty friends who are enthusiasts - we get along because I don't tell them their job and they don't tell me mine.
I do wonder though why all the sky gods are getting so defensive.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man-on-the-fence
May I give you a piece of advice .... which I've learnt the hard way.
When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging, because if you carry on, you can only dig one way, and that's down.
May I give you a piece of advice .... which I've learnt the hard way.
When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging, because if you carry on, you can only dig one way, and that's down.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart
My apologies, press-on-itis doesnt exist, pilots have never screwed up and I have no right to even question that the flypast happened. What is it like to be perfect?
dakkg651
Good point, well made and noted for the future. Thanks for your opinion re the weather.
My apologies, press-on-itis doesnt exist, pilots have never screwed up and I have no right to even question that the flypast happened. What is it like to be perfect?
dakkg651
Good point, well made and noted for the future. Thanks for your opinion re the weather.
If the Vulcan now has dispensation to fly under IFR, then fine. Consider now VFR only:
From those METARS, at no stage was the visibility below 5km - so no problem there either.
However, outside CAS (e.g. at Uffington), an aircraft flying under VFR below FL100 must adhere to the requirements of Article 28(2) of the Air Navigation Order. But under Article 28(4) of the ANO, these conditions are eased if the aircraft is not a helicopter and:
Provided that the IAS remained less at than 140 KIAS, the METARS indicate that VFR flight would be lawful. Now, some will ask whether the Vulcan can fly at 140KIAS....
Below 130000 lb AUW, Approach Speed is 140 KIAS and below 120000 it is 135 KIAS. The last operational Vulcan trip I flew in 1980 included a minimum landing weight of 119400 lb. Remember - 558 is much, much lighter than an RAF aircraft, having a ZFW of only 100000 lb and a minimum landing weight of about 107000 lb - some 12400 lb less than the last Vulcan I flew in 1980.
With the low fuel state needed for the flight, it would certainly have been possible to remain below 140 KIAS below an overcast cloudbase such as those quoted in the METAR, given a pilot with the skills of any VTTS pilot.
I think it's entirely reasonable for M-o-t-F to have queried the wisdom of such a flight; he certainly doesn't deserve the rude comments thrown at him by some of you lot who should know better.
I consider that no rules would have been broken; however, it would have required a skilled crew to have remained within VFR limits and to observe the requirements of Rule 5. Whether it was wise to have flown in such conditions is a matter of personal conjecture.
From those METARS, at no stage was the visibility below 5km - so no problem there either.
However, outside CAS (e.g. at Uffington), an aircraft flying under VFR below FL100 must adhere to the requirements of Article 28(2) of the Air Navigation Order. But under Article 28(4) of the ANO, these conditions are eased if the aircraft is not a helicopter and:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
Below 130000 lb AUW, Approach Speed is 140 KIAS and below 120000 it is 135 KIAS. The last operational Vulcan trip I flew in 1980 included a minimum landing weight of 119400 lb. Remember - 558 is much, much lighter than an RAF aircraft, having a ZFW of only 100000 lb and a minimum landing weight of about 107000 lb - some 12400 lb less than the last Vulcan I flew in 1980.
With the low fuel state needed for the flight, it would certainly have been possible to remain below 140 KIAS below an overcast cloudbase such as those quoted in the METAR, given a pilot with the skills of any VTTS pilot.
I think it's entirely reasonable for M-o-t-F to have queried the wisdom of such a flight; he certainly doesn't deserve the rude comments thrown at him by some of you lot who should know better.
I consider that no rules would have been broken; however, it would have required a skilled crew to have remained within VFR limits and to observe the requirements of Rule 5. Whether it was wise to have flown in such conditions is a matter of personal conjecture.
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Sep 2009 at 09:40.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle.
Yes you are right. MOTF has every right to question. He has to be very careful, however, when making accusations that rules were being broken. MOTF. I don't know what you do for a living, but if your professionalism was called into doubt in two public forums (yes I have seen the 'Vulcans do fly in IMC' comment in the Aviation History forum), I bet you might be a tad hacked off and would welcome a little bit of support from your colleagues.
So if some people have come at you all guns blazing then you shouldn't be too surprised.
We all want to see 558 continue to fly and entertain us, after all it cost some of us a lot of beer money, so I fully understand your concern over whether the conditions were suitable or not. I don't think the VTTS pilots would ever put the aircraft or public at risk because of press-on-itis. And if they intentionally exceeded any VFR limits the CAA would ensure it would be game over for VTTS.
So lets put all the teddies back in the cot and agree that we hope to see this magnificent aircraft displayed safely for years to come.
By the way Man on the Fence. I humbly apologise for implying you were of a level of a Sun reporter. That was really below the belt and totally uncalled for. I hang my head in shame.
Yes you are right. MOTF has every right to question. He has to be very careful, however, when making accusations that rules were being broken. MOTF. I don't know what you do for a living, but if your professionalism was called into doubt in two public forums (yes I have seen the 'Vulcans do fly in IMC' comment in the Aviation History forum), I bet you might be a tad hacked off and would welcome a little bit of support from your colleagues.
So if some people have come at you all guns blazing then you shouldn't be too surprised.
We all want to see 558 continue to fly and entertain us, after all it cost some of us a lot of beer money, so I fully understand your concern over whether the conditions were suitable or not. I don't think the VTTS pilots would ever put the aircraft or public at risk because of press-on-itis. And if they intentionally exceeded any VFR limits the CAA would ensure it would be game over for VTTS.
So lets put all the teddies back in the cot and agree that we hope to see this magnificent aircraft displayed safely for years to come.
By the way Man on the Fence. I humbly apologise for implying you were of a level of a Sun reporter. That was really below the belt and totally uncalled for. I hang my head in shame.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to the Vulcan crew! Thank goodness that real, current pilots are able to make sensible weather decisions based on what they see out of the cockpit and not on the opinions of untrained, unrealistic or rule-bound wannabees. Seriously, everybody is entitled to their opinion, however, when your opinions lack credibility you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on them.
All the best
BW
All the best
BW
Champagne anyone...?
At the risk of banging-on, which I am:
Indeed, it most certainly is but there are ways of doing these things and I'd suggest that M-O-T-F appointing himself the expert in absolutely everything isn't the way to go about it. The METARs are all well and good and reflect the wx at EGVN at 10 to whatever hour it was. Whilst they're a jolly good indicator of what it may have been like they weren't observed from overhead Uffington at the time of the flypast. That's the call for the flightdeck to make.
Er I disagree. If you sow wind then don't be surprised at the subsequent whirlwind. I personally object to pontificating armchair AVMs slinging mud at friends and professionals. This has nothing to do with teddies, cots and/or egos and everything to do with the unqualified spouting off on the internet.
Who said anything about press-on-itis? Other than you obviously. Pressing on into what? The weather in picture looks fine but then what would I know? I only spend my working day thrashing round the UKLFS in a Vulcan sized aircraft (and before you bunch your pants again - that's not ego it's just my job). You have every right in the world to question whatever you like. May I suggest that when you choose to exercise that right you do so either from a position of knowledge/experience or from a starting point that accepts with mild humility you don't know all/any of the facts?
It's awesome. Send me an address and I'll send you a signed photo.
I think it's entirely reasonable for M-o-t-F to have queried the wisdom of such a flight
he certainly doesn't deserve the rude comments thrown at him by some of you lot who should know better.
My apologies, press-on-itis doesnt exist, pilots have never screwed up and I have no right to even question that the flypast happened.
What is it like to be perfect?
As an ex-student of mine, Stoppers, I know that you'll be intimately familiar with all the rools 'n' regs...
Such as the VFR requirements stated in the UK Mil AIP ENR 1-2-1 which reduces the mandatory 'clear of cloud' vertical requirement in the UK LFS to 500 ft if above 140 KIAS (I'm assuming your steed can manage this..
) and below 2000 ft agl.
So, military Herc at 240KIAS in UK LFS. Height agl 250 ft, vis must be 5km or better, cloudbase must be above (250+500) = 750 ft.
Civil Vulcan at 141KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 5 km or better, cloudbase (BKN or OVC) must be above (500+1000) = 1500 ft.
Civil Vulcan at 139KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 1.5 km or better, aircraft must be 'clear of cloud and in sight of surface'.
So, just because the Wx looks OK to an experienced UK LFS operator, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily legal for a civil aircraft.
Oh, and I'm all for pressing-on-titties!
Such as the VFR requirements stated in the UK Mil AIP ENR 1-2-1 which reduces the mandatory 'clear of cloud' vertical requirement in the UK LFS to 500 ft if above 140 KIAS (I'm assuming your steed can manage this..
) and below 2000 ft agl.So, military Herc at 240KIAS in UK LFS. Height agl 250 ft, vis must be 5km or better, cloudbase must be above (250+500) = 750 ft.
Civil Vulcan at 141KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 5 km or better, cloudbase (BKN or OVC) must be above (500+1000) = 1500 ft.
Civil Vulcan at 139KIAS in transit. Must not be within 500 ft of people, vehicles, vessels or structures. Must not be below 1000 ft over congested areas. Vis must be 1.5 km or better, aircraft must be 'clear of cloud and in sight of surface'.
So, just because the Wx looks OK to an experienced UK LFS operator, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily legal for a civil aircraft.
Oh, and I'm all for pressing-on-titties!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
I reckon looking at the images I have posted, the vis is more than 1.5km so it would appear that it was within limits. Good news.
StopStart
I dont want to get into a fight and you have my total respect. I didnt mean to come across as if I know it all, I was however there and saw something that in my view was worrying. I am entitled to that point of view just as you are entitled to explain why I may be worrying for no reason. The accompanying bitch fest, while entertaining, didnt achieve anything and I apologise for my part in it.
I reckon looking at the images I have posted, the vis is more than 1.5km so it would appear that it was within limits. Good news.
StopStart
I dont want to get into a fight and you have my total respect. I didnt mean to come across as if I know it all, I was however there and saw something that in my view was worrying. I am entitled to that point of view just as you are entitled to explain why I may be worrying for no reason. The accompanying bitch fest, while entertaining, didnt achieve anything and I apologise for my part in it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR - Low Level
ISTR that, when flying the F4 all over Germany, the 5km viz requirement (if that is what it was at that time) was met by being able to see 2.5 km to the left and 2.5 km to the right! Happy days
