Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation on my part I know, but the engineering team have been using the same procedures for some years so some benefit of the doubt over any negligence comments is surely due?
There was an air crash investigation documentary where the checklists overlapped two pages and one item was missed.
In my experience the attention to detail culture comes from the top of the organisation.
Last edited by srobarts; 31st May 2012 at 10:23.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it begs the question 'what happened to the Silca bags that were put down 3 & 4 engine intake' assuming of course that you wouldn't try to protect the engines on one side without protecting the other, would you?
I think, with hindsight, that this was a very very lucky escape. I have thought long and hard about it and keep coming back to the same conclusion about what might have happened, and that would have been too dreadful to contemplate.
As BEagle states, the TVOC Mafia, are always keen to dismiss any critisism whenever it is spoken, but this is one incident that even they will struggle to argue against.
I am just glad that the incident happened where it did and when it did. A minute later (or maybe even less) and it would have been a disaster. I think the time has come to say a final goodbye to all those enthusiastic volunteers who are involved with the aircraft and its care. This is NOT a toy to be played with. It is a real-life flying machine and this has shown that it requires qualified people to look after it, maintain it, see it off and whatever. There is no place for a bunch of volunteers, irrespective of how enthusiastic they might be.
Winco
I think, with hindsight, that this was a very very lucky escape. I have thought long and hard about it and keep coming back to the same conclusion about what might have happened, and that would have been too dreadful to contemplate.
As BEagle states, the TVOC Mafia, are always keen to dismiss any critisism whenever it is spoken, but this is one incident that even they will struggle to argue against.
I am just glad that the incident happened where it did and when it did. A minute later (or maybe even less) and it would have been a disaster. I think the time has come to say a final goodbye to all those enthusiastic volunteers who are involved with the aircraft and its care. This is NOT a toy to be played with. It is a real-life flying machine and this has shown that it requires qualified people to look after it, maintain it, see it off and whatever. There is no place for a bunch of volunteers, irrespective of how enthusiastic they might be.
Winco
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The North
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feathers I’m confused as to why you keep ignoring the obvious. To suggest that desiccant possibly ‘spilled’ from one of the bags is ignoring the facts. Did you miss the statement on the website?
I quote ‘The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags.’
That’s bags, end of.
Although I am no way connected with the Vulcan, apart from a good few donations over the years, I can’t help thinking these comments re: amateurs are a little unfair. I think these chaps have done a remarkable job in returning 558 back to the sky. Convincing the Campaign Against Aviation it was possible must be worthy of some merit.
I quote ‘The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags.’
That’s bags, end of.
Although I am no way connected with the Vulcan, apart from a good few donations over the years, I can’t help thinking these comments re: amateurs are a little unfair. I think these chaps have done a remarkable job in returning 558 back to the sky. Convincing the Campaign Against Aviation it was possible must be worthy of some merit.
Last edited by Fox Four; 31st May 2012 at 11:23.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
times gone by and only remembering the good bits.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps that lack of scheduling has led to corners being cut,
The standard AF/BF on A Vulcan included a Sooty wheeling a Giraffe round the pan and clambering into the intakes to take a shufti down the intake for nesting birds, skiving riggers etc. On QRA, when the aircraft stood around at combat readiness, it was part of the Daily. I wonder what schedule they're working to these days?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the time has come to say a final goodbye to all those enthusiastic volunteers who are involved with the aircraft and its care. This is NOT a toy to be played with. It is a real-life flying machine and this has shown that it requires qualified people to look after it, maintain it, see it off and whatever. There is no place for a bunch of volunteers, irrespective of how enthusiastic they might be.
There aren't any volunteers allowed to 'play' with anything. Do you really think the CAA would allow that for goodness sakes?
The engineers who look after XH558 are full time professional people, all with years of working previously in the RAF. Not quite the bunch of amateur mugs some people here seem to think.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hurn,
I have no idea about those who are tinkering with her, so I can't really comment. However, I suspect that a great many unqualified amateurs are involved in the maintaining of 558, and that is NOT a problem at all.
What is a problem is that if what you are stating is that the 'see off' team were a bunch of professional, qualified tradesmen, then that's even more worrying, for all concerned I would suggest.
The one slight glimmer of hope in all of this, was that perhaps an enthusiastic 'amateur' was responsible for missing something so blatantly obvious as bags of silica down the intakes! If what you are saying is correct, then that is clearly a major worry and concern.
I'm even less impressed with 'the team' now, who are clearly responsible for this totally preventable and hugely costly incident.
I have no idea about those who are tinkering with her, so I can't really comment. However, I suspect that a great many unqualified amateurs are involved in the maintaining of 558, and that is NOT a problem at all.
What is a problem is that if what you are stating is that the 'see off' team were a bunch of professional, qualified tradesmen, then that's even more worrying, for all concerned I would suggest.
The one slight glimmer of hope in all of this, was that perhaps an enthusiastic 'amateur' was responsible for missing something so blatantly obvious as bags of silica down the intakes! If what you are saying is correct, then that is clearly a major worry and concern.
I'm even less impressed with 'the team' now, who are clearly responsible for this totally preventable and hugely costly incident.
I cannot believe that this has happened. It could well be the end of XH558 and, if it is, what a bloody stupid way to go.
I never flew the Vulcan but I would imagine that it would be very difficult for a pilot (or engineer) making a pre-flight inspection to note that someone had left a stack of silica gel bags well inside the intakes.
If you don't understand the problem then let me tell you that I flew the DC-10 for eight years and I never once went up on a cherry-picker to the height of 30 feet to look inside the intake of No.2 engine. Nor, to my certain knowledge, did any of my flight engineers.
However, there were sound procedures in force such that if anyone had ever been up there for whatever purpose, such an excursion was well documented and had to be signed off before flight.
It would seem that such a procedure was not in force with XH558.
I haven't seen the question posed as yet on this forum as to which "organisation" was actually responsible for dumping the silica gel bags into the intakes in the first intance.
It is my understanding that Marshall's of Cambridge have the design authority and also the maintenance contract for XH558?
Therefore, if it was one of their employees that left the bags in place, then there could be a very good case for seeking damages.
If it was some well-meaning volunteer, then XH558's future could well be in terminal decline.
Mind you, if the latter is indeed the case, then Marshall's have some embarrassing questions to answer about their maintenance oversight.
Finally, it would be interesting to know if one (or both) of the pilots worked for the CAA.
I never flew the Vulcan but I would imagine that it would be very difficult for a pilot (or engineer) making a pre-flight inspection to note that someone had left a stack of silica gel bags well inside the intakes.
If you don't understand the problem then let me tell you that I flew the DC-10 for eight years and I never once went up on a cherry-picker to the height of 30 feet to look inside the intake of No.2 engine. Nor, to my certain knowledge, did any of my flight engineers.
However, there were sound procedures in force such that if anyone had ever been up there for whatever purpose, such an excursion was well documented and had to be signed off before flight.
It would seem that such a procedure was not in force with XH558.
I haven't seen the question posed as yet on this forum as to which "organisation" was actually responsible for dumping the silica gel bags into the intakes in the first intance.
It is my understanding that Marshall's of Cambridge have the design authority and also the maintenance contract for XH558?
Therefore, if it was one of their employees that left the bags in place, then there could be a very good case for seeking damages.
If it was some well-meaning volunteer, then XH558's future could well be in terminal decline.
Mind you, if the latter is indeed the case, then Marshall's have some embarrassing questions to answer about their maintenance oversight.
Finally, it would be interesting to know if one (or both) of the pilots worked for the CAA.
Last edited by JW411; 31st May 2012 at 14:16.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea about those who are tinkering with her, so I can't really comment.
However, I suspect that a great many unqualified amateurs are involved in the maintaining of 558, and that is NOT a problem at all.
The only enthusiastic volunteers that get near the aircraft are a few people who are invited to polish the aircraft now and again a few days before displays, and they're properly supervised. They don't do any maintenance, just polishing.
As I've said, the engineering team are full time professionals with backgrounds in the RAF.
What is a problem is that if what you are stating is that the 'see off' team were a bunch of professional, qualified tradesmen, then that's even more worrying, for all concerned I would suggest.
I can't comment on what the outcome might be though.
I'm even less impressed with 'the team' now, who are clearly responsible for this totally preventable and hugely costly incident.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
The 'organisation' responsible is, purely and simply, TVOC!
Having recently spoken to a former colleague, I can categorically state that there has been no MA maintenance involvement since the release to service from the 2011/2012 maintenance. MA are the engineering authority. Apparently, they still have the relevant M5 approval, but it is laying dormant.
No get out of jail free card there!
It would also appear that the errant silica gel bag(s) hid from not one person but two! The person signing for the BF and the person signing for the ASC checks.
Winco, amongst others, has alluded to incompetence and/or negligence and amatuerism...I have to say I concur and have said as much on another forum.
This will now, undoubtedly, provoke another diatribe against me, as on the other forum...c'est la vie. The truth is often less palatable!
The 'organisation' responsible is, purely and simply, TVOC!
Having recently spoken to a former colleague, I can categorically state that there has been no MA maintenance involvement since the release to service from the 2011/2012 maintenance. MA are the engineering authority. Apparently, they still have the relevant M5 approval, but it is laying dormant.
No get out of jail free card there!
It would also appear that the errant silica gel bag(s) hid from not one person but two! The person signing for the BF and the person signing for the ASC checks.
Winco, amongst others, has alluded to incompetence and/or negligence and amatuerism...I have to say I concur and have said as much on another forum.
This will now, undoubtedly, provoke another diatribe against me, as on the other forum...c'est la vie. The truth is often less palatable!
A similar conversation I had recently at the V-force reunion was equally concerning.
Unfortunately the members of another forum cannot seem to get their heads around basic engineering management practices or even accept that negligence might have played a part in the entirely avoidable destruction of two irreplaceable engines. "Never mind, we all make mistakes" seems adequate for them - those who look after 'Our Lady' can do no wrong in their eyes...
The truth may indeed be less palatable.
Unfortunately the members of another forum cannot seem to get their heads around basic engineering management practices or even accept that negligence might have played a part in the entirely avoidable destruction of two irreplaceable engines. "Never mind, we all make mistakes" seems adequate for them - those who look after 'Our Lady' can do no wrong in their eyes...
The truth may indeed be less palatable.
This was waiting to happen in my view, and the fact that they have been missed is scandalous. Anyone who has worked with and around aircraft constantly has the impact of FOD impressed upon them, and the steps taken to minimise any risks. This in my view is, as has been stated before, either incompetence in that a known and obvious FOD hazard was missed, or negligence in that the intakes were never checked in the first place, either way, it does nothing for my already low confidence in this outfit to maintain an aircraft in a safe and serviceable state...
Winco, amongst others, has alluded to incompetence and/or negligence and amatuerism...I have to say I concur and have said as much on another forum.
Let all the facts come out before speculating.
whitworth:
"MA are the engineering authority".
I rest my case.
Are you trying to tell me that the CAA have allowed the maintenance of XH558 (actually G-VLCN) to transfer from Marshalls to TVOC?
Knowing the CAA like I do, I find that very hard to believe.
If that is indeed the situation, why have we not been informed that MA are no longer involved?
I would still like to know how many CAA pilots were involved.
"MA are the engineering authority".
I rest my case.
Are you trying to tell me that the CAA have allowed the maintenance of XH558 (actually G-VLCN) to transfer from Marshalls to TVOC?
Knowing the CAA like I do, I find that very hard to believe.
If that is indeed the situation, why have we not been informed that MA are no longer involved?
I would still like to know how many CAA pilots were involved.
Slight thread drift, but Tony Cunnane has contacted me to tell me he has had over 600 hits on the Victor birdstrike story on his website this afternoon, which mystified him at first until he traced them back to my link on post 51.
The power of PPRuNe !
The power of PPRuNe !
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
And which case would that be?
MA -E4 Engineering Authority
TVOC - M5 maintenance.
That's it. And that's exactly what I'm telling you...TVOC perform the maintenance NOT MA. I would suggest you re-think your knowledge of the CAA.
As to why this hasn't been widely broadcast, you will need to take it up with TVOC.
I believe the crew on the day was Martin Withers and Phil O'Dell, who, by the way performed perfectly. (Crew details from TVOC website). Neither, I believe, is connected with the CAA.
And which case would that be?
MA -E4 Engineering Authority
TVOC - M5 maintenance.
That's it. And that's exactly what I'm telling you...TVOC perform the maintenance NOT MA. I would suggest you re-think your knowledge of the CAA.
As to why this hasn't been widely broadcast, you will need to take it up with TVOC.
I believe the crew on the day was Martin Withers and Phil O'Dell, who, by the way performed perfectly. (Crew details from TVOC website). Neither, I believe, is connected with the CAA.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox Four
I'm not ignoring anything obvious, I was trying to formulate a suggestion as to how the silica gel bags could have been missed by anyone inspecting the aircraft before flight. If someone has to remove the intake blanks then they will be in the ideal position to check for other items such as the bag bandoliers, they can't be that hard to see.
I realise that the TVOC statement mentions ingestion of _bags_, but what I'm not following is how, given that the ingestion occurred as the engines spooled up to take-off thrust, they managed not to be ingested at engine start but were simultaneously not visible because to not be ingested at that stage they must have been attached to something at the engine face. Even at idle the forces on something that size must be pretty considerable.
If it's as simple as "nobody looked" then that's the explanation, but removing the blanks implies that a pair of eyes was present in the correct position to be able to see and given that the people concerned are all experienced I find it surprising that they would fail to look.
I'll just shut up now....
I'm not ignoring anything obvious, I was trying to formulate a suggestion as to how the silica gel bags could have been missed by anyone inspecting the aircraft before flight. If someone has to remove the intake blanks then they will be in the ideal position to check for other items such as the bag bandoliers, they can't be that hard to see.
I realise that the TVOC statement mentions ingestion of _bags_, but what I'm not following is how, given that the ingestion occurred as the engines spooled up to take-off thrust, they managed not to be ingested at engine start but were simultaneously not visible because to not be ingested at that stage they must have been attached to something at the engine face. Even at idle the forces on something that size must be pretty considerable.
If it's as simple as "nobody looked" then that's the explanation, but removing the blanks implies that a pair of eyes was present in the correct position to be able to see and given that the people concerned are all experienced I find it surprising that they would fail to look.
I'll just shut up now....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is indeed the situation, why have we not been informed that MA are no longer involved?
Sure, they might not have announced it outside your house via a megaphone, but it's not like it been kept a secret.
Our team now have M5 accreditation from the CAA for ‘Maintenance to a Vulcan’ – probably the last people ever to win this prestigious certification! This means that we can approve all work that is described in the Vulcan technical documentation, only referring back to the design authority (Marshall Aerospace) when something out-of-the-ordinary is needed such as a modification.
TVOC being able to carry out work themselves is a good thing. It lowers costs by keeping the work in house and means they aren't reliant of MA being available to sign work off.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear I have made a small error in my post regarding the last MA involvement (nuts well an truely chewed by former colleague!). The last MA maintenance involvement was the 2010/2011 winter maintenance.
It seems TVOC managed to go a whole season before writing off two, as BEagle correctly pointed out, irreplaceable engines!
He's surprised they managed that long. Unfortunately, he won't go into detail. Think I need to take him out for a beer or 10
It seems TVOC managed to go a whole season before writing off two, as BEagle correctly pointed out, irreplaceable engines!
He's surprised they managed that long. Unfortunately, he won't go into detail. Think I need to take him out for a beer or 10
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TVOC being able to carry out work themselves is a good thing. It lowers costs by keeping the work in house and means they aren't reliant of MA being available to sign work off.
What's the cost of a couple of new donks, then, Hurn?
What's the cost of a couple of new donks, then, Hurn?