Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't know!
What I do know, the two engines wouldn't have been trashed by dessicant bags!
As has been said before, nobody is perfect, but this is, in all honesty, outrageous. Two people missed the dessicant bags.
Systemic failure, lackadaisical attitude or simple error? That's for the investigators to determine.
I've posted my thoughts here and elsewhere, I'm not repeating myself
What I do know, the two engines wouldn't have been trashed by dessicant bags!
As has been said before, nobody is perfect, but this is, in all honesty, outrageous. Two people missed the dessicant bags.
Systemic failure, lackadaisical attitude or simple error? That's for the investigators to determine.
I've posted my thoughts here and elsewhere, I'm not repeating myself
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurn
You just don't get it do you?
Apart from the cost of two engines, it could have cost the lives of three aircrew! Grow up man and open your bl00dy eyes. This isn't a trivial thing, this serious stuff man! It's not just a simple mistake like you say!!
You just don't get it do you?
Apart from the cost of two engines, it could have cost the lives of three aircrew! Grow up man and open your bl00dy eyes. This isn't a trivial thing, this serious stuff man! It's not just a simple mistake like you say!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I do know, the two engines wouldn't have been trashed by dessicant bags!
The only way I can see your argument being valid is if you know that MA would never have allowed dessicant bags in the first place. Is that what you're implying?
Winco, please don't try and patronise me just because I pulled you up for talking complete bollocks. I'm fully aware of what might have happened but unlike you I don't go getting all outraged about it. You only appear from the woodwork to slag off tvoc anyway so just leave the debate to the grown ups, there's a good chap.
following this sad incident with interest can I ask does anybody know how big these bags would have been?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 40
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy
Allegedly the bags are pictured here:
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09
Not particularly small items.
Allegedly the bags are pictured here:
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09
Not particularly small items.
Last edited by Old Speckled Aircrew; 31st May 2012 at 21:54.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .
Age: 57
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurn
Let me try to educate you. It is irrelevant who saw the aircraft off. The prep work is done well beforehand, by those doing the Before Flight service. This is when the dessicant bags would/should have been removed. Oh yeah, and certified as removed, as part of the aforementioned Before Flight.
This is the failure area, not the seeing of of the aircraft
Let me try to educate you. It is irrelevant who saw the aircraft off. The prep work is done well beforehand, by those doing the Before Flight service. This is when the dessicant bags would/should have been removed. Oh yeah, and certified as removed, as part of the aforementioned Before Flight.
This is the failure area, not the seeing of of the aircraft
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then, before flight service. Were MA doing that in 2011 or the TVOC groundcrew?
I'm not here trying to defend tvoc, but establish whether in fact it would have made any difference had MA been in charge of servicing this year.
As far as I was aware, MA did the winter services back then, but once that was done then TVOC's engineers ran the show unless any major problems occurred. I know they hired an MA guy to be part of the groundcrew for a year or so, but I think that was to sign off any repair work they needed doing urgently.
If MA were responsible for the BF the last few years then I can see your point, but if not I don't see how the outcome would have been any different.
I'm not here trying to defend tvoc, but establish whether in fact it would have made any difference had MA been in charge of servicing this year.
As far as I was aware, MA did the winter services back then, but once that was done then TVOC's engineers ran the show unless any major problems occurred. I know they hired an MA guy to be part of the groundcrew for a year or so, but I think that was to sign off any repair work they needed doing urgently.
If MA were responsible for the BF the last few years then I can see your point, but if not I don't see how the outcome would have been any different.
Allegedly the bags are pictured here:
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09
Not particularly small items.
Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum • View topic - Lyneham 28 Oct 09
Not particularly small items.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hurn,
It always makes me laugh when people like you, who are clearly out of their depth, resort to personal attacks on others. It is a clear indication that you are wrong and you cannot sustain your pathetic argument in support of TVOC. You even sound like them!
Re your comment below:
'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'
That pretty much sums it up, especially the very last bit about things not having to be signed off! hmmmm, says it all really.
Oh dear, the CAA are going to love this!
It always makes me laugh when people like you, who are clearly out of their depth, resort to personal attacks on others. It is a clear indication that you are wrong and you cannot sustain your pathetic argument in support of TVOC. You even sound like them!
Re your comment below:
'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'
That pretty much sums it up, especially the very last bit about things not having to be signed off! hmmmm, says it all really.
Oh dear, the CAA are going to love this!
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
It would seem that such a procedure was not in force with XH558.
Although individuals occasionally suffer from human error, the whole purpose of job cards, oversignatures and the supervisory system is to ensure that no single person's error can lead to a catastrophic failure.
This is true no matter which organisation prepares the aircraft for service.
However, in this incident the system appears to have broken down, leading to the destruction of two irreplaceable engines.
To dismiss this incident as 'someone made a mistake' is unacceptable. If the crew landed the aircraft wheels-up because 'someone made a mistake', would the same people be equally dismissive?
I've been a flying supervisor and flight safety officer in my time and am frankly astonished at the naive attitudes displayed by some on various websites discussing this incident.
In 10000 hrs of flying I always had full trust in RAF engineering supervisory processes. They may have been time-consuming on occasion, but were always safe.
Those who support the aircraft financially,if they are to continue their support, may reasonably require adequate assurance from the investigation that the cause of this incident has been clearly identified and appropriate action taken.
This is true no matter which organisation prepares the aircraft for service.
However, in this incident the system appears to have broken down, leading to the destruction of two irreplaceable engines.
To dismiss this incident as 'someone made a mistake' is unacceptable. If the crew landed the aircraft wheels-up because 'someone made a mistake', would the same people be equally dismissive?
I've been a flying supervisor and flight safety officer in my time and am frankly astonished at the naive attitudes displayed by some on various websites discussing this incident.
In 10000 hrs of flying I always had full trust in RAF engineering supervisory processes. They may have been time-consuming on occasion, but were always safe.
Those who support the aircraft financially,if they are to continue their support, may reasonably require adequate assurance from the investigation that the cause of this incident has been clearly identified and appropriate action taken.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MorningWinco. Still outraged I see.
I'm having a civil conversation with Whitworth about procedures and asking questions if that's all right with you, like grown ups do on forums.
At least I ask questions though, rather than just ranting on about things like 'enthusiastic volunteers' as though they are fact.
Now I'd be grateful if you left us to it old bean, many thanks.
The question still stands though Whitworth. Prior to this season were MA responsible for the before flight services?
I'm having a civil conversation with Whitworth about procedures and asking questions if that's all right with you, like grown ups do on forums.
At least I ask questions though, rather than just ranting on about things like 'enthusiastic volunteers' as though they are fact.
Now I'd be grateful if you left us to it old bean, many thanks.
The question still stands though Whitworth. Prior to this season were MA responsible for the before flight services?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice from GINFO that the permit to fly renewal application was received by the CAA on 25/05/12 with an expected processing date of 31/05/2012. Not the best timing!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said before, nobody is perfect, but this is, in all honesty, outrageous. Two people missed the dessicant bags.
The crew departed onto a checkride and nothing was amiss, no indications of the abnormal sort. Immediately after the checkride I was to take the airplane for a flight, on the walk around I spotted red colour in the air intake. The cover (basically a piece of foam covered in red PVC) was sitting all the way down the air intake right in front of the oil cooler...(reverse airflow, the PT6 is best, f... the rest :-) )
From then on only one person would collect the stuff and the other crew member had to count them. 2 pitot covers, 2 heat exchanger covers, 2 air intake covers, 2 gen cooling air intake covers and 2 prop holders. 10 items or we don`t fly.
Bottom line: mistakes/errors/mishaps happen, learn from it, move on and everything is fine.
And IMHO, the types that brag about that these things never happen to them are the most dangerous...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning hurn,
still got your head up your ar$e I see??
Instead of me wasting my valuable time trying to explain the simple things in the aviation world to you like deliberately leaving FOD down Jet engine intakes, I'll leave it to BEagle who always manages to put it far better than I do.
But one last question if I may....
You are clearly 'in the know' about who is (and who isn't) responsible for the servicing and maintenance of 558. So, would you care to tell us all here just exactly what 'qualifications' these people, who did the BF and see of, have please? I don't want any names, I just to know what civilian, legal qualifications you claim that they ALL have to work on this aircraft?
Standing bye............................................
still got your head up your ar$e I see??
Instead of me wasting my valuable time trying to explain the simple things in the aviation world to you like deliberately leaving FOD down Jet engine intakes, I'll leave it to BEagle who always manages to put it far better than I do.
But one last question if I may....
You are clearly 'in the know' about who is (and who isn't) responsible for the servicing and maintenance of 558. So, would you care to tell us all here just exactly what 'qualifications' these people, who did the BF and see of, have please? I don't want any names, I just to know what civilian, legal qualifications you claim that they ALL have to work on this aircraft?
Standing bye............................................
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the reasons behind this there is one, and only one overriding error, one of the most basic, fundamental and important principles of Airmanship.
The preflight inspection was NOT conducted properly. That's all there is to it.
How anyone can launch into the luft without having examined the intakes, or had them examined by someone else is simply beyond belief.
It matters not whether pilots or engineers do this, the fact is that it wasn't done, and if you employ such a bizarre practice as deliberately leaving fod in the intakes how can there not be a) an accounting process to ensure ensure it is removed pre-flight, and b) an additional specific and independent procedure to verify the fod is removed before flight in addition to any normal preflight inspection.
The preflight inspection was NOT conducted properly. That's all there is to it.
How anyone can launch into the luft without having examined the intakes, or had them examined by someone else is simply beyond belief.
It matters not whether pilots or engineers do this, the fact is that it wasn't done, and if you employ such a bizarre practice as deliberately leaving fod in the intakes how can there not be a) an accounting process to ensure ensure it is removed pre-flight, and b) an additional specific and independent procedure to verify the fod is removed before flight in addition to any normal preflight inspection.
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
It matters not whether pilots or engineers do this,
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MA had NO maintenence input, post the 2010/2011 winter service.
Prior to this, the MA guys where responsible not only for the pre-flight certification but the PMR release, too.
Prior to this, the MA guys where responsible not only for the pre-flight certification but the PMR release, too.
Winco, I don't personally know any of the tvoc team or what their particular civvy qualifications are, BUT the people who count do, and that's the CAA.
If tvoc are maintaining the Vulcan without the aid of MA, then you can be damn sure it's with CAA approval and that they've got the right qualifications in place to do it.
The CAA certainly wouldn't let a bunch of 'enthusiastic volunteers' as you put it, loose on what is deemed a complex aircraft. You don't have to be 'in the know' to understand this.
There's some information on the groundcrew and their backgrounds here: 2011 Ground Team | Vulcan To The Sky if you're interested enough to look.
According to one of the FAQs they guys have done a 12 week training course
extract....
There are significant barriers to using voluntary help with engineering activities on the aircraft itself, including the need to go though our 12-week Vulcan technical training path leading to technical qualification,
I think this was with MA but not sure.
extract....
There are significant barriers to using voluntary help with engineering activities on the aircraft itself, including the need to go though our 12-week Vulcan technical training path leading to technical qualification,
I think this was with MA but not sure.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But as someone else has said, what happened to the fod in the other two engines? How can that be explained, and a procedure of that importance that is only partially completed is probably a far more serious failure than one that was just honestly omitted.
I expect this will give the CAA a serious cold over the entire engineering and management integrity of this project. What else is being forgotten? It will take many months of trawling to find out and I think we all know what that means, even if no further bollixes are found...