Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, it matters not how many procedures are in place if people choose to ignore them.
But procedures one can easily follow.
Now the only thing that remains to be done is to check how this happenend.
Whos attention was lost for what reason? If they know that, they can work on it. IF it just was a f... up, well then someone needs to get the boot. IF someone deliberately did not follow procedures...likewise.
Its not the end of all times and I just feel sorry for the guys that devoted a lot to this project and the people who gave a lot of money.
Still, we are humans and I personally refuse to think someone did that deliberately. I have made stupid errors myself. I was lucky enough none led to something as expensive as this one and I managed not to do the same cock-up twice, still....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 40
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if any silica bags were fitted to the starboard side in 3&4 engine intake and if so did they get removed or found after the incident without causing damage to said engines?
I see a similar question posed above, so must remember to update page before posting in future.
I see a similar question posed above, so must remember to update page before posting in future.
Last edited by Old Speckled Aircrew; 1st Jun 2012 at 15:14.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest VttS newsletter has winged it way into my inbox and can be viewed online here: Vulcan to the Sky Newsletter
One point that stood out was this:
One point that stood out was this:
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch has confirmed that, as the damage to the engines was contained, the incident is not reportable to them.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch has confirmed that, as the damage to the engines was contained, the incident is not reportable to them.
So I find this amazing - am I alone?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The definitions of accident and serious incident are here:
Air Accidents Investigation: Definition of Accident and Serious Incident
My reading of this would regard it as a serious incident from the way the state of the engines have been described.
Air Accidents Investigation: Definition of Accident and Serious Incident
My reading of this would regard it as a serious incident from the way the state of the engines have been described.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident:
Serious incident:
As I understand it there was engine disintegration.
Is that not disintegration?
I should perhaps also add:
Had the problem shown itself a minute or two later the outcome could have been very different.
It does not include engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories
Aircraft structural failure or engine disintegration which is not classified as an accident.
The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags. The most likely sequence of events was that material was ingested by No.1 engine, which surged and suffered LP compressor blade failure. Debris was then sucked into No. 2 which then also failed.
I should perhaps also add:
"Serious Incident" means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.
Last edited by srobarts; 1st Jun 2012 at 19:01. Reason: adding info
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which clearly didn't happen, and that's just an unbelievable omission.
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...
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...
They seem to have enougth money to buy in an expert in compliance monitoring.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7219924
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pragmatism might indicate that it's time to draw a line under the project. I have always been a wary supporter of the project thus far, and raised not insignificant monies for the TVOC, but this event highlights the fact that what used to be a military operation, handled with the commensurate procedures of the day, was always to be a potentially precarious venture in an 'airshow' environment. It was a fine and inspired venture, gave pleasure to many thousands, but I wouldn't want to se it being dragged back for a few more displays, at great expense and effort, only to suffer some other unpredicatable, ignominious and crippling event. It has been a truly laudable but perhaps an inevitably flawed exercise, and now it's reached the point, has it not, to quit whilst the memories are good?
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that a seriously significant postmortem will be conducted and it serves no purpose here for anyone to assume ANYTHING. This is a huge setback for 558. An issue such as this is therefore massive. Decisions as to what happens next and how much it will cost is a matter to follow but not to speculate upon.
I strongly suggest that facts, and ONLY facts, are now discussed without recourse to silly and unfounded posts.
I strongly suggest that facts, and ONLY facts, are now discussed without recourse to silly and unfounded posts.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
srobarts
The engine did not disintegrate without good reason, it suffered damage from an identified foreign object, whilst the aircraft was on the ground.
To me it clearly falls into the first category that you quote in your post.
The engine did not disintegrate without good reason, it suffered damage from an identified foreign object, whilst the aircraft was on the ground.
To me it clearly falls into the first category that you quote in your post.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that a seriously significant postmortem will be conducted
Last edited by srobarts; 1st Jun 2012 at 22:10. Reason: correcting typo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that to the letter of the law, the AAIB did not get involved because what happened didn't tick any of the boxes as an accident. It did however tick every box for a very serious incident, and calls for the CAA to be (heavily) involved I would suggest. Two different organisations with very different remits.
The CAA are not fools, and I have no doubt they they will study long and hard the catalogue of events leading up to this costly mistake, and I cannot see them allowing an aircraft, whose primary role is to entertain the public at airshows, to continue in the culture and manner to which it has been.
The incident itself and the subsequent statements from TVOC raise even more questions than they answer and with the CAA's primary remit being one of public safety, the future of the project, I think, looks pretty bleak at best.
hurn
I looked at the list of so-called groundcrew as you suggested. I think if I had been you, I might have kept that to myself. I personally don't regard suppliers, IT staff, Logistics staff et al as groundcrew at all I'm afraid, but I will let the others on this forum make their own judgement. The real groundcrew are the likes of Taff Stone, and they don't appear to be in abundance on your list do they?
His dudeness
Sir, this is a monumental f***up, as you put it, on so many levels, not just a single person;
1. Putting a known FOD hazard in (at least one) engine intake
2. Not leaving an open entry in the F700 pointing out 1) above
3. If there was an open entry, then not clearing that prior to departure
4. Incorrect pre flight inspection by groundcrew and aircrew
5. Lack of supervision of ALL of the above
the list goes on and on and displays systematic failures virtually at all levels of the project.
Whilst I hate to say it, I think jindabyne may be right in his suggestion to call it a day. If this had happened at an airshow, God only knows what we would be discussing here now.
The CAA are not fools, and I have no doubt they they will study long and hard the catalogue of events leading up to this costly mistake, and I cannot see them allowing an aircraft, whose primary role is to entertain the public at airshows, to continue in the culture and manner to which it has been.
The incident itself and the subsequent statements from TVOC raise even more questions than they answer and with the CAA's primary remit being one of public safety, the future of the project, I think, looks pretty bleak at best.
hurn
I looked at the list of so-called groundcrew as you suggested. I think if I had been you, I might have kept that to myself. I personally don't regard suppliers, IT staff, Logistics staff et al as groundcrew at all I'm afraid, but I will let the others on this forum make their own judgement. The real groundcrew are the likes of Taff Stone, and they don't appear to be in abundance on your list do they?
His dudeness
Sir, this is a monumental f***up, as you put it, on so many levels, not just a single person;
1. Putting a known FOD hazard in (at least one) engine intake
2. Not leaving an open entry in the F700 pointing out 1) above
3. If there was an open entry, then not clearing that prior to departure
4. Incorrect pre flight inspection by groundcrew and aircrew
5. Lack of supervision of ALL of the above
the list goes on and on and displays systematic failures virtually at all levels of the project.
Whilst I hate to say it, I think jindabyne may be right in his suggestion to call it a day. If this had happened at an airshow, God only knows what we would be discussing here now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at the list of so-called groundcrew as you suggested. I think if I had been you, I might have kept that to myself. I personally don't regard suppliers, IT staff, Logistics staff et al as groundcrew at all I'm afraid, but I will let the others on this forum make their own judgement. The real groundcrew are the likes of Taff Stone, and they don't appear to be in abundance on your list do they?
You seem to be selectively picking out certain sections and ignoring the obvious, which are the six names under Taff Stone.
You say the CAA are no fools, so why do you still seem to think they'd allow any old jack to work on the aircraft?
The people listed may not be good enough in your eyes for the job, but obviously the people who matter, the CAA, think they are. Whether that is still the case, time will tell.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've worked in aviation on civvy street for 20 years, so no experience of military flight ops.
I have a couple questions which I would be interested to hear the answers to.
When the Vulcan was in service were the silica gel bags used?
If yes, were there any reported incidents of this nature?
Are there any other aircraft types which require the use of silica gel bags in the engine intakes?
Again, if yes, any knowledge of similar incidents?
I have a couple questions which I would be interested to hear the answers to.
When the Vulcan was in service were the silica gel bags used?
If yes, were there any reported incidents of this nature?
Are there any other aircraft types which require the use of silica gel bags in the engine intakes?
Again, if yes, any knowledge of similar incidents?
Just to add my 2 cents:
- engine disintegration is when the structural integration of the engine is compromised, for example when discs or the casing become heavily damaged.
- Blade failure is when one or more blades are compromised, i.e. snapped off, heavily damaged etc.
The statement that the failure was contained is important here as that means that although several blades were damaged, probably beyond repair, no blades or other items left the engine by any other path than the normal airflow path. In such a case the engine may still be knackered but the CAA sees no reason to investigate as the safety of the aircraft wasn't compromised by this. Keep in mind that an engine failure is something that can be reasonably expected in day to day operations, and is taken into account.
- engine disintegration is when the structural integration of the engine is compromised, for example when discs or the casing become heavily damaged.
- Blade failure is when one or more blades are compromised, i.e. snapped off, heavily damaged etc.
The statement that the failure was contained is important here as that means that although several blades were damaged, probably beyond repair, no blades or other items left the engine by any other path than the normal airflow path. In such a case the engine may still be knackered but the CAA sees no reason to investigate as the safety of the aircraft wasn't compromised by this. Keep in mind that an engine failure is something that can be reasonably expected in day to day operations, and is taken into account.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement that the failure was contained is important here as that means that although several blades were damaged, probably beyond repair, no blades or other items left the engine by any other path than the normal airflow path.
I was an undergraduate apprentice at R-R at the end of the sixties. One of my summer vacations was spent in the drawing office at Parkside in a team which amongst other things had to review parts that had been manufactured outside specification to determine if they still could be used. One of the engines was the Olympus for the Vulcan. There was sensitivity about certain parts as it was known then that failure could lead to taking out the other engine in the bay.
If one engine fails in Vulcan, the assumption was always that the adjacent engine would probably be damaged through debris ingestion.
The aircraft has ample power to cope with a double failure from decision speed even at high AUW. When airborne, full rudder with 5š AoB is sufficient to maintain a steady departure heading, then the landing gear is raised and the RAT deployed. Once Initial Climb Speed has been acheived, bank can be relaxed to about 2š and the aircraft can be accelerated to Pattern Speed, only 93% RPM is required to obtain around 1500 ft/min climb rate. Up to 25š AoB is easily available, but above 195000 lb AUW only 15š should be used.
When level, various FRC actions are conducted, but the aircraft flies quite happily with only 80% RPM on 2 engines.
On the approach, landing gear is selected down, and mid-drag airbrake extended. Only about 75% RPM is needed to maintain speed at around Approach Speed and the aircraft handles in a very benign manner.
So, losing 2 engines at the very light weights at which 558 operates is very unlikely to cause any handling problems whatsoever to a Vulcan pilot. All the flyiing controls will remain powered and the only hydraulic services required are those to lower the landing gear, power the wheelbrakes...and open the AAPP intake scoop
GSU!
We used to practise DEFATOs on virtually every trip at much heavier weights than those at which 558 now flies.
The aircraft has ample power to cope with a double failure from decision speed even at high AUW. When airborne, full rudder with 5š AoB is sufficient to maintain a steady departure heading, then the landing gear is raised and the RAT deployed. Once Initial Climb Speed has been acheived, bank can be relaxed to about 2š and the aircraft can be accelerated to Pattern Speed, only 93% RPM is required to obtain around 1500 ft/min climb rate. Up to 25š AoB is easily available, but above 195000 lb AUW only 15š should be used.
When level, various FRC actions are conducted, but the aircraft flies quite happily with only 80% RPM on 2 engines.
On the approach, landing gear is selected down, and mid-drag airbrake extended. Only about 75% RPM is needed to maintain speed at around Approach Speed and the aircraft handles in a very benign manner.
So, losing 2 engines at the very light weights at which 558 operates is very unlikely to cause any handling problems whatsoever to a Vulcan pilot. All the flyiing controls will remain powered and the only hydraulic services required are those to lower the landing gear, power the wheelbrakes...and open the AAPP intake scoop
GSU!We used to practise DEFATOs on virtually every trip at much heavier weights than those at which 558 now flies.
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Jun 2012 at 15:25.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bradfield CO11 2XD
Age: 81
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hairy Moments page in a recent Aeroplane Magazine describes graphically a fully loaded Vulcan losing a pair of engines on take off,a bird strike I think.
Colin.
Colin.