Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May

[srobarts]

BEagle, thank you for that very clear explanation. Much appreciated.

[avturboy]

In general my thoughts follow the likes of BEagle ...

I work in the fuelling business ... myself and folks I work with have written acknowledgement of incidents which have escaped the attention of both pilot and engineering professionals during their pre-flights and which have been observed by fuelling operatives .... undercarriage pins left in ... damaged tyres ... fuel system leaks ... airframe hull damage ... aircraft arriving with way less than minimum fuel .. to name but a few ... yes even the highly paid professionals make mistakes ...

The Vulcan incident is shocking beyond belief and is of great concern .... but you know it might not be as isolated as you might want to think ...

[quadradar]

Unbloodybelieveable .......

[Jhieminga]

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.

That's from the statement by the VTOC.

Originally Posted by srobarts

Jhieminga, I understand your point here. But the fact that debris from the first engine failure went on to cause the second engine to fail in my view makes it more than just an engine failure.

From the first quote I read that the no.1 engine surged, now when an engine does this it basically spits out huge amounts of air and in this case it included a few compressor blades for good measure. This travelled back up the intake and these bits where then ingested by no.2 engine. This is a pretty normal event for engines which are installed closely next to each other. It is something which we are not used to anymore as these engine installations don't occur anymore on the current Boeing/Airbus fleets. BEagle already explained that double engine failures were catered for in the training programme.

So in my view this was still a 'normal' engine failure with the sad outcome that it caused two engines to end up as scrap metal. All the bits traveled through the normal gas path, albeit in the wrong direction, but that still makes it a contained failure. We have to keep in mind that what we find 'normal' these days is not the same as what was 'normal' in the days when the Vulcan was designed.

[ZH875]

IIRC, IX Sqn had a double engine problem in the early 80's, the fire panel on the port side of the nose opened on the take off run, and a fire glove was ingested by (probably) No2 engine which promptly damaged itself and spat out the offending detritus which was ingested by No1 engine, this then gave a hissy fit and made a mess of itself. End result, aborted take off, crew safe, 2 engine changes required. Nothing unusual, nothing the crew could not handle.

[DaveReidUK]

I think that the majority of those posting their speculative rubbish on here are the ones who have spent large amounts of money to help get 558 in to the air again.

All that really remains is for the reason to found why FOD was left in the intakes, and then for the company to modify their operating procedures.

Oh, and an apology to aforesaid contributors for p*ssing away around £½million of their hard-earned dosh in an act of unbelievable carelessness.

[amberleaf]

Above the Clouds
Agreed but there is no point in people venting their spline and feeding the authorities by posting all sorts of spectculative crap at those involved with the project, this event is no different to any other walk of life:-

Big Boys Toys = Big Bills if you cannot afford the tyres then dont get involved, aeroplanes, race cars, race boats you name it they are all the same, sh1t happens and it rolls down hill.

With respect, what a load of utter garbage. People like me have not contributed our hard earned cash to this project in order to win a jolly in XH558, like buying a track day round Brands Hatch for instance. We have donated for entirely altruistic reasons, to keep a precious relic in the air for as long as possible.

But someone has screwed up and wasted our money and we are entitled to be angry about it. Furthermore we are perfectly entitled to express our anger and disappointment on this and other forums; we've paid to do it.

DaveReidUK is right to expect an apology from VTTS - and so do I.

[EGCA]

Surely in a situation like this, (allegedly) missing something during the pre-flight checks, you try and ensure "human error" is minimised. In layman's terms that means something left in an engine intake has a long cord attached, with a large red warning sign on the end: "Remove before engine start" which dangles well out of the intake and is very difficult to miss on even a basic walk-round.

Or is the layman being too simplistic? I dont think so.

EGCA

[eagle 86]

I grew up in the fifties/sixties when a lot of today's "warbirds" were in frontline service being serviced and flown by people very "current" and there were still many incidents/accidents. Without inflaming the debate what is the experience of those involved in this project? A search of other forums will reveal an enthusiastic warbirder involved in an accident where he and his pax lost their lives when he took to the air allegedly after his licence had been cancelled by the authorities for a number of previous violations.
I was first on scene in an EMS helicopter after a Strikemaster suffered an in flight structural failure - two dead. The coronial inquiry has turned over a number of rocks with the usual results. My advice at the time, when interviewed on national TV, to any of my family/friends was not to fly in warbirds.
GAGS
E86

[Kitbag]

amberleaf et al, yours is the last post to make it clear you are angry and resentful about this event as are many others. I would point out that lashing out in anger now will see the project finished and then your donations will really be down the drain.
I very much doubt that any member of that team went in that morning thinking 'I know how to screw the project, I'll omit to do ...'
If an error was made, then we should be looking at why it was made; that will then lead to measures to reduce the likelihood of recurrence, eg follow the suggestion by EGCA.
If any member on this forum can honestly deny that they have an 'I learnt about flying/engineering from that' story then they very probably don't fly or maintain aircraft.

[BEagle]

If any member on this forum can honestly deny that they have an 'I learnt about flying/engineering from that' story then they very probably don't fly or maintain aircraft.

While I agree that human error is always a risk, it is the scale of the error and the evident failure of the associated supervisory system which is the point here.

For 2 irreplaceable engines to be destroyed in the way they were is far from a mere 'I learned about servicing from that' situation.

[longer ron]

Absolutely agree Beagle...If one decides to purposely leave FOD in ones intakes then one must have a physical 'independent' check prior to starting engines - purposely leaving FOD in intakes is a very unusual procedure and therefore open to criticism if things go pear shaped !

rgds LR

[jindabyne]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'purposely'!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'purposely'!

They are. Those bags didn't get placed in the intakes by accident; they were deliberately placed there. Having deliberately placed FOD in the intakes, one would think there'd be a backed up backup and primary and double checked procedure to ensure the FOD is removed before the aeroplane leaves the hangar.

Putting things in intakes, especially if they are out of sight unless you climb up and peer in, is fail-unsafe. At some point someone will forget to remove them; it's the human condition. Hence the need for some procedure to ensure that even in that event there is a process in place to ensure the presence of the FOD cannot be overlooked.

Of course the wisdom of deliberately placing fod in the intakes is very questionable for this very reason. Any benefit the silica gel brings surely ain't worth the risk that what did happen would happen.

[BEagle]

No, purposely placing the bags in the intake area for some specific-to-type preservation procedure is one thing (however misplaced), failing to develop and apply an associated pre-flight procedure for their safe removal is quite another.

I am 100% certain that no-one intended to leave the silica gel dessicant bags in such a hazardous area.

But was a safe pre-flight servicing schedule developed to accomodate the procedure? Well, that's an entirely different question....

[Dr Jekyll]

A search of other forums will reveal an enthusiastic warbirder involved in an accident where he and his pax lost their lives when he took to the air allegedly after his licence had been cancelled by the authorities for a number of previous violations.

And the relevance to XH558 is?

[longer ron]

Yes to clarify my earlier post the bags were deliberately placed in the intakes to reduce moisture and therefore cut down on blade corrosion etc...please note ...I am not playing the blame game but it is a really unusual procedure and with very high intakes it is obviously difficult to check the intakes are clear.
With only a limited stock of spare engines - then a (stamped/signed for) independent check of the intakes would surely be a good common sense precaution !

rgds LR

[eagle 86]

Dr Jerkle,
Smart@rse reply not required - I am on the other side of the world and my peripheral experience of the warbird scene is that, to put it euphemistically, it is supported in the main by a lot of enthusiastic amateurs, some who believe they are a law unto their own. I say again what is the core experience of those that maintain and fly this aircraft?
Once again thanks for your intelligent input Dr Jerkle.
GAGS
E86
The peripheral is close - a mate of mine, Navy A4 pilot of 30 years experience then QANTAS pilot and godfather of one of my daughters was killed along with a fare paying pax when the back end of the Mig 15 he was flying caught fire near Canberra airport in March '93.
GAGS

[deltapapa]

Eagle 86, As posted earlier in the thread this link gives the whole of the ground team - 6 out of the first 7 are the engineers and only those service the aircraft...

2011 Ground Team | Vulcan To The Sky

As you can see they are all ex RAF aircraft trades and completed a 12 week technical course on the Vulcan before they get near 558.

[Kitbag]

It is obvious that there are two fairly well defined camps on here now and we seem to be moving towards thinly veiled insults. That is not neccesary; this incident will undoubtedly inform the CAA's view wrt operating complex aircraft (eg ex mil 3rd gen fast jets) even if they do not hold a formal investigation.

To try to keep this on track; there are some questions regarding 'amateurs' in the upkeep of XH558. What do you see as appropriate qualifications or experience to be part of this or any warbird project?