Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May
i think to be fair the conditions they operate under with the CAA permit is probably stricter than an airline operation. with major commercial pressure these days, or operational pressure for the military guys how often these days does anything come to a grinding halt for a full investigation ? all rubberstamped by the authorities !! this sad incident was a simple error , similar ones happen regularly but avoid any damage to aircraft.
Flypast editorial
Just skimmed this before coming to work today, so apologies if I misquote. The way I read this, '558 will fly during 2012, then will probably be grounded, as they will not have any spare engines. Flypast were asking readers to vote on whther or not she should be kept able to taxi, or become a musem piece.
So the suggestion is, see it NOW or possibly miss it forever.
So the suggestion is, see it NOW or possibly miss it forever.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Age: 68
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bvcu wrote:
Yes, a simple error, and for me that's what hurts.
Maybe it's jst me, but in a project entirely funded by public/private donations, shouldn't the check systems be as tight as tight can be to avoid unnecessary expenditure, like the replacement of 2 formerly perfectly serviceable engines? People make mistakes, of course they do, but this seems to me to be less forgivable than a similar screw up in, for instance, the commercial or military arenas.
And AFAIK, nobody has yet said sorry or showed any sign of contrition to the army of faithful donors out there.
this sad incident was a simple error , similar ones happen regularly but avoid any damage to aircraft.
Maybe it's jst me, but in a project entirely funded by public/private donations, shouldn't the check systems be as tight as tight can be to avoid unnecessary expenditure, like the replacement of 2 formerly perfectly serviceable engines? People make mistakes, of course they do, but this seems to me to be less forgivable than a similar screw up in, for instance, the commercial or military arenas.
And AFAIK, nobody has yet said sorry or showed any sign of contrition to the army of faithful donors out there.
So does this from the Newsletter 2 days after the incident not count?
"We are deeply sorry that this incident has happened, and at this time in 2012. The additional unplanned costs are clearly very worrying as resources are, as ever very tight" said the charity's chief executive, Dr. Robert Pleming. "We are actively working on a plan to recover our Jubilee season schedule and we will share this with you as soon as practical via the newsletter, Facebook page, Twitter feed and the web site."
With many thanks to all for continuing to support Vulcan XH558.
"We are deeply sorry that this incident has happened, and at this time in 2012. The additional unplanned costs are clearly very worrying as resources are, as ever very tight" said the charity's chief executive, Dr. Robert Pleming. "We are actively working on a plan to recover our Jubilee season schedule and we will share this with you as soon as practical via the newsletter, Facebook page, Twitter feed and the web site."
With many thanks to all for continuing to support Vulcan XH558.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is there any reason why the CAA awarded a 51 week P to F and not the full 52 weeks?
To compare a government regulated airline with this group of self-regulating happy amateurs is a false comparison.
The aircraft is regarded as Complex by the CAA therefore it comes under all the rules and regs that that entails. The CAA just wouldn't let them fly otherwise.
I'm not making excuses for this balls up, but the AAIB aren't pursuing the matter and it doesn't seem like the CAA are grounding them pending an investigation. If the cool heads at the top are satisfied then that's that regardless of what anyone here thinks.
So the suggestion is, see it NOW or possibly miss it forever.
Airliners DO get grounded after an incident involving another of same type
Groundloop: As has been pointed out, any responsible airline would certainly ground all of the same type involved until the cause is properly discerned, and permanently fixed, and measures taken to prevent a recurrence.
If is happened after every incident popular aircraft like the 737 and A320 would not fly very often!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasel Checks,
I very much take your point, and I hope you don't think I am going soft on the Vulcan management team, because I am not. I am quite comfortable to use the words 'Negligence' and 'Incompetence' when it comes to this incident. Of that there can be no doubt. And I stand by my comments concerning a very lucky escape and the very real possibility that this could have resulted in a fatal air crash. But I do believe that those responsible will have learned a lesson, and I hope (and I can only very much hope) that the good Dr P has finally used some of the management and leadership qualities he is famed for, to ensure that the correct procedures are now in place to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and also Joe Public.
I still don't understand the Permit length issue - as far as I am aware, a P to F lasts 1 year from date of issue.
Groundloop: It DOES happen in the airline industry after a major incident like this. Remember the BA 777? The difference here is that it was obvious within seconds what had happened and there was simply no need for an investigation into what the cause was.
hurn: The AAIB aren't pursuing it because it does not fall within their remit. It was NOT an accident and more importantly nobody was injured or killed. Whilst the CAA have not grounded 558, I am fairly certain that they will be taking a very close look at the operating procedures of TVOC.
bvcu: "the conditions they operate under with the CAA permit is probably stricter than an airline operation" Sir, that is so bizarre it's quite funny.
Winco
I very much take your point, and I hope you don't think I am going soft on the Vulcan management team, because I am not. I am quite comfortable to use the words 'Negligence' and 'Incompetence' when it comes to this incident. Of that there can be no doubt. And I stand by my comments concerning a very lucky escape and the very real possibility that this could have resulted in a fatal air crash. But I do believe that those responsible will have learned a lesson, and I hope (and I can only very much hope) that the good Dr P has finally used some of the management and leadership qualities he is famed for, to ensure that the correct procedures are now in place to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and also Joe Public.
I still don't understand the Permit length issue - as far as I am aware, a P to F lasts 1 year from date of issue.
Groundloop: It DOES happen in the airline industry after a major incident like this. Remember the BA 777? The difference here is that it was obvious within seconds what had happened and there was simply no need for an investigation into what the cause was.
hurn: The AAIB aren't pursuing it because it does not fall within their remit. It was NOT an accident and more importantly nobody was injured or killed. Whilst the CAA have not grounded 558, I am fairly certain that they will be taking a very close look at the operating procedures of TVOC.
bvcu: "the conditions they operate under with the CAA permit is probably stricter than an airline operation" Sir, that is so bizarre it's quite funny.
Winco
Winco , ref BA 777 how many aircraft got grounded ? Some procedural changes until mods carried out eventually . My point re the strict permit operation is that an airline with its own engineering has its own QA system in house and runs itself subject to audits from relevant authorities. In my experience not closely monitored in reality. An operation like the Vulcan has a very limited permit and wont have much scope compared to a large approved organisation in theory.
Groundloop: It DOES happen in the airline industry after a major incident like this. Remember the BA 777?
Didn't know Frogair had lost an A.340 in the Atlantic as well as a 330. Very careless of them don't you think?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: downtown Toronto
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancaster
Canada's only Lancaster, belonging to the Hamilton Warplane Museum, was flying proudly as usual June 16 & 17 at the annual Hamilton Air Show. Sends shivers down my back every time I see it.
FB
FB
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, part of the approval process for getting a permit to fly is of course checking out what random anonymous people have posted on internet forums. I think it's on page 567, just after the section on consulting random people in SE Asia. 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
You've obviously flown many nuclear bombers, Hasel. You sound like an expert of many years experience in these matters.
I'm sure the CAA are taking due note of your posts.
I'm sure the CAA are taking due note of your posts.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bradfield CO11 2XD
Age: 81
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more positive note the engine changes and testing are complete and they are waiting for the results of a risk assessment so they can commence test flying,all being well XH558 should resume her display season at Fairford.
Colin.
Colin.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hazel Grove, Stockport
Age: 83
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Groundloop, you were wrong about the DC10 as well.The world fleet was grounded for quite a while, not as long as in the US but they were grounded. I was working for Freddie Laker at the time and we were trying to run Skytrain with B707 and we did not have enough aircraft to cover a lot of our schedules.
This incodent was nowhere near being a fireball hole in the ground, having worked on Vulcans myself in the sixties, I am suprised they got as far as applying takeoff power before the engines coughed. Idle thrust was enough on the XM series to see water being lifted off the ground into the intakes. You never stood anywhere near an intake of a Vulcan if the engines were running.
This incodent was nowhere near being a fireball hole in the ground, having worked on Vulcans myself in the sixties, I am suprised they got as far as applying takeoff power before the engines coughed. Idle thrust was enough on the XM series to see water being lifted off the ground into the intakes. You never stood anywhere near an intake of a Vulcan if the engines were running.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4) Additionally, very clearly the preflight inspection failed to be done correctly. That can be nothing but utterly inexcusable.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: 4) Additionally, very clearly the preflight inspection failed to be done correctly. That can be nothing but utterly inexcusable.
You're qualified to make such an assessment, as are many others here, who concur.
The irresponsible comments from those excusing the inexcusable confirm the judgement.
The dismissive attitude of the circus indicates they have not learned the lesson, and wish to press on with the "beer and bombers" culture that precipitated this shocking calamity.
The aircraft is innocent, the fault lies entirely with all the personnel involved.