Vulcan incident Doncaster 28th May
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, buddy, no!
Not necessarily "all" the personnel involved, more all the personnel "involved" if you make the distinction.
The ultimate line of defence agains this sort of f***up is the walkaround. Regardless of what atrocities - and I use that word deliberately - were committed in engineering and control practices in the hangar beforehand the ultimate responsibility for the safe departure of any aircraft, balloon, microlight, helo orthe space shuttle itself is a thorough and punctilious walkaround.
Compounding the self evident shocking lapses in engineering controls that allowed this unbelievable occurrence to be set up in the first place is the clear, blatant and utterly unforgivable failure to carry out a competent walkaround. There can be no excuse for this whatsoever, absolutely none.
Someone (or two, or five) need/s to do the decent thing and fall on their sword/s. Or perhaps, under the circumstances, people need to be put to the sword which given the absence of honourable or Professional behaviour alluded to above is clearly necessary now.
Most unimpressed.
Not necessarily "all" the personnel involved, more all the personnel "involved" if you make the distinction.
The ultimate line of defence agains this sort of f***up is the walkaround. Regardless of what atrocities - and I use that word deliberately - were committed in engineering and control practices in the hangar beforehand the ultimate responsibility for the safe departure of any aircraft, balloon, microlight, helo orthe space shuttle itself is a thorough and punctilious walkaround.
Compounding the self evident shocking lapses in engineering controls that allowed this unbelievable occurrence to be set up in the first place is the clear, blatant and utterly unforgivable failure to carry out a competent walkaround. There can be no excuse for this whatsoever, absolutely none.
Someone (or two, or five) need/s to do the decent thing and fall on their sword/s. Or perhaps, under the circumstances, people need to be put to the sword which given the absence of honourable or Professional behaviour alluded to above is clearly necessary now.
Most unimpressed.
The aircrew can't see in the intakes so are they supposed to drag steps across the pan or should there be a cherry picker on hand?
They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?
Not having a go just wondered where the line is drawn.
They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?
Not having a go just wondered where the line is drawn.
Last edited by deltapapa; 2nd Jul 2012 at 17:13.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp
You are absolutely correct about the crew checking the intakes aswell as the point about when you take the word of the groundcrew, I couldn't agree more with you, and I do believe that it would be a fair assumption for the crew to make, in believing that the intakes had been checked for FOD. But, as we know, that wasn't the case, and I think both you and I agree that this was a very lucky escape for all concerned. Not least of all for the groundcrew who, had this incident ended much worse, could well have faced some very serious charges.
Of course, there is a very simple answer to all this - don't put anything,(ANYTHING AT ALL) down an engine intake. I have spoken to lots of engineers since this incident and not a single one of them has ever heard of placing silica or anything else down the intake of an aircraft, which brings me back to my original point some time ago ref 'enthusiastic amatuers'
You are absolutely correct about the crew checking the intakes aswell as the point about when you take the word of the groundcrew, I couldn't agree more with you, and I do believe that it would be a fair assumption for the crew to make, in believing that the intakes had been checked for FOD. But, as we know, that wasn't the case, and I think both you and I agree that this was a very lucky escape for all concerned. Not least of all for the groundcrew who, had this incident ended much worse, could well have faced some very serious charges.
Of course, there is a very simple answer to all this - don't put anything,(ANYTHING AT ALL) down an engine intake. I have spoken to lots of engineers since this incident and not a single one of them has ever heard of placing silica or anything else down the intake of an aircraft, which brings me back to my original point some time ago ref 'enthusiastic amatuers'
Last edited by Winco; 2nd Jul 2012 at 13:51.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircrew can't see in the intakes so are they supposed to drag steps across the pan or should there be a cherry picker on hand?
They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?
They do check things they can see - such as for leaks, tyres and loose panels etc but when do you take the word of the ground crew that an aircraft is handed over as fit for flight and when do you start taking panels off in case something has not been connected inside?
I promise to be more careful with my wording if I comment in AH&N again!