Vulcan tried to escape from Wellesbourne, 16th Sept 2022
i've got a copy of Guy Martin's Last Flight of the Vulcan. Theres a scene where he is allowed to do a fast taxi in that same aircraft at Wellesbourne, don't know if it was exaggerated for the camera but it appeared to be a bit of a faff stopping in time.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 98 Likes
on
69 Posts
The report on this incident should make for very interesting reading both from the operating aspect and the engineering maintenance regime in equal measure. Be interesting to learn when it was last jacked and the wheels spun / maxarets checked.
Who conducts it is a bit of a moot point really....strictly speaking, no injuries, thankfully, not airworthy so not usual AAIB territory...but there again, it came far too close to endangering the public so possibly with this in mind.
Who conducts it is a bit of a moot point really....strictly speaking, no injuries, thankfully, not airworthy so not usual AAIB territory...but there again, it came far too close to endangering the public so possibly with this in mind.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that anyone will be interested in producing a report other than perhaps the insurance company. After all nothing happened after the Victor "flight" and that was potentially much more serious (and from an active airfield at the time as well).
The AAIB didn't report but IIRC, although I cannot locate a copy on line, the CAA did.
Guest
These boring people are the professionals!!!! To do this sort of thing, the Aircraft has to be insured (I'm in a team that does this exact type of activity).Anything that drives that insurance cost up is not good, especially when a bunch of what can only be described as cowboys fail to account for the fact that the aircraft is not serviced at the same level that it was while in service and fail to have a back up method of ensuring that the "Jet Car" safely stays on the runway. In the video below, the Driver had both a motile phone on the HUD and had placed ground markers along the runway!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqdGD0gLy64&t=658s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqdGD0gLy64&t=658s
Of course, what happens if the engines don't cut. Can you have a runaway at max power?
Guest
I wonder what the law says in these incidents. It's not an incident until it's an incident so can you be prosecuted for nearly, but not quite having an accident? Thought Police might like to reply?
Given that the other Vulcans which do "high speed taxi runs" operate on runways of twice to almost three times the length of Wellsbourne, was this ever a good idea?
By far the biggest consideration in any risk assessment should be the danger to people completely uninvolved in the activity.
They have a right to keep the life they have already got whist you "get" yours!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it. My friend was doing some fast taxi runs in his plane when it accidentally took off. At that time he had no paperwork for it. Unfortunately he managed a stall spin and destroyed the thing. Because he didn't set out with the intention of committing aviation the AAIB/CAA were not interested beyond him submitting his own report for the monthly bulletin.
Time Constant of ASI..
What with all the pipework of the ASI, I wonder if there is any time lapse in the readings. Some of the older ( phlorescent.) WD instruments could also have friction in their gearing. I suppose they did remove the Pitot Cover..!
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 98 Likes
on
69 Posts
It's a little concerning really, to read comments that suggest an investigation is unwarranted. Almost as if a Vulcan leaving the runway, stopping short, just, of a very busy road I know well, is an everyday occurrence ...which it clearly isn't.
I feel an investigation, based on the event, and what has been alluded to concerning the operating culture, is more than justified.
Thread Starter
I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.
I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.
YS
I don't think anyone is saying that an investigation is unwarranted, just that it is not compulsory. This event does not fall under the remit of ICAO Annex 13, so the AAIB does not have to get involved. The aircraft is not registered and does not have a CofA or permit so the CAA does not have full jurisdiction. It would be interesting to look into this, but the 655MaPS has already provided a story from the flightdeck explaining what happened, so it's not as if there's a whole lot left to uncover. As for all the questions wondering why they didn't do it differently, my view is that as they have been doing this for a long time, the operators, together with the airfield authority, are those who are best placed to figure that out.
I assume there was a detailed risk assessment in place? Were all the agreed criteria met? Were any boundaries "pushed" given the pressure of being ready for a ticketed public event the next day?
"A story from the flightdeck explaining what happened" is an important part of any accident investigation. However many other aspects need to be fully investigated.
That's it. My friend was doing some fast taxi runs in his plane when it accidentally took off. At that time he had no paperwork for it. Unfortunately he managed a stall spin and destroyed the thing. Because he didn't set out with the intention of committing aviation the AAIB/CAA were not interested beyond him submitting his own report for the monthly bulletin.
It overode the chocks and the engineer (who was not a fullly qualified pilot) took off did a crcuit and landed safely.
Not quite. Chocks did not come into it. The Wg Cdr engineer was on one of Lyneham's runways; the problem was that, having engaged reheat to troubleshoot a problem with an alternator dropping offline, he could not find out how to deselect it, so got airborne in the absence of any means of stopping.
