Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Vulcan tried to escape from Wellesbourne, 16th Sept 2022

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Vulcan tried to escape from Wellesbourne, 16th Sept 2022

Old 18th Sep 2022, 09:18
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Age: 72
Posts: 91
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
sunnybunny is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 10:24
  #62 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,254
Received 3 Likes on 3 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.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 10:52
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 57
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).
DucatiST4 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 11:18
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Northampton, England
Age: 63
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DucatiST4 View Post
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.
Airbanda is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 11:43
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD View Post
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
Interesting you mention ground markers. Isn't just plain maths your friend here. Calculate the optimum acceleration at a given throttle setting. Factor in a margin of error and then put a post beside the runway that means "Cut engines" and you should be fine.
Of course, what happens if the engines don't cut. Can you have a runaway at max power?
uxb99 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 11:45
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by DucatiST4 View Post
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).
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?
uxb99 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 11:57
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 45989 View Post
Amazing to see the boring "health and safties" wade in as usual. GET A LIFE!!
Would you still be saying that if the ground had been harder and it had ended up through the fence and into the traffic on the road?

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!
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 12:46
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,633
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbanda View Post
The AAIB didn't report but IIRC, although I cannot locate a copy on line, the CAA did.
It wasn't a reportable event per Annex 13, as nobody had boarded the Victor with the intent of flight.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 12:50
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,633
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
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.
Judging by the reports of late braking, it doesn't sound like the anti-skid was at fault.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 13:01
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 57
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.

DucatiST4 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 13:04
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A great shame to watch things being destroyed from a distance...............
45989 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 13:16
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Broughton, UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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..!
scifi is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 13:25
  #73 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,254
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Judging by the reports of late braking, it doesn't sound like the anti-skid was at fault.
Fair enough, but, I would still be very interested in examining the system.... and the servicing history

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.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 13:49
  #74 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 14:19
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,162
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhieminga View Post
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.
This has nothing to do with aviation but the occurrence falls firmly within the remit of the HSE. It would be prudent; to say the least; for 655MaPS to refer the matter themselves as the incident and its circumstances could quite readily be categorised as a dangerous occurrence.

YS
Yellow Sun is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 14:26
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhieminga View Post
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.
That, in itself, doesn't prove that it was an acceptably safe thing to do. It may or may not have been, I am not saying it wasn't based on this one incident alone.

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.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 14:41
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 57
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The HSE's remit is Health and Safety at work. This wasn't a workplace incident.
DucatiST4 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 15:37
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DucatiST4 View Post
The HSE's remit is Health and Safety at work. This wasn't a workplace incident.
"Work" includes activities involving groups of volunteers. As does employer's liability insurance. It doesn't matter whether the workers are being paid or not.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 16:07
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 74
Posts: 9,853
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by DucatiST4 View Post
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.
Then there was the Lightning doing a high power run with an engineer on board.
It overode the chocks and the engineer (who was not a fullly qualified pilot) took off did a crcuit and landed safely.
chevvron is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 16:11
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
kenparry is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.