Diamond Jubilee Vulcan Flying
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vulcan - second explosion Doncaster
The moment someones fat salary went pop!!
Sadly is this the end of the Vulcans flying days? Will it be beyond economical repair?
Sadly is this the end of the Vulcans flying days? Will it be beyond economical repair?
Yet again more negativity from yellowchickencopilot...
Perhaps you could take up another hobby, such as playing golf on railway lines?
I will be demanding an explanation for this reported incident. No excuses, huggy-fluffy 'no blame' bolleaux or whatever. Someone seems to have screwed up.....and I will need a convincing explanation or my standing order will be cancelled.
Perhaps you could take up another hobby, such as playing golf on railway lines?
I will be demanding an explanation for this reported incident. No excuses, huggy-fluffy 'no blame' bolleaux or whatever. Someone seems to have screwed up.....and I will need a convincing explanation or my standing order will be cancelled.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
The technical team spent yesterday (Tuesday) investigating the engine damage on XH558, to determine its cause and to start assessing the timescale and cost of rectification.
We have already established that both engines No.1 and No.2 on the port side are sadly beyond repair, both having suffered blade damage and the effect of excessive heat.
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.
All relevant agencies and technical authorities have been informed. "We have been greatly reassured by the support from industry colleagues, and would like to thank all those who have offered help," said engineering director Andrew Edmondson.
We would also like to place on record our thanks to all at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield for their swift and professional reaction on Monday, whilst also apologising to those affected by delays or diversions.
In accordance with normal procedures, a formal investigation into the incident has been opened, chaired by the Chairman of the Trust's Safety Review Committee.
The technical inspection has so far showed that no airframe damage was sustained, with damage being limited to the engines. The next step is to replace the damaged engines with two from the Trust's remaining stock. Timescales for a return to flight are not yet clear – we will of course update the web site with progress and give details in the e-newsletters each week.
"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 have already established that both engines No.1 and No.2 on the port side are sadly beyond repair, both having suffered blade damage and the effect of excessive heat.
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.
All relevant agencies and technical authorities have been informed. "We have been greatly reassured by the support from industry colleagues, and would like to thank all those who have offered help," said engineering director Andrew Edmondson.
We would also like to place on record our thanks to all at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield for their swift and professional reaction on Monday, whilst also apologising to those affected by delays or diversions.
In accordance with normal procedures, a formal investigation into the incident has been opened, chaired by the Chairman of the Trust's Safety Review Committee.
The technical inspection has so far showed that no airframe damage was sustained, with damage being limited to the engines. The next step is to replace the damaged engines with two from the Trust's remaining stock. Timescales for a return to flight are not yet clear – we will of course update the web site with progress and give details in the e-newsletters each week.
"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.
There is a film of it
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th May 2012 at 19:36.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again more negativity from yellowchickencopilot...
Perhaps you could take up another hobby, such as playing golf on railway lines?
Perhaps you could take up another hobby, such as playing golf on railway lines?
Alternatively could you be one of those in receipt of the salary hence your comment?
'Simple engineering error' has no place in aviation. Military groundcrew certainly understand this.
If silica bags are 'permitted tools' in the intakes, there must be a procedure for their issue and removal before flight, including formal supervisory checks.
And no, yellowchickencopilot of schadenfreude, I most certainly do NOT have any salary as you allege. Whether I will continue to contribute to '558 depends upon the findings into the destruction of two priceless engines.
If silica bags are 'permitted tools' in the intakes, there must be a procedure for their issue and removal before flight, including formal supervisory checks.
And no, yellowchickencopilot of schadenfreude, I most certainly do NOT have any salary as you allege. Whether I will continue to contribute to '558 depends upon the findings into the destruction of two priceless engines.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Don't forget I am ex RAF ground crew, I agree there should be procedures in place, but we simply do not know if that was the route cause, no one does yet, things get missed when pressure is on and people are getting rushed to do a five minute job in three. Nothing man has ever done has been 100% we are all falible from the person in the cockpit through to the engineers working on the aircraft.. Until the reason is known, I for one will not cast the first sto..... Bag of silica gel..
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle, I do not and never have obtained the slightest pleasure from the misfortune of others.
I happily give to charity, I also hope that the vast majority of my donation ends up being used directly for the beneficial use.
I also think that the Vulcan is a fantastic part of aviation history, however I have personal reservations about the campaign for funds -V- the salaries of certain officials within its infrastructure.
Perhaps you are happy, however I find it sits badly with me.
Baseline in 2008 of £70k per month in salary costs....
I happily give to charity, I also hope that the vast majority of my donation ends up being used directly for the beneficial use.
I also think that the Vulcan is a fantastic part of aviation history, however I have personal reservations about the campaign for funds -V- the salaries of certain officials within its infrastructure.
Perhaps you are happy, however I find it sits badly with me.
Baseline in 2008 of £70k per month in salary costs....
Latest Statement from Vulcan Operating Company
Posted by Flightline UK on 15/01/2008 under Warbirds and Classic Jets |
Be the First to Comment
Posted by Flightline UK on 15/01/2008 under Warbirds and Classic Jets |
Be the First to Comment Honouring the Past, Inspiring the Future.
As promised in the last message, here is news on our progress towards delivering Vulcan XH558 back to UK air displays later this year. To minimise duplication, I have written this as an update to my last message of 10th December, which is reproduced below.
The next phase in the new life of XH558 takes the aircraft from today up to its first public display. In funding terms, we estimate that it will cost about £575,000 to meet our target of returning her to public display on 1st June, an amount which is consistent with our estimated gross annual running costs of about £1.6million.
Following on from the enormous financial goodwill shown by many companies, and by Marshall Aerospace in particular, in enabling us to achieve the first test flight on 18th October, we have chosen to avoid the risk of future fiscal embarrassment by electing to pay for any major work before it starts.
Whilst the largest proportion of the £575,000 pays for the monthly £70,000 baseline costs of salaries and other vital items, the steepest part of the new challenge is the upfront outlay of £85,000 required now to restart the test flight programme. The costs of the display work-up flights and aviation insurance are the other major elements making up the total
As promised in the last message, here is news on our progress towards delivering Vulcan XH558 back to UK air displays later this year. To minimise duplication, I have written this as an update to my last message of 10th December, which is reproduced below.
The next phase in the new life of XH558 takes the aircraft from today up to its first public display. In funding terms, we estimate that it will cost about £575,000 to meet our target of returning her to public display on 1st June, an amount which is consistent with our estimated gross annual running costs of about £1.6million.
Following on from the enormous financial goodwill shown by many companies, and by Marshall Aerospace in particular, in enabling us to achieve the first test flight on 18th October, we have chosen to avoid the risk of future fiscal embarrassment by electing to pay for any major work before it starts.
Whilst the largest proportion of the £575,000 pays for the monthly £70,000 baseline costs of salaries and other vital items, the steepest part of the new challenge is the upfront outlay of £85,000 required now to restart the test flight programme. The costs of the display work-up flights and aviation insurance are the other major elements making up the total
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Err rumour has it one of them is on about that a Year... Plus apparently they pay the crew, name another civilian vintage warbird where the crew are salaried
That's a lot of fundraising before a wheel turns
That's a lot of fundraising before a wheel turns
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th May 2012 at 21:46.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: .
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether I will continue to contribute to '558 depends upon the findings into the destruction of two priceless engines.
Get over yourself fella.
Big birds have big bills.
To correct GEP's stirring misquote "...£70,000 baseline costs of salaries and other vital items..."
£70K pcm is not too bad, cost-wise, for something so unique that must have huge insurance, maintenance and wage bills. Don't forget this beast is/was flying on a Permit, with multiplied maintenance costs due to tighter compliance monitoring - more like a 10 hours between Primary Maintenance programme.
I would dare to assume that the only "fee-free" item in this operation was possibly the pilots, who should've been doing it purely for enjoyment.
Pure speculation - but, it was "probably" a good idea to bung silica gel bags down the intakes and exhausts to try and preserve them precious engines but was done in good intent. But in this operation "we" don't know who would have done that deed? I'd seen the beast in a hangar at Robin Hood and it appeared warm and dry, well cosseted and properly preserved over the last break.
And, especially for Beagle, there are NO MILITARY rules applied to this recently created invalid. The "military" have more maintenance related incidents than anyone else.
This sort of incident is typical of low-use small operator errors. I have seen an aircraft taxi and launch with Tie-Down Weights still attached! (and not a maintenance error)
I don't contribute to this relic (I never worked on 'em) and I don't work for it either.
To correct GEP's stirring misquote "...£70,000 baseline costs of salaries and other vital items..."
£70K pcm is not too bad, cost-wise, for something so unique that must have huge insurance, maintenance and wage bills. Don't forget this beast is/was flying on a Permit, with multiplied maintenance costs due to tighter compliance monitoring - more like a 10 hours between Primary Maintenance programme.
I would dare to assume that the only "fee-free" item in this operation was possibly the pilots, who should've been doing it purely for enjoyment.
Pure speculation - but, it was "probably" a good idea to bung silica gel bags down the intakes and exhausts to try and preserve them precious engines but was done in good intent. But in this operation "we" don't know who would have done that deed? I'd seen the beast in a hangar at Robin Hood and it appeared warm and dry, well cosseted and properly preserved over the last break.
And, especially for Beagle, there are NO MILITARY rules applied to this recently created invalid. The "military" have more maintenance related incidents than anyone else.
This sort of incident is typical of low-use small operator errors. I have seen an aircraft taxi and launch with Tie-Down Weights still attached! (and not a maintenance error)
I don't contribute to this relic (I never worked on 'em) and I don't work for it either.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga
Not sure how you write, but IMHO it's natural to describe the majority of the costs with what they are and then "other vital items" etc etc afterwards.
If Fuel or Insurance were the MAJOR part of that, then why not put:-
"70k per month for insurance, fuel and other vital items including salaries".
Or it was a slip of the thought process because that is the truth
but they don't publish it like that normally !!!
Not sure how you write, but IMHO it's natural to describe the majority of the costs with what they are and then "other vital items" etc etc afterwards.
If Fuel or Insurance were the MAJOR part of that, then why not put:-
"70k per month for insurance, fuel and other vital items including salaries".
Or it was a slip of the thought process because that is the truth
but they don't publish it like that normally !!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SunnySouthWest
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After making a bee-line to XH558 at various airshows I attended as part of the display and also always eager to see this beast in its element, I can't say enough how disappointing it is to hear about inflated salaries and gravy train set-ups. I feel like the 6 yr old being told Father Christmas is fiction. I would like to think the reports are groundless but having done a little digging it certainly seems to be fact.
£70k+ pa is more than an eager volunteer might expect.
Sadly, thanks to inflated figures like this I fear the big bird has a distinctly limited future. Would be nice to hear one of the people drawing such a salary from publicly donated money to justify the figure.
£70k+ pa is more than an eager volunteer might expect.
Sadly, thanks to inflated figures like this I fear the big bird has a distinctly limited future. Would be nice to hear one of the people drawing such a salary from publicly donated money to justify the figure.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
0ct 2009 accounts
Wages and salaries 642,680
Social security. 59,263
Pension costs 2,474
Total 704,714
Average number of employees 17
Highest earning Robert Pleming 72,000
A lot of tin rattling before a penny gets spent on the jet.
For full details see
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...091031_E_C.PDF
Wages and salaries 642,680
Social security. 59,263
Pension costs 2,474
Total 704,714
Average number of employees 17
Highest earning Robert Pleming 72,000
A lot of tin rattling before a penny gets spent on the jet.
For full details see
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...091031_E_C.PDF
Last edited by NutLoose; 31st May 2012 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 figures give 17 people an average salary of at least £37800. Not bad for a charity. But then charity does begin at home....
The accounts of 2010 give a slightly better result in 2010, but are significantly worse in other areas.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...101031_e_c.pdf
The accounts of 2010 give a slightly better result in 2010, but are significantly worse in other areas.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...101031_e_c.pdf
Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 31st May 2012 at 22:38.