Voyager Plummets (Merged)
ShotOne wrote:
I do not know the cause. But if nothing has yet been found, the search must go on in as great a depth as necessary until the cause is found.
60 years ago, after no clear reason was identified for the first Comet to have plummeted out of the sky in January 1954, government pressure led to flying being resumed without further inquiry. A further fatal accident occurred less than 3 weeks later.
If you know the cause, why not tell us ?
60 years ago, after no clear reason was identified for the first Comet to have plummeted out of the sky in January 1954, government pressure led to flying being resumed without further inquiry. A further fatal accident occurred less than 3 weeks later.
Beags , the first Comet to drop out of the sky was actually G-ALYV climbing out of Calcutta May 2 with the loss of 43 Lives. 2 May 1953.
Coincidentally this was the registration chosen for the " Dinky Toys" toy Comet which went on to be sold well into the late 50's without change. ( Obviously no PR queens in those days)
You will recall that these events were preceded by Comets going "through the hedge" on take -off, due to not being able to accelerate to flying speed if the nose was held too high ( leading to the adoption of drooped leading edges).
Coincidentally this was the registration chosen for the " Dinky Toys" toy Comet which went on to be sold well into the late 50's without change. ( Obviously no PR queens in those days)
You will recall that these events were preceded by Comets going "through the hedge" on take -off, due to not being able to accelerate to flying speed if the nose was held too high ( leading to the adoption of drooped leading edges).
Interesting point Beags is that the May 2 53 Calcutta ALYV accident findings fundamentally were that the aircraft was over stressed in severe turbulence.
However it was the retrospective personal opinion of an AIB Investigator ( TR Nelson)involved in all three , i.e ALYV, ALYP Elba Jan 10 54 and ALYY Naples Apr 8 54, that the basic cause was probably the same.
However it was the retrospective personal opinion of an AIB Investigator ( TR Nelson)involved in all three , i.e ALYV, ALYP Elba Jan 10 54 and ALYY Naples Apr 8 54, that the basic cause was probably the same.
Maybe it is software related. I experienced two uncommanded descents in the very early days of the B757. (Summer 1983). Both happened in approximately the same geographical position during flights from Gatwick to Palma, half way into the two hour flight. Vnav was not approved or used during the first year of B757 operation. The A/T and altitude hold were engaged on the first incident, when the thrust levers retarded and the nose went down as in a normal descent. The "descent" was cancelled and we continued on the Palma. On the second incident the A/T had been disengaged because it was slow to react to speed changes and tended to over correct. Consequently the alt hold dropped out, but we didn't descend. Boeing suggested a fluke pairing of Tacan,VOR and IRS positions had fooled the FMC into thinking it had reached the TOD position.
Meanwhile, Boeing's yet-to-fly KC-46A Frankentanker has been given an official name: KC-46A tanker gets new name: Pegasus | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
The newly-named Boeing Pig'sArse is due to fly in June. Though quite which June remains to be seen.
The newly-named Boeing Pig'sArse is due to fly in June. Though quite which June remains to be seen.
Britain's RAF lifts flying ban on Voyager fleet
According to Reuters:
So - what was the cause and what was the solution?
And why is there nothing on the ATr website.......
??
Britain has lifted a flying ban on its fleet of Airbus-made Voyager military aircraft more than a week after it grounded the planes, with the planes to resume flying this afternoon, a spokesman for the AirTanker consortium said.
And why is there nothing on the ATr website.......
??
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will have to ask the military. Their team of expert investigators, with full knowledge of the Airbus flight control system, will have made a decision based on the facts.
I can only guess that they have decided that it is an issue not connected with the Mil modifications. If that is the case, it is now an issue that the whole Airbus community should be made aware of?
I can only guess that they have decided that it is an issue not connected with the Mil modifications. If that is the case, it is now an issue that the whole Airbus community should be made aware of?
I'll hazard a guess on the release..."that particular airframe might have a problem and, it is restricted non-RVSM for six months. Rest of mil fleet released from restriction. NFF". 
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll have to explain the logic of your last para, mr snow. There's more than a thousand A330's happily flying about. Why, at this point (but not last week) should they be being "made aware" of anything?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last week it was assumed to be a problem with the Mil Mod aircraft but now the goalposts have been moved and the Mil aircraft are allowed to fly again. Therefore it's not a Mil mod issue. Therefore it's an issue that needs to be shared, in the interests of flight safety, with the airbus community.
Originally Posted by mr snow
last week it was assumed to be a problem with the Mil Mod aircraft but now the goalposts have been moved and the Mil aircraft are allowed to fly again. Therefore it's not a Mil mod issue.
It could be a Mil mod issue that has now been identified and mitigated sufficiently to allow flying to continue.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been no restrictions or bulletins concerning civil A330's and they've been carrying hundreds of thousands of pax since the incident. The CAA most certainly don't have balls of granite concerning risk. What's the logic in doing so now the Voyager is back in the air.?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne
The CAA most certainly don't have balls of granite concerning risk. What's the logic in doing so now the Voyager is back in the air.?
The CAA most certainly don't have balls of granite concerning risk. What's the logic in doing so now the Voyager is back in the air.?
"We need to ground all A330s and A340s?? Shiiite. Errr. Cynthia, can you book me in for that hernia operation I have been talking about - make sure it lasts for 2 weeks, minimum....". ... The CAA does not give a rats ar*** about safety, as long as they keep their jobs.
I am reminded of a clip from the 911 movie.
ATC to USAF: "We need someone to make a decision on a shoot-down policy."
USAF to ATC: "Err, everyone just left the room, I'll call you back....."
And regards Airtanker. Well, it would be nice to have some info about what their conclusions were. Was it software? Was it hardware? Was is a size 14 boot being stuck in the wrong place??
Silver.
CP, I do not think we can presume much. On the sooper-dooper "private-raf" site, it says they have "resumed flights". Maybe they have introduced a third pilot, or a Loady trained as a cruise-pilot? Who knows?
OAP
? Who knows? OAP