Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it matter anymore, at all ?
A simple question from a mere support numpty.
S-D
Saw a Vulcan do a roll after a very high speed low level departure [7.00am] at Williamtown RAAF Base in 1974 followed by a roll on climb-out. Last visit ex-Exercise Pitch Black in DRW. Loved the chaps stepping out of this beauty with their uniform on under their flight suit...
I was the twr controller at Willi...
I was the twr controller at Willi...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Over stress and salad dodger my point is a roll in any shape or form is considered by the CAA to be an aerobatic manoeuvre and as such it is by the terms of the CAA Permit to fly operating outside its legally laid down limitations and as such is in breach of the ANO, which is therefore illegal.
Roll it once I could understand, as it may have been safer to continue the manoeuvre than to reverse the direction and you could argue the toss over that one, but twice you are either arrogant or just plainly stupid and either way you should no longer be in command of any aircraft and one hopes the CAA if the findings are proven come down heavily on the individual. He has by his actions already demonstrated his total disregard for the legally laid down limits for operating the aircraft he was flying safely, not exactly a ringing endorsement for an airline captain is it.
Not only that, but at the end of what has been a superb example of a civilian company operating a complex aircraft successfully over the past 8 years, it slightly tarnishes their reputation for safety and due diligence in all things, and one hopes it does not have a knock on effect for any future planned historical aircraft operations. I for one am looking forward to seeing the new Mosquito back in UK skies.
You make your choice, you accept the consequences.
.
Roll it once I could understand, as it may have been safer to continue the manoeuvre than to reverse the direction and you could argue the toss over that one, but twice you are either arrogant or just plainly stupid and either way you should no longer be in command of any aircraft and one hopes the CAA if the findings are proven come down heavily on the individual. He has by his actions already demonstrated his total disregard for the legally laid down limits for operating the aircraft he was flying safely, not exactly a ringing endorsement for an airline captain is it.
Not only that, but at the end of what has been a superb example of a civilian company operating a complex aircraft successfully over the past 8 years, it slightly tarnishes their reputation for safety and due diligence in all things, and one hopes it does not have a knock on effect for any future planned historical aircraft operations. I for one am looking forward to seeing the new Mosquito back in UK skies.
You make your choice, you accept the consequences.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 7th Nov 2015 at 10:59.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutloose
Lines – Mainly horizontal or up to 45° climbing/diving lines in normal flight.
Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight.
Spins – Erect Spins of one turn, with entry and exit in normal flight.
Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit.
Loops and Eights – Inside circular loops with normal entry and exit.
Combinations – Half an inside loop followed by a half roll (‘Roll off the Top’.) Five eighths of an inside loop combined with a half roll on diving exit Line (‘Half Cuban 8’). 45° climbing line followed by a half roll and pull through to level flight (‘Reverse Half Cuban 8’)
Rolls – Slow, aileron or barrel rolls on horiz
The extract you posted to prove that a roll is an aerobatic manuever would also by the same logic call turns and lines aerobatic manuevers, surely?
Lines – Mainly horizontal or up to 45° climbing/diving lines in normal flight.
Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight.
Spins – Erect Spins of one turn, with entry and exit in normal flight.
Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit.
Loops and Eights – Inside circular loops with normal entry and exit.
Combinations – Half an inside loop followed by a half roll (‘Roll off the Top’.) Five eighths of an inside loop combined with a half roll on diving exit Line (‘Half Cuban 8’). 45° climbing line followed by a half roll and pull through to level flight (‘Reverse Half Cuban 8’)
Rolls – Slow, aileron or barrel rolls on horiz
The extract you posted to prove that a roll is an aerobatic manuever would also by the same logic call turns and lines aerobatic manuevers, surely?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Fair enough Raven, someone else mentioned he flew for an airline so I leave it at that... open.
It all comes down to what the CAA defines as aerobatics then? I was always lead to believe a roll was counted as that, time will tell.
BTW from
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL19.pdf
2 AIRCRAFT SUITABILITY
a) The particular aircraft which you propose to use must be cleared for the aerobatic manoeuvres intended, so a review of the Certificate of Airworthiness/Permit to Fly and the Flight Manual/Pilot’s Operating Handbook, including all Supplements, is essential before flight. These will detail the permitted speeds (e.g. VA – manoeuvring speed, the maximum speed at which controls can be fully deflected under normal circumstances), as well as the permitted manoeuvres and load factors, which may vary between two outwardly identical aircraft. The aircraft should, ideally, be fitted with a ‘g’ meter to confirm that it has been flown within its permitted ‘g’ envelope. In addition, try to avoid sudden large control movements at any speed, especially when reversing direction.
It all comes down to what the CAA defines as aerobatics then? I was always lead to believe a roll was counted as that, time will tell.
BTW from
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL19.pdf
2 AIRCRAFT SUITABILITY
a) The particular aircraft which you propose to use must be cleared for the aerobatic manoeuvres intended, so a review of the Certificate of Airworthiness/Permit to Fly and the Flight Manual/Pilot’s Operating Handbook, including all Supplements, is essential before flight. These will detail the permitted speeds (e.g. VA – manoeuvring speed, the maximum speed at which controls can be fully deflected under normal circumstances), as well as the permitted manoeuvres and load factors, which may vary between two outwardly identical aircraft. The aircraft should, ideally, be fitted with a ‘g’ meter to confirm that it has been flown within its permitted ‘g’ envelope. In addition, try to avoid sudden large control movements at any speed, especially when reversing direction.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the reason for the Vulcan being grounded is due to the Design Authorities withdrawing their support. I can see their reasoning as it is near impossible to guarantee the integrity of a single complex aging aircraft. Even if a strong case could be put forward to reverse their decision it does not help the case if the aircraft appears to be operated outside of it's permit.
On the other hand...
Wish I had been one of the lucky ones to have witnessed that roll. No harm done and what a way to sign off her flying career.
On the other hand...
Wish I had been one of the lucky ones to have witnessed that roll. No harm done and what a way to sign off her flying career.
IIRC Aerobatics are defined as more than 90 degrees of pitch or bank angle. Therefore a barrel roll is an aerobatic manoeuvre.
I have only seen a couple of frames of the alleged barrel roll, in online newspapers, and not the full sequence. Are the weather conditions, ambient lighting, and positioning of the aircraft in the sequence of frames, correct for the whole thing being shot from the ground on that date/time?
I have no idea of the height, speed or track of the aircraft at the time.
I have only seen a couple of frames of the alleged barrel roll, in online newspapers, and not the full sequence. Are the weather conditions, ambient lighting, and positioning of the aircraft in the sequence of frames, correct for the whole thing being shot from the ground on that date/time?
I have no idea of the height, speed or track of the aircraft at the time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These scoundrels have been going past 90 degrees bank angle repeatedly on every display with millions watching!
Did nobody notice!!!
Ground the Vulcan immediately!!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
These scoundrels have been going past 90 degrees bank angle repeatedly on every display with millions watching!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Is it not true that this is a sequence of stills and not a video? Equally is there any ground reference from which to deduce bank angle, pitch or height?
I was once required to calibrate my camera for a CAA investigation. Is there any chance of a vali calibration in this case?
I was once required to calibrate my camera for a CAA investigation. Is there any chance of a vali calibration in this case?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
The main reason it's grounded is I believe from what I have read is because the engines are at their life limits, they I believe had already been extended once, but with no viable replacement units available RR took the correct decision and withdrew the design authority for them, that would have resulted in the others DA's being withdrawn.
It's all well and good saying let it fly etc, but if it went down at an airshow etc I would hate to think of the casualties and in this day and age the company share price is everything. Just look how quick RR were to release a press statement when the BA 777 burst into flames in Vegas pointing out it was not their engines.
It's all well and good saying let it fly etc, but if it went down at an airshow etc I would hate to think of the casualties and in this day and age the company share price is everything. Just look how quick RR were to release a press statement when the BA 777 burst into flames in Vegas pointing out it was not their engines.
It does seem a little strange that no one else appears to have reported seeing the alleged act. Whenever I've seen the aircraft over this part of the universe, it has either been following the High Dyke (to the east of the town) or over to the west near to Belvoir Castle.
Here is a link to the report in the local rag.
VIDEO: Did Vulcan do banned trick over Grantham? - Grantham Journal
The location where the person claims they saw the alleged event is beside the big white tower on the high ground just to the east of the A1 and south of the town(for those familiar with the area).
Here's a link to Bing maps which shows the position of the water tower.
Gorse Lane water tower
I am assuming (a dangerous thing to do) that the aircraft was heading north at the time judging by the sun's reflections on the aircraft - perhaps a PI could confirm that. But, if that guy was standing where he says he was standing, looking at those photo clips would put the manoeuvre being carried out at low level directly over the town centre. I think if that was the case, we would have heard about this "event" a lot quicker than the three weeks it took this guy to bring it to the attention of a regional newspaper.
Here is a link to the report in the local rag.
VIDEO: Did Vulcan do banned trick over Grantham? - Grantham Journal
The location where the person claims they saw the alleged event is beside the big white tower on the high ground just to the east of the A1 and south of the town(for those familiar with the area).
Here's a link to Bing maps which shows the position of the water tower.
Gorse Lane water tower
I am assuming (a dangerous thing to do) that the aircraft was heading north at the time judging by the sun's reflections on the aircraft - perhaps a PI could confirm that. But, if that guy was standing where he says he was standing, looking at those photo clips would put the manoeuvre being carried out at low level directly over the town centre. I think if that was the case, we would have heard about this "event" a lot quicker than the three weeks it took this guy to bring it to the attention of a regional newspaper.
It did roll. Twice. It was seen by a good friend of mine who isn't into aviation. His description was as per the videos. He lives just south of Grantham. A couple of his friends were with him too and also saw the event. I heard about it on the day 4th Oct, just after it occurred.
So, the photographer `just happened` to be `there` at the time the `aircraft` was` allegedly` rolled..bit of a coincidence...?
I don`t see any smoke from 4 Olympi,nor any vortices from the wingtips..
In a clear blue sky,and over a major town,no evidence of clouds,horizon or other features..? rather `jerky` stills,compared to what is produced at air displays...?
Possibly taken from another aircraft ,rolling around ,above,below `558`,and then `stitched` together` with a lot of photoshopping...?
90 deg/sec rate of roll for the `2nd.roll..?
If it had happened as indicated,it would have hit the streets within hours,not weeks.....
If i`d have had the chance to do it,it would have been above 8/8 cloud cover,where one can barrel-roll almost any aircraft at no more than 2-2.25 G,at the most....
I don`t see any smoke from 4 Olympi,nor any vortices from the wingtips..
In a clear blue sky,and over a major town,no evidence of clouds,horizon or other features..? rather `jerky` stills,compared to what is produced at air displays...?
Possibly taken from another aircraft ,rolling around ,above,below `558`,and then `stitched` together` with a lot of photoshopping...?
90 deg/sec rate of roll for the `2nd.roll..?
If it had happened as indicated,it would have hit the streets within hours,not weeks.....
If i`d have had the chance to do it,it would have been above 8/8 cloud cover,where one can barrel-roll almost any aircraft at no more than 2-2.25 G,at the most....
Seems the CAA are looking into the Vulcan..............
Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News
Hopefully nothing will come of it
Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News
Hopefully nothing will come of it
How dare they do that................
Did they not think of the School, Kindergarten, Old People's home, lost animal shelter with cute photogenic puppies and cute kittens home all underneath their flight path.
Oh the sheer inhumanity of this.
Personally think they must ground the aircraft and have an inquiry conducted by Prune's finest down the Dog and Duck, meetings scheduled every Wednesday at 7.30pm to review the evidence and other flight material that may be completely and utterly irrelevant.
Govt will ensure refreshments are provided.
After 15 years and thousands of hours of flight viewed the "Committee" announce Yup its probably dangerous so lets meet to decide the punishment and review the evidence again, 7.30pm at Dog and Duck.