Vulcan / Victor question
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the minimum altitude for the rear crew to abandon the Vucan B2 was 1500 ft agl. Speed limits escape my memory. A consideration in any emergency was the adviseability of getting the rear crew out early. Some captains made a point of flying with their seat pins in to show solidarity with the blokes down the back. 
Thread Starter
The reason I ask is that an "ex crew" stated to me that "any of the 5 crew could initiate ejection, the three rear crew having ejection handles on their seats" and then the "three rear crew were slid along rails in their seats towards the hatchway whose door had been blown off with explosive, and slid out of the aircraft!!!!Before the pilot /CP could eject as normal!"
Doesnt sound like the vulcan or victor I know!
Doesnt sound like the vulcan or victor I know!
Quite right - utter bolleaux. The rear seat guys NEVER had ejection seats in any V-bumbler. The worst was the Vulcan. In the circuit we flew it with the gear down throughout; hence if a sudden "Oh bug.ger" were to happen, the gymnastics required by the lower deck folk to escape splattering themselves on the noseleg as they bailed out of the hatch were very demanding and they would have been very lucky to survive. The lack of downstairs bang seats was a scandal which should have been addressed many, many years before the final RAF Vulcan shut down for the last time..... That was demonstrated at London Airport when the very first Vulcan, returning from a tour of the far East with the AOC (quite legitimately) in one of the pilots' seats pranged into a cabbage field in the undershoot in poor weather. Only the 2 pilots in their bang seats survived, the others died horribly and publicly in front of the assembled media when the aeroplane went in almost vertically.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Vulcan Aircrew Manual:
'Rear crew members can leave the aircraft down to a minimum height of 250ft at a maximum speed of 250kts. Wherever possible, speed should be reduced to 200kts and the aircraft be in a shallow climb with the undercarriage raised, prior to escape.'
The pilots had to initiate ejection of their own seats - there was no command ejection facility. 2 of the rear crew had 'swivel seats', which were mounted on rails so that they could slide back clear of the worktable. The Nav Radar and AEO seats could then be swivelled inboard so that the occupants were facing the door in the floor. The rear seats were also fitted with 'assister cushions, which the guy inflated and it had the effect of forcing him to his feet to help him on his way to the door. The Nav Plotter had no swivel action and had to clamber out of his seat as best he could. The door was opened by feeding high-pressure nitrogen to the jacks which forced it open against the airflow. It also acted as a shield for the crew against the airflow, and a slide to help them escape. As Beags said, with the gear down the gymnastics required were unbelievable; there was only a few feet between the door and the nose leg, so the guys had to grab the door jack and swing into the airflow to avoid the nose leg (it was done for real and worked). Crews went monthly to the escape trainer, a cockpit section in a building where all the abandonment and ditching drills could be practised.
In my experience, rear crews were philosophical about their chances. We spoke openly about it - my crew knew that I would give them my best shot at giving them the chance to get out, but there would come a time when it was them or me… They did not expect others to die needlessly.
I wholeheartedly agree with Beags - it was one of the most shameful decisions ever to come out of the defence hierarchy not to fit rear bang seats. It cost a lot of good men their lives.
'Rear crew members can leave the aircraft down to a minimum height of 250ft at a maximum speed of 250kts. Wherever possible, speed should be reduced to 200kts and the aircraft be in a shallow climb with the undercarriage raised, prior to escape.'
The pilots had to initiate ejection of their own seats - there was no command ejection facility. 2 of the rear crew had 'swivel seats', which were mounted on rails so that they could slide back clear of the worktable. The Nav Radar and AEO seats could then be swivelled inboard so that the occupants were facing the door in the floor. The rear seats were also fitted with 'assister cushions, which the guy inflated and it had the effect of forcing him to his feet to help him on his way to the door. The Nav Plotter had no swivel action and had to clamber out of his seat as best he could. The door was opened by feeding high-pressure nitrogen to the jacks which forced it open against the airflow. It also acted as a shield for the crew against the airflow, and a slide to help them escape. As Beags said, with the gear down the gymnastics required were unbelievable; there was only a few feet between the door and the nose leg, so the guys had to grab the door jack and swing into the airflow to avoid the nose leg (it was done for real and worked). Crews went monthly to the escape trainer, a cockpit section in a building where all the abandonment and ditching drills could be practised.
In my experience, rear crews were philosophical about their chances. We spoke openly about it - my crew knew that I would give them my best shot at giving them the chance to get out, but there would come a time when it was them or me… They did not expect others to die needlessly.
I wholeheartedly agree with Beags - it was one of the most shameful decisions ever to come out of the defence hierarchy not to fit rear bang seats. It cost a lot of good men their lives.
The ergonomics were slightly better in the Victor. The rotating seat latch allowed the seat to swivel and lock towards the door, the door would have been 'blown' by the handle between the Navs, on pulling the 'whoopie cushion' knob, you were rolled forwards towards the open door. It was a case of just continuing the roll out and into the airflow where the static line would do it's business.
Even so, the stats showed only about a 50/50 chance.
Even so, the stats showed only about a 50/50 chance.
I believe the first complete crew to successfully escape from a Vulcan was flying XA909, which crashed near Mona in July 1964. How many other times were all five crew members able to escape from a stricken Vulcan?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vulcan/Victor Question
spekesoftly,
One of the succesful departures was from a Vulcan in the early 70s (1971 I think) just north of Leeming. If memory serves me, engine fires allowed for the Captain to get the rear crew out before the front crew had to abandon the aircraft. This was over thirty years ago, and I have drank a lot of brain cells away since then, so some of the details may be blury. Anyone else remember this incident? Cheers
One of the succesful departures was from a Vulcan in the early 70s (1971 I think) just north of Leeming. If memory serves me, engine fires allowed for the Captain to get the rear crew out before the front crew had to abandon the aircraft. This was over thirty years ago, and I have drank a lot of brain cells away since then, so some of the details may be blury. Anyone else remember this incident? Cheers
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the escape trainer was deadly and one of my colleagues lost his life doing maintenance on the Waddington escape trainer back in '69. For some strange reason they insisted on pressure testing the damned thing on a regular basis and it blew up in his face, when he was taking a reading from the pressure gauge. RIP young Steve
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spekesoftly; I watched the back-seaters abandon a Victor of either 10 or 15 Sqns on approach to Cottesmore in 1961. The Pilots both ejected safely.
I'm not sure of the height, but the aircraft was configured for landing with everything down that should have been down, and it ended up in a paddock on the other side of the A1 from Cottesmore, at about 3miles. 1000' perhaps?
According to Air Clues, the aircraft had a fuel transfer problem which caused all four donkeys to stop, but the report also noted that this had been the first Victor accident where all five crew had survived.
I'm not sure of the height, but the aircraft was configured for landing with everything down that should have been down, and it ended up in a paddock on the other side of the A1 from Cottesmore, at about 3miles. 1000' perhaps?
According to Air Clues, the aircraft had a fuel transfer problem which caused all four donkeys to stop, but the report also noted that this had been the first Victor accident where all five crew had survived.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was on the Board of the Victor Tanker accident in the North Sea when a Buccaneer took the tail off. Only the Captain survived. The rear crew were up on the roof as the aircraft bunted. Its doubtful whether ejection seats as then fitted (but not for the rear crew) would have helped as the Co-pilot was unable to reach either handle. This was because the seats were fitted with the small solid handle rather than the larger loop. The Captain may have pulled his handle but it is more likely the top latch broke and the seat then fired.
The Victor was fitted with an abandon aircraft switch on the Captain side panel which lit lights in front of the rear crew and also depressurised the cabin so the door could be opened. Trouble was Fred H-P thought his aircraft would always be hangared so did not make them waterproof. Caused short circuits in that circuit among others. Had it come on once. To quote OC units comments on the AIR, "Fortunately the experienced crew members questioned the light rather than abandon in spite of the greatly increased noise level".
The Victor was fitted with an abandon aircraft switch on the Captain side panel which lit lights in front of the rear crew and also depressurised the cabin so the door could be opened. Trouble was Fred H-P thought his aircraft would always be hangared so did not make them waterproof. Caused short circuits in that circuit among others. Had it come on once. To quote OC units comments on the AIR, "Fortunately the experienced crew members questioned the light rather than abandon in spite of the greatly increased noise level".
The fact that the crew hadn't Kelly's chance of surviving always horrified me, more so after seeing the inside of a Victor. It shows most of all how brave some people are, and how morally cowardly some other people are.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Allegedly resident in UK but usually found in a sandy tent
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddened to hear Blacksheep's account of the Vulcan trainer fatality; I always regarded the Victor Crew Drill Trainer (CDT) as the thing that would gradually boost confidence the more you used it (No 1 PTS motto "Knowledge Dispels Fear"?, which could equally apply to the rotary dunlker).
Personally, I thought that the CDT was a positive experience, but I must confess that one of my AEO's was convinced that no rear-crew would survive a Victor abandonment, and so, in my opinion, he doomed himself when others may have survived.
Concur Mike Jenvey's comments about the physics of the seat, the cushion just got one's CofG forward of ones toes, it was all down to gravity thereafter.
Personally, I thought that the CDT was a positive experience, but I must confess that one of my AEO's was convinced that no rear-crew would survive a Victor abandonment, and so, in my opinion, he doomed himself when others may have survived.
Concur Mike Jenvey's comments about the physics of the seat, the cushion just got one's CofG forward of ones toes, it was all down to gravity thereafter.
All 5 got out of a Vulcan in the Coningsby area in the mid to late 70s - 101 sqn crew I think. A fire in the AAPP (APU) took hold and a controlled abandonment was carried out. The AEO exited cleanly but the Nav Radar got snagged and the plotter stayed to untangle him and send him out before going himself. Never understood why he didn't get a medal. All the rear crew were injured in some way but all survived. The Captain's first action on arrival at hospital was to shave as he had an illegal beard!
IIRC, in fact wasn't the 'Spilsby' accident to which you refer the direct result of an overvolting RAT (not AAPP) being connected to the synch bus bar? Which almost immediately caused a fire because it couldn't, in those days, be taken off the synch bus bar? Didn't we then get a RAT field isolation switch which could effectively kill the RAT output in the event of a similar thing happening again?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"I wholeheartedly agree with Beags - it was one of the most shameful decisions ever to come out of the defence hierarchy not to fit rear bang seats. It cost a lot of good men their lives".
As opposed to sending crews to war in tankers fuel of gas based on civil airliners with no seats and no modifications to reduce susceptibility to damage or fire?
The present force might be excused as, at the time they were bought, they were envisaged going into harms way. To still be proposing the present PFI when we currently fly them in enemy airspace staggers me.
Lockheed Martin LM has put forward a proposal for a tactical tanker designed to operate in hostile airspace. It's based around a composite wing containing the; a small fuselage with a pressurised cockpit (fitted with ejection seats) and two fuselage mounted engines. Proposed unit cost is around $80 million compared to a KC-767 at somewhere around $150 million. But they'd need a large USAF order to contemplate starting work, and Congress is too interested in subsidising Boeing.
So, who's jets and crews were wandering all over Afghanistan because the USAF wouldn't go where the USN wanted? And, no doubt, will be wandering all over Iraq doing the same thing? Need you ask. And they haven't even got a quick escape hatch.
As opposed to sending crews to war in tankers fuel of gas based on civil airliners with no seats and no modifications to reduce susceptibility to damage or fire?
The present force might be excused as, at the time they were bought, they were envisaged going into harms way. To still be proposing the present PFI when we currently fly them in enemy airspace staggers me.
Lockheed Martin LM has put forward a proposal for a tactical tanker designed to operate in hostile airspace. It's based around a composite wing containing the; a small fuselage with a pressurised cockpit (fitted with ejection seats) and two fuselage mounted engines. Proposed unit cost is around $80 million compared to a KC-767 at somewhere around $150 million. But they'd need a large USAF order to contemplate starting work, and Congress is too interested in subsidising Boeing.
So, who's jets and crews were wandering all over Afghanistan because the USAF wouldn't go where the USN wanted? And, no doubt, will be wandering all over Iraq doing the same thing? Need you ask. And they haven't even got a quick escape hatch.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep. I don't think that Steve's death (I'm sorry I've forgotten his second name) was caused by a 'trainer'. As I recall, it was a line aircraft in the hangar undergoing pressurisation checks. Steve was stood beneath the crew door hinge points checking for seal leaks when the two rear locking pins let loose. The door flew forward and took Steve with it. Please put me right if I have got this wrong - memory!
Ahh - but, dear ORAC, your LM proposal is merely single-role. A total waste of an airframe when you don't need war numbers of tankers. Whereas GTTA is multi-role - so when it isn't needed as a tanker it can still work as a passenger and/or cargo aircraft. Or it can do a bit of all 3 roles concurrently. Except that, without any windows, it'll be pretty bŁoody awful to fly in as a passenger!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spekesoftly
I thought the first successful full crew abandonment (actually of 6 people) was during a BSEL test flight over Yorks in the 1950s. After that Bristol's banned non FTE's from flying on flight tests (I think 2 of the crew were vibration specialists). However you could be right re an RAF crew.
I thought the first successful full crew abandonment (actually of 6 people) was during a BSEL test flight over Yorks in the 1950s. After that Bristol's banned non FTE's from flying on flight tests (I think 2 of the crew were vibration specialists). However you could be right re an RAF crew.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In which case they should front up the dosh and modify them to fit bang seats for the flight deck crew required for combat ops.
The only reason they don't is money - the same reason they didn't for the V force. it was wrong then and it's wrong now. And if they don't want to spend the money - then they shouldn't use them the way they do.
If the need suddenly occured and no one had considered it, then it might have been acceptable. But to have been doing it for years is criminal. And if, God forbid, we ever lose one to enemy action, I hope the Treasury and the MOD get sued for every penny they own.
The only reason they don't is money - the same reason they didn't for the V force. it was wrong then and it's wrong now. And if they don't want to spend the money - then they shouldn't use them the way they do.
If the need suddenly occured and no one had considered it, then it might have been acceptable. But to have been doing it for years is criminal. And if, God forbid, we ever lose one to enemy action, I hope the Treasury and the MOD get sued for every penny they own.
Last edited by ORAC; 24th Jan 2003 at 22:02.