Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated
 

Seems the CAA are looking into the Vulcan..............


Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News


Hopefully nothing will come of it

A slapped wrist at the most I fancy. Wish I'd seen it.

That'll be that grounded then....:sad: Oh wait, er.....

Police stations around the country are being closed due to lack of funds. But the Fun Police have endless resources.....

Looks like that big r/c model....

Not sure how they will explain this :E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsN...ion_3387090003

"ALLEGED BARREL ROLL"
 

Alleged?

I thought it was a F@*king good one!

Just deny it - 'It was the camera angle that made it look like that - yer Honour'.

I wonder what Roly Falk is thinking as he watches this from his cloud up there!

Old Duffer

What a great idea to role an ageing airframe in light of what happened at Shoreham. It is a shame the Vulcan has finished but the level of irresponsibility is extraordinary for such a professional team. I hope this wasn't true but if it was, count your lucky stars that you got away with it.

As for those supporting such an action on this site, try examining the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread. PPrune - the first P stands for professional.

When he visited Farnborough once, Roly Falk told us the Vulcan, being a 'big' Avro 707, was stressed for and should have been able to do everything the '707 did. The '707 could be barrel rolled hence.....

A little over the top there Maxibon don't you think? Even if this were confirmed as actually happening, it is not as if he flew under Tower Bridge inverted in the dark and in IMC.

There is absolutely no correlation between the Shoreham accident and a Vulcan being barrel rolled.

There was no 'getting away with it' the aircraft allegedly did something which it is absolutely more than capable of doing, in the hands of someone who was absolutely more than capable of doing it.

Unless you have an inside scoop on the actual cause of the Hunter crash to compare it with, then i suggest that we just calm down a little.

Counting one's 'lucky stars' that they got away with it seems a trifle dramatic.

Even the CAA spokesman has said

BBC News:

"A spokesman for the CAA said it was looking whether the Vulcan "may have performed a roll manoeuvre".
He added: "This did not occur during an air display. Although not normally allowed under its current permissions to fly, a roll is a benign manoeuvre and the Vulcan's maintenance support organisation has confirmed that the aircraft is safe to fly."

and

"The CAA said the measures taken in the wake of the Shoreham air crash were primarily applicable to air displays."

So this manoeuvre was cleared by the DO, the original release to service, the operating authority, the permit to fly and taught to crews?

If so then there is nothing to worry about at all and I am surprised that the CAA are even looking at it.

If the aircraft and crew are cleared and capable why is the manoeuvre not more commonplace?

OK, I'll bite.

I'm not sure that the age of the airframe is relevant; if it was I would suggest that all those high energy manoeuvres carried out by the large number of pre 1960 (XH558's build year) aircraft, including Spitfires and the like, might be severely restricted to the point of grounding, nor is "what happened at Shoreham"; something which is under investigation by the AAIB, which respected body has yet to complete its report, although the interim release may have set a few hares running.


The airframe is either capable of a positive G rolling manoeuvre, as Roly Falk demonstrated in 1955, which means that it is, or it isn't. During its service life, I would suggest that Vulcans (generic) were subject to significantly greater manoeuvring stresses than the alleged roll being discussed here. Unless there was a specific airframe restriction placed on XH558, then I can't see why the manoeuvre is up for discussion. Incidentally, the restrictions placed on high performance civil operated jet aircraft following the accident at Shoreham relate to air displays and, in my opinion, owe more to the perceived need of the CAA to "be seen to be doing something" than to response based on known facts. No Hunters, apart from UK civil operated aircraft are grounded. Yes, Shoreham was a tragic accident and the outcome of both the AAIB report and the CAA review into airshows will prove interesting, as will any police investigation.

As for the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread, I wonder how many of them are from people who meet either, or more especially both, of the first two Ps of this forum? I doubt that we will ever know, because we all hide behind our user names.

That quote from the CAA spokesperson sounds to me very like someone giving the preliminaries to saying that the CAA is going to take little or no further action.

In the 1960s at RAAF Pearce a Vulcan did a barrel roll during the climb out from Take-off, mag bloddy nificent it was.

When an aerobatic manoeuvre is defined as more than 90 of bank we are a nanny state for sure.

Done by people who knew what and when to do what was in the capability of the equipment, go for it, we may NEVER see it again more is the pity

IIRC the Release to Service permitted rolling G of 1.75 on a one off war mission, We were not permitted to practise the escape manoeuvre. I think we went to about 1.5 g during evasive bomb runs.

As for the alleged barrel roll, it was stated that the two films of the alleged roll were not video files but constructed from a number of still frames.

As the film was a construct it is also open to deconstruct and potentially invalid as evidence.

"Did you?"

"No, I didn't"

~~

"Call expert witness #1"

"What is your expertise?"

"I am a former display pilot."

"Did you observe Vulcan XH558 perform a manoeuvre where the aircraft became inverted and otherwise known a a barrel roll?"

"I saw the Vulcan from .... and saw it bank away. I did not see it the whole time."

"Call the next witness."

Your recollection is incorrect, Pontius. The 'g' limits were significantly higher and we often flew sustained 60° AoB turns at 300'.

The Vulcan was cleared for manoeuvres 'appropriate for a medium bomber'. Barrel rolls were neither common, nor were crews taught how to fly them.

When the Vulcan was displayed at Farnborough, it was carefully inspected before and after each flight - which involved a technician going inside the wing to check the leading edge structure.

Ill-disciplined RAF pilots' mishandling probably damaged VX770 before it crashed at Syerston as a result of structural failure when the aircraft was being flown inside the approved flight envelope.....

If XH558 was rolled in the manner alleged, the culprits deserve no sympathy.

Surely if the CAA say that the manoeuvre was "not part of a display" there is, ipso fatso, no case to answer.

Was the Vulcan ever cleared for a LABS manoeuvre, if that's a question anyone is allowed to answer?

I'm thinking of course in connection with a weapons delivery profile.

It ISN'T cleared Aerobatics on its 2008 permit, hence it is breaching the regulations, do you think the CAA will turn a blind eye to that, I don't, especially post Shoreham..

See para 6.2

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf


..