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


..

BEagle, the 1.75 was the escape manoeuvre at 11,000 feet and might also have been to ensure the proper geometry from the blast origin.

60 AOB at low level certainly, in fact we went much further in display flying. I don't recall much higher g loading though unless my knees are now suffering as a consequence.

What g limit would you suggest?

Treble one,

That's an easy one, no.

YS

IIRC the Valiant was stressed to 3G but we were limited to 1.5 G to stop the NBS scanner coming out of the radome.

According to the posted link the CAA Airworthiness Approval cleared the aircraft to:

I'm not qualified to comment on the authenticity or otherwise of the photographs.

Looks to me like one pilot may have made an error while distracted and the other quite correctly unwound the aircraft afterwards :)

Typical of the jobsworth mentality of some Brits that this was ever reported in the first place.

In the current environment where every aspect of display flying, aircrew qualification and vintage aircraft airworthiness is under intense scrutiny, not least by the CAA; at best the alleged incident demonstrates a certain lack of awareness of that scrutiny. At worst, it may demonstrate a casual regard for the CAA Permit restrictions under which it flew. Neither example particularly helps the case for convincing the CAA and the public that existing flying regulations are suitably robust.

Yep, I was there. Also a nice series of low-level wingovers. It was great to be an Air Force brat in those days. We could generally get up close to anything that visited. All three Vs, Comets, Britannias from the RAF, Sea Vixens and Scimitars from the RN, C124 and B47 from the USAF. Lots more.

If I recall correctly, a 'J' fatigue meter count was somewhere around +2.6G and would require the aircraft to be checked for overstress damage.

Attacking Catcleugh reservoir along its line meant a firm turn and some overbanking around a hill to stay inside the low level route - we termed this 'J count corner'....

If properly flown - no problem:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE

I'm sure that it was also in 1955 that Tex Johnston barrel rolled the Boeing 707 prototype, of which video footage exists and is available on YouTube. I believe that when asked what the h*ll he thought he was doing! he is alleged to have said that he was selling airplanes! Good call.

Bob Hoover was, probably, the premier exponent of energy management as the link in Bergerie1's link shows. No questionable Photoshopping on either of those clips, but like others I'm not qualified to comment on the images of the alleged Vulcan rolling, although I do think that the second set looks highly dubious, which may call the first set into question.

Kobus Dune makes an interesting point which I believe reinforces my opinion made in post 14 about qualification. On that note, the next time I go off in my 65 year old Chipmunk I must remember to do a few twiddly bits.

IIRC Johnston was moved off the 747 test programme because he was thoughtto be too high risk...................

"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"

IF the Vulcan actually competed a roll or any other maneuver considered "aerobatic", then the crew left CAA little option but to take enforcement action. The regulations for display are not so much the problem, as it is compliance to said regulations.

It is wonderful to see an airplane (oops aeroplane) like the Vulcan fly. Hopefully, this last flight does not give reason to deny future requests for demonstration flights other similarly loved and admired aircraft.

Yellow Sun
 

Many thanks for clearing that up.


There is a YouTube video of a B-47 carrying out a LABS manoeuver, so I was wondering if a Vulcan could do the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIJL8lx00o

I'm pretty sure I've seen a YouTube video of a Vulcan rolling out off the top of a loop at Farnborough although I stand to be corrected.


Found it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUi8-V28Vcc

Define the "aerobatics" they were unauthorised do to do.

The CAA have no defined limits, if you accept the standard any "sharp" manoeuvre or exceeding 30 AOB, then their standard display with wing overs for the last couple of years exceeds it. So, again, give me a precise definition of the limits they maintained for their display season they suddenly exceeded - such that the CAA could credibly take action on - without opening themselves out to scrutiny ( including possible legal liability for Shoreham etc).

IMHO the CAA will maintain a discrete silence.....

Stable door . . . horse . . . . last flight . . .

Now you can see why COs often lied about the disbanded squadron's last day . . .

A simple question from a mere support numpty. Does it matter anymore, at all ? It's gone, grounded, never to fly again. The manoeuvre was apparently not done as part of a public display, possibly a salute to Mr Falks initial introduction of the aircraft, way back then. It's a damn shame that so many are so litigious, and PC about what was once conceived as professional and controlled enthusiasm. I always thought that a barrel roll involved a maximum 1G through the procedure. I'm no professional aviator, so please don't waste a post jumping on me, I merely offer an opinion from someone who once enjoyed our military aviation fraternity, though the sarcasm and self righteousness is becoming fairly tedious.

Smudge :ok:

So what are these then in chapter 6 below? They define the CAA aerobatic manoeuvres, which of course it cannot do under its permit coverage.
They checked the Vulcan was cleared for its wing overs after Shoreham as it was on the VTTS website saying as much from the Chief Pilot..
Perhaps they should have asked a Display Authorisation Evaluator (DAE)


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...l%20events.pdf

Chapter 6
Part A - Skill levels for authorisation of aerobatic displays
Standard

6.1 Standard aerobatic displays

 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 horizontal line, or where combined with a combination manoeuvre listed above, on the diving or climbing line.
Intermediate

6.2 Intermediate aerobatic displays


 Lines – Mainly horizontal or 45° climbing or diving Lines in normal or inverted flight.
 Angles – Change of flight path between lines normally through angles of not more than 90°.
 Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight, starting and finishing in normal or inverted flight.
 Spins – Erect spins of one or two turns with entry and exit in normal flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit, with or without half rolls in the vertical climb and/or dive.
 Loops and Eights – Inside half loops, loops and ‘Cuban 8s’ with normal entry and exit. Loops may be circular or square.
 Combinations – Half to five eighths of an inside loop may be combined with entry or exit lines and angles. Quarter or half rolls may be included on the lines.
 Rolls – By definition these are inserted in lines or other figures. Slow or aileron rolls, two point or four point rolls, with between a quarter and one rotation flown in any one of the positions referred to above. Positive flick rolls.

Advanced

6.3 Advanced aerobatic displays


 Lines – Horizontal, climbing and diving in normal flight and vertical Lines climbing and diving. All lines may be flown with or without rolls.
 Angles – Flight through any angle between such lines, with a change of flight path typically between 45 and 135°.
 Turns and Rolling Turns – Turns through 90 to 360° starting and finishing in normal or inverted flight, with or without rolls, with rotation in the same or opposite direction to the turn.
 Spins – Normal and Inverted spins with entry and exit in normal or inverted flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal or inverted entry and exit with or without rolls in the vertical climb and/or dive.
 Loops and Eights – Inside and outside half loops, loops and horizontal eights (‘inside’ + ‘outside’), with normal or inverted entry and exit. Loops may be circular, square, diamond or eight–sided. Rolls may be inserted in loops and eights.
 Combinations of Lines, Angles, Loops and Rolls – Half to three–quarters of an inside or outside loop may be combined with entry or exit lines or angles and rolls may be included on the lines.


CAP 403 Chapter 6: Part A - Skill levels for authorisation of aerobatic displays February 2015 Page 60


 Rolls – By definition these are inserted in lines or other figures. Slow or aileron rolls, 2 point, 4 point or 8 point rolls, positive or negative flick rolls with typically between a quarter and one rotation flown in any of the positions referred to above.

Unlimited

6.4 Unlimited Aerobatic Displays - By definition, there are no restrictions on aerobatic figures, including autorotative figures which a pilot flying Unlimited category aerobatics may perform.


NOTE: Although based on FAI skill levels, these aerobatic DA skill levels have been adjusted to reflect the normal display aerobatic environment. They should not be confused with the FAI skill levels.

Nut: they weren't doing an aerobatic display....