Vulcan Will Fly – According to todays Newsletter

I think the Vulcan will be operated with more care than even in her RAF days mainly because the CAA won’t let it be any other way nor would any of the people involved in the project want to take chances and they will have the world media watching them with this project.

😮 GORDON BENNETT……This surely must be the statement of the week!

It certainly does need more than two. The AEO is an absolutely essential member of crew as many of the systems are his job, and well out of reach to the pilots (again, both of whom are essential crew).

Ok, so three out of, what, five?

Hatton,

I agree completely. The CAA, BAe and Marshalls wouldn’t go anywhere near this unless they had complete faith in feasability of the project and its chances of producing a flying aircraft operated to the utmost standards of safety.

I admit, I have been sceptical it could be done, but as it now seems so close I am right behind everyone involved.

Kev – no need to withdraw.

All of the concerns in the thread have no doubt been well covered by the powers that be, before a decision was made to allow the project this far. As quite rightly pointed out above, Marshalls, Bae, CAA, would not co-operate with this project, if they were not 150% confident of impeccable standards, and stringent/ restrictive permit limitations, . 558 will be under incredible constant scrutiny by CAA/Marshalls. The risk managed, remains, whether a type is operated privately or by the MOD, The nature of the beast!

airshows need Vulcan, I think the risk is worth it, though the displays will undoubtedly be subdued in comparison to before. Most of the land based uk airshow displays (in my opinion) are dull now, and worsening, in no small part because of the increasing restrictions imposed on envelopes, dwindling U.S/ Russian presence,and shrinking U.K Millitary turn out. We need fresh input. Maybe the risk is acceptable in order to move on and open new doors?

MJR

www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk

I have been trying to keep out of this debate and sit on the fence but the splinters are hurting now so here i am.
I really hope she does fly and feel if she is operated safely she could open up the chance of getting more exotic jets flying on the curcuit,She could be a real bench mark.
Kev i see your point but would argue as others have that aircraft such as the B17 could do as much damage but are operated with the highest of standards.
We should not forget that we have had on the Airshow scene 2 Canberra’s operated safely and that type is not exactly small either.
I agree the press would rip the Airshow scene apart if anything happened they tried this locally here in some newspapers with the accidents that happened at Biggin Hill in 2001,There was also people at the time saying the Sea vixen should not be operated in private hands but gladly she still is.

I think the Vulcan will be operated with more care than even in her RAF days mainly because the CAA won’t let it be any other way nor would any of the people involved in the project want to take chances and they will have the world media watching them with this project.
Theres plenty of information on records which will also help make sure any past mistakes that happened while Vulcans flew the the RAF will not happen again,This project has a lot going for it safely wise.
I really think we should get behind this project and hope we see the Vulcan in the skies where she looks at her best.
The press will do there worst no matter what and accidents can and do happen but due to safety standards we can limit the risk and bring back something special to our skies.

That’s a bit like saying ‘best not leave the house – you never know, you could get run over by a bus’

I don’t believe that argument runs in this case. The one is preventable (simple, don’t fly), while the other is much less so (busses are an endemic part of our society, and therefore pretty much required).

However, I believe the risks are manageable.

FWIW I do not believe the Vulcan would fly with supernumary crew, as that is against display regulations. I’m not sure how many people it actually takes to fly the Vulcan, but I doubt it actually needs more than two, and one may be sufficient for all I know.

Don’t know anything about webmasters, biactol or bananas, but, I really hope the Vulcan doesn’t fly. Gasps of shock, horror and perhaps the odd bit of personal abuse is probably already winging my way. So, let me explain….

The airshow and historic aviation movement loses aircraft, and sometimes, tragically, the crew is lost too. I don’t know any other way to put this but, if the Vulcan should fly and for whatever reason crash, the results of this would be far more devastating than that of a smaller aircraft. not only due to the size of the aircraft but the resultant media outcry. We already have the outlandish reporting from the likes of Sky News (Firefly) but imagine the outcry should an aircraft of that size and complexity come down. Airshows and historic aviation would come under such intense scrutiny I doubt they would survive. Imagine the headlines, they would be terrible.

I believe the Vulcan should remain ground running but never, ever be allowed to take to the skies again. I know I am fortunate to have seen Vulcans flying operationally but if the Vulcan flies, sadly, I really fear the worst. I am not casting aspersions on anyone running VTS or those who would maintain and fly the aircraft. It’s simply this, accidents happen.

Regards,

kev35

That’s a bit like saying ‘best not leave the house – you never know, you could get run over by a bus’

I had’nt heard about this incident as it happened before my time,i’ve copied this about the Heathrow incident,[which does’nt seem to be plane maintainance problem].The rest of the story about H Broadhurst is a fasinating read;the bit below is taken from this page http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Broadhurst.htm

In 1956, with the introduction of the V-Bombers and the rapid response needed to effect a creditable deterrent, it was decided to staff Bomber Command with personnel having some ex-Fighter Command experience. Harry Broadhurst therefore found himself appointed AOC in C, tasked with creating a force capable of reacting rapidly in the event of a nuclear attack. In Oct 1956 it was decided to show off Britain’s latest V-Bomber, the Vulcan, by sending one on a world tour. As AOC in C, Harry Broadhurst took part as the co-pilot. After a successful tour the aircraft, XA897, ran into fog on it’s return to Britain, but instead of diverting to a different airfield, the pilot elected to attempt a landing at Heathrow where the reception party was laid on. Unfamiliar with Heathrow which was not the large airfield it is today, the aircraft landed short ripping off it’s undercarriage. The pilot and Broadhurst were able to eject but unfortunately the remaining four crew members perished in the ensuing crash. A year later, Broadhurst was again in the co-pilot’s seat of a Vulcan captained by Wg Cdr F L Dodd, OC – No 230 OCU. Taking off from Waddington at 2:30pm they touched down in Naples at 4:37pm having covered the 1,121 miles in 1 hour 50 minutes at an average speed of 615 mph. Another aspect of Broadhurst’s tenure as AOC in C, was the introduction of the Quick Reaction Alert, in which V-Bombers were held at readiness and capable of being airborne within four minutes of receiving the ‘scramble’ signal.

The aircraft had already impacted the ground once at the point they ejected – it wasn’t going to go much further in the state it was so your comment above really doesn’t bear up to the realities. It was a pretty shameful episode but landing in foul weather like that just to please the press is not going to be something VTTS will be doing!

I did’nt suggest for one moment that VTTS would be likely to be doing something similar……. :rolleyes:
I was merely stating that when abandoned, even as late as that, the crew could not have known for definate that the aircraft would impact where it did, and the close proximity of Longford Village and the A4, meant it could have hit something, afterall abdonned aircraft in whatever state have been known to do some bizare things before impact.
We all know the professionalism of RAF/FAA and ex-RAF/FAA aircrew and the unselfishness often shown by aircrew staying with a machine to avoid civilian loss, but once control is lost and the aircraft abdonned there is no guarantee of exactly where it will impact.

I’m sure if Marshall’s, BAe and the CAA are satisfied then everything than can be done for safe operation will be done, anything else is in down to fate dealing it’s hand….
Hopefully we won’t ever have to talk about the ‘what-if’s’, and the only point of future discussions will be why they want to put the thing at Duxford when she does finally retire again…….. :rolleyes:

Unlucky for those four crewmen, R.I.P., but lucky the kite didn’t cause carnage. If Harry Broadhurst hadn’t been on board and the VIP’s assembled in the terminal awaiting its arrival the prang wouldn’t have happened. Still I am sure lessons have been learned from this incident.

The simple fact is that I cannot perceive of any crew abandoning a Vulcan with any knowledge that it could continue to fly
into something.

David, is that a Vulcan or the Vulcan :confused:

That’s a possiblity in respect of any possible future operation of ‘558, but that statement isn’t quite true in respect RAF Vulcan operations, e.g. the ejection of pilot and co-pilot(AVM Broadhurst) of XA897 at Heathrow in 1956, leaving the 4 remaining crew to their fate. That Vulcan could have crashed anywhere, in particular Longford village, the A4 Bath Road or more remotely the fuel dump or even terminals themselves…….

Even back in 1956 with a less built-up area around LHR than today, that would have been catastrophic….

Dan

I totally agree, its been a rather good read this morning.

Excellent debate gentlemen. Do carry on! This board needs more threads like this one. Good natured arguing rather than ill-tempered sniping. 🙂

Hi all

A B-17 would make quite a mess if it crashed; I don’t see anybody arguing against operating one of them…

As would a Lancaster or a Nimrod or an A-Wack yet all these types fly over a good number of us on a regular basis without us all getting in a mad panic.
While Kev-35 makes a good point about the potential for a Vulcan crash to wreck the airshow world the very same risk is their with regards to a B-17 etc should one ever come down over a built up area I can see the press having a field day about “worn out old planes being flown just for fun”.

Anyway the main priority with the CAA is safety and I’m conceived that they will have made a through list of all whats ifs and the potential for anything to go wrong and they must be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent anything going wrong before they even consider giving a COA.

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. I don’t believe they would cut their own throats, and lose a valuable source of income. They are still covering those that live on a major fault line, where they have already had to fork out thousands of millsions!

“I don’t believe it is the CAA that won’t allow Concorde to fly, for instance, but the support company responsible.”

Exactly. See above. If Bae, Airbus Industrie, BA and Air France can’t do it what makes VTS so sure they can be successful? Don’t get me wrong, I’m asking because I don’t know.

All the companies responsible for type have already agreed to support the Vulcan, whereas they wouldn’t for Concorde.

Were you hoping for an insensitive comment in reply?

No, I was hoping for no comment in reply.

the only flying example and the loss of such an aircraft in the context of an airshow will have a devastating impact on the airshow industry.

On this we agree, but I personally do not believe that should be a reason for not doing it. And this is a point of view on which we will have to agree to differ.

I can’t disagree with much of what you say Kev, but I don’t want NOT to see this aircraft fly, and that is the simple truth of it.

Life is full of disasters, does that mean we should move everyone out of California today. Perhaps. But will we?

Shorts – In reality there are a couple of people in the U.K who could realistically maintain and fly a Lightning with the necessary expertise
and financial backing. It’s simply not the case that there is a queue of projects waiting in the wings.
I don’t forsee a flood of types joining the register. The operation in S.A
has the advantage of good weather-wide open uninhabited space in which to fly and lastly the pick of what was available in terms of Lightnings.
I am quite happy to live with my memories of the Lightning display at Woodford in the late 1980’s and the occasional article in FlyPast.
The number of jets which are under restoration to fly in the U.K is fairly static – expect the cost of fuel and insurance to keep it that way.

The operation of ex-military aircraft on permits to fly is regulated through CAP632 and the maintenance through A8-20 by the CAA Safety Regulation Group at Gatwick. Rest assured before the Vulcan gets its permit to test, never mind permit to fly, it will have to satisfy those knowledgable guys from Gatwick. In addition the pilots will need Display Authorisations on type and I am sure the operator will only allow a fairly conservative display.
Nevertheless I do have considerable concern over the operation of such a complex aircraft especially when the costs will be quite formidable in comparison with anything else in the entire world.
If the worst should happen then the fallout might rival that expected from weapons that might have been dropped in its primary service role as the main UK deterrant for many years.
Trapper 69

Another question, why when 558 arrived at Brunty was she not kept in airworthy condition? She didn’t have to fly until the CAA gave her the necessary certificates but why wasn’t it just mothballed?

Hatton,

I agree completely. The CAA, BAe and Marshalls wouldn’t go anywhere near this unless they had complete faith in feasability of the project and its chances of producing a flying aircraft operated to the utmost standards of safety.

I admit, I have been sceptical it could be done, but as it now seems so close I am right behind everyone involved.

Kev – no need to withdraw.

so it would seem that the vulcan is going back where she belongs. If the CAA are going to let her fly surely this must open the gates for the return of Lightings and all the other stuff currenlty residing in and flying in south africa, be cause our CAA refuse the necessary permits. Is there going to be a difference made between the tyoes.

Shorts