Vulcan XH558 discussion thread Mk2

How do you know how the public’s perception of airshows has been coloured by the red Arrow’s crash? Has there been a poll? We do not know. My guess is that they are saddened for the family but hope to see them continue to fly. I may be wrong but then so might the implication from your comment.

I don’t see the point of your comments, to be honest. We have the full explanation from the VTTS of what happened and why, so now we move on – don’t we??

How do you know how the public’s perception of airshows has been coloured by the red Arrow’s crash? Has there been a poll? We do not know. My guess is that they are saddened for the family but hope to see them continue to fly. I may be wrong but then so might the implication from your comment.

I don’t see the point of your comments, to be honest. We have the full explanation from the VTTS of what happened and why, so now we move on – don’t we??

I mentioned it on this thread because it is the Vulcan thread. I also said “As the operators keep saying money is tight. Just think what the media would say if it crashed on an urban area. Poorly maintained,I know its not but when would that get in the way of a headline”

Note I am not saying its a accident waiting to happen. All I am saying is this aircraft needs to be seen squeeky clean to prevent any further headlines about it. At the moment the public’s perception of airshows is coloured by the loss of Red4 (and the loss ofBBD)any any further incidents involving aircraft flying for “entertainment” are likely to get a great deal more attention than perhaps is warrented.

We on this forum(and others like it) know the shear bloody hard work, sacrifice(both in time and money) that goes into saving,restoring,jumping through hoops to fly aircraft such as this. I don’t think the ordinary public see it in this way.

This aircraft is the face of the (flying)preservation movement in the UK so anything out of the ordinary that happens to it will be reported. That is why I speak as I do.

I mentioned it on this thread because it is the Vulcan thread. I also said “As the operators keep saying money is tight. Just think what the media would say if it crashed on an urban area. Poorly maintained,I know its not but when would that get in the way of a headline”

Note I am not saying its a accident waiting to happen. All I am saying is this aircraft needs to be seen squeeky clean to prevent any further headlines about it. At the moment the public’s perception of airshows is coloured by the loss of Red4 (and the loss ofBBD)any any further incidents involving aircraft flying for “entertainment” are likely to get a great deal more attention than perhaps is warrented.

We on this forum(and others like it) know the shear bloody hard work, sacrifice(both in time and money) that goes into saving,restoring,jumping through hoops to fly aircraft such as this. I don’t think the ordinary public see it in this way.

This aircraft is the face of the (flying)preservation movement in the UK so anything out of the ordinary that happens to it will be reported. That is why I speak as I do.

Not the only QRA airfield. You forgot RAF Leuchars.

Quite right, mea culpa. I must try to keep up to date with pointy jet things.

Not the only QRA airfield. You forgot RAF Leuchars.

Quite right, mea culpa. I must try to keep up to date with pointy jet things.

paul178 – that is no argument at all. We should not doubt the engineering attention to the aircraft, as with all old warbirds. Any could crash causing “a great deal of death and carnage”. Why apply emotive phrases to make a point? Any aircraft of any age might crash at any time causing precisely what you have said. Singling out the Vulcan is disingenuous to say the least.

paul178 – that is no argument at all. We should not doubt the engineering attention to the aircraft, as with all old warbirds. Any could crash causing “a great deal of death and carnage”. Why apply emotive phrases to make a point? Any aircraft of any age might crash at any time causing precisely what you have said. Singling out the Vulcan is disingenuous to say the least.

Well two problems in a fortnight that has forced this aircraft to land. Is this an unfortunate coincidence or should those who inspect and regulate things think about taking a closer look at it? Yes I would like it to keep flying if possible and yes I have given money to the project in the past and have enjoyed seeing flying over my house. My concern is it is a big aircraft and old.
Don’t tell my it can’t crash or won’t crash because like any other aircraft it can. If it did it could cause a great deal of carnage and fatilities.

So what that all boiles down to is I would like to see that aircraft thoroughly inspected by somebody super critical (CAA or who I don’t know) before it flies again.

Serviceability is already treated a lot more conservatively than it was when the aircraft was in service. The chances of it crashing are far smaller now than they were then. Sure it could crash – so could any of the multitude of airliners flying over the UK every minute of every day. Old aircraft? Big? So is PA474, but I don’t hear people yelling for that to be grounded every time it goes tech.

Well two problems in a fortnight that has forced this aircraft to land. Is this an unfortunate coincidence or should those who inspect and regulate things think about taking a closer look at it? Yes I would like it to keep flying if possible and yes I have given money to the project in the past and have enjoyed seeing flying over my house. My concern is it is a big aircraft and old.
Don’t tell my it can’t crash or won’t crash because like any other aircraft it can. If it did it could cause a great deal of carnage and fatilities.

So what that all boiles down to is I would like to see that aircraft thoroughly inspected by somebody super critical (CAA or who I don’t know) before it flies again.

Serviceability is already treated a lot more conservatively than it was when the aircraft was in service. The chances of it crashing are far smaller now than they were then. Sure it could crash – so could any of the multitude of airliners flying over the UK every minute of every day. Old aircraft? Big? So is PA474, but I don’t hear people yelling for that to be grounded every time it goes tech.

the RAF’s only QRA airfield

Not the only QRA airfield. You forgot RAF Leuchars.

TJ

the RAF’s only QRA airfield

Not the only QRA airfield. You forgot RAF Leuchars.

TJ

Hopefully everyone will be satisfied now!

Following the huge effort of the Engineering Team in fixing the leak in No.2 (Starboard) fuel tank, resulting in the aircraft returning to full serviceability last Friday, XH558 experienced a hydraulic failure after take-off on Sunday en-route to Dunsfold “Wings and Wheels”. This happened during a practice display over Rutland Water.

The crew called a ‘Pan Pan’ which is standard practice in such a situation, and as a precaution diverted to RAF Coninsgby to land without incident with the aid of the braking parachute. Sadly, we had to inform everyone by Twitter and Facebook that there would be no further flight that day.

Martin Withers, Pilot in Command, said “We chose RAF Coningsby as their runway is long and was directly into wind, giving us far less braking. He continued, “It was just standard procedure given the circumstances we faced with fluctuating hydraulic pressure being indicated.”

Following initial diagnosis once our team had arrived indicating that a hydraulic seal had failed in the nose undercarriage system, it was clear that the necessary rectification, refilling, bleeding and testing of the hydraulic system would take several days. We sadly had no alternative than to advise Dunsfold and our supporters that the display on the Monday would also need to be cancelled.

Engineering Director Andrew Edmondson and Chief Engineer “Taff” Stone have been at RAF Coningsby today to make arrangements for XH558 to go into one of the hangars there. Work will commence tomorrow; there will be a “go/no go” decision on next weekend’s planned sorties on Friday. Our sincere thanks are due to all at RAF Coningsby for being so helpful following this unfortunate problem.

It is such a shame that the very good reliability record of XH558 for most of this season has now been sullied by two totally unrelated technical problems.

Hopefully everyone will be satisfied now!

Following the huge effort of the Engineering Team in fixing the leak in No.2 (Starboard) fuel tank, resulting in the aircraft returning to full serviceability last Friday, XH558 experienced a hydraulic failure after take-off on Sunday en-route to Dunsfold “Wings and Wheels”. This happened during a practice display over Rutland Water.

The crew called a ‘Pan Pan’ which is standard practice in such a situation, and as a precaution diverted to RAF Coninsgby to land without incident with the aid of the braking parachute. Sadly, we had to inform everyone by Twitter and Facebook that there would be no further flight that day.

Martin Withers, Pilot in Command, said “We chose RAF Coningsby as their runway is long and was directly into wind, giving us far less braking. He continued, “It was just standard procedure given the circumstances we faced with fluctuating hydraulic pressure being indicated.”

Following initial diagnosis once our team had arrived indicating that a hydraulic seal had failed in the nose undercarriage system, it was clear that the necessary rectification, refilling, bleeding and testing of the hydraulic system would take several days. We sadly had no alternative than to advise Dunsfold and our supporters that the display on the Monday would also need to be cancelled.

Engineering Director Andrew Edmondson and Chief Engineer “Taff” Stone have been at RAF Coningsby today to make arrangements for XH558 to go into one of the hangars there. Work will commence tomorrow; there will be a “go/no go” decision on next weekend’s planned sorties on Friday. Our sincere thanks are due to all at RAF Coningsby for being so helpful following this unfortunate problem.

It is such a shame that the very good reliability record of XH558 for most of this season has now been sullied by two totally unrelated technical problems.

Thank you, I am better educated about the Vulcan hydraulic system now. So the worst a serious hydraulic failure could cause would be a belly landing, assuming the gear blow-down feature failed too? Unless hyd fluid was pooling somewhere hot, naturally… so therefore you want to get down in a hurry.

VX – point taken about crosswind but still dashed bad form to black the QRA boys.

Thank you, I am better educated about the Vulcan hydraulic system now. So the worst a serious hydraulic failure could cause would be a belly landing, assuming the gear blow-down feature failed too? Unless hyd fluid was pooling somewhere hot, naturally… so therefore you want to get down in a hurry.

VX – point taken about crosswind but still dashed bad form to black the QRA boys.

with hydraulic flying controls it was indeed smoking hole in the ground time if they didn’t get it on the deck quickly.

The Vulcan does not have hydraulically powered flying controls. Each horizontal surface has its own electrically powered flying control unit (PFCU) and the rudder has two. Each PFCU contains an electrically powered hydraulic pump that provides the power to move the surface.The PFCUs have no connection to the aircraft hydraulic system.

exmpa

with hydraulic flying controls it was indeed smoking hole in the ground time if they didn’t get it on the deck quickly.

The Vulcan does not have hydraulically powered flying controls. Each horizontal surface has its own electrically powered flying control unit (PFCU) and the rudder has two. Each PFCU contains an electrically powered hydraulic pump that provides the power to move the surface.The PFCUs have no connection to the aircraft hydraulic system.

exmpa

They didn’t need to blow the gear down – they lowered it normally! – The powered flying controls all have independant systems.

They didn’t need to blow the gear down – they lowered it normally! – The powered flying controls all have independant systems.