FWIW I don’t usually get involved in things like this, but I can see the point NC is trying to make (badly as it turns out).
The VTS statement about XH558 isn’t totally incorrect but could be regarded as misleading. The fact is however there is a world of difference between XL426 and XH558 and I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer who has to go into bat to prove the advert wrong. That said if it appears to be incorrect a complaint to the ASA may get the wording clarified.
One does have to think however is this in the best interests of getting a Vulcan airborne or is it an attack of pedantry. My personal opinion FWIW is that although allegedly inaccurate this wouldn’t hurt or damage anyone as there is No chance of XL426 being made airworthy (although it maybe technically possible). I guess it’s all a question of semantics.
Oh and I think the comment regarding journalistic inaccuracy was referring to the “Only remaining Vulcan” bit (at least that’s how I read it.)
Still it was **** poor humour.
Sign In
