…and to not have forewarned people when they knew the permit would expire allowing people that support them to waste money travelling to a show where it would not fly is just arrogant.

For me that is the crux of the matter; I think anybody who is passionate about historic aviation or has any experience of airshows will accept that any aircraft can miss a display through some unforeseen last-minute technical fault…..but…

…according to the VTTS website (apologies for quoting it in full but it is important for my point):

“June Engineering Update

Thursday, July 02, 2009 – TVOC

All is well and the season has begun in glorious sunshine!

I wasn’t sure whether to do an end of annual servicing report or leave it to the normal monthly report, well as you can see it’s the end of the month and what a busy one it has been.

Things went well with the visit from Rolls Royce and Marshall Aerospace with the corrosion on the engines being not as bad as was initially expected and we are still awaiting the procedures necessary to protect our engines for the future. So all is now go to get the servicing complete and the aircraft ready for our first display at Cosford, everything went well and we completed the work and awaited written conformation before we could carry out our air test. So on the Friday afternoon just two days before our first planned display we took off with a new crew member Paul Mulcahy (CAA test pilot) alongside Martin Withers with Barry Masefield (AEO) and Andy Marson taking notes in the back.

The air test went well, however it landed with a couple of faults, one of the airbrake motors and one of the DC Transformer Rectifier Units (TRU) had failed. So it was straight to work as we had to get the aircraft serviceable as quickly as possible as the crew needed additional flying prior to the first display. The airbrake motor fault was traced to a sticking time delay unit and was fixed fairly quickly, but the TRU fault was proving to be a bit more of a challenge. Every time we thought it was cured it would fail again and it was finally traced to a coil of one of the main contactors shorting to earth, once changed and tested we completed the paperwork as the crew was standing next to us waiting to go and play again! The flight went well and they managed to carry out a practice display at Brize Norton (quite handy as it was their families day!) a flypast Cosford and finally a couple of VC10’s formatted with XH558. So now for our first display at Cosford, all was well and off she went and just as she returned a Tristar was returning with a hydraulic problem and landed safely but was unable to clear the runway so off to Lyneham for a little excursion.

On landing the crew reported that there may have been excess ‘G’ pulled which was confirmed by reading the fatigue meter and additional visual inspection had to be carried out. With everything serviceable again it was time for our first overseas adventure since 1991 as we took XH558 to Volkel in the Netherlands. We carried out two displays as well as a flypast with the Dutch F16 and Hunter before flying back to display at Kemble. Things went well and we made all of the displays but the crew reported that the Elevator Artificial Feel was starting to fail during the flight but was resetting and we experienced another excess ‘G’ over the weekend, finally on the flight back to the UK the feel failed on take off and would not reset.

So back in the UK after our little holiday and it was time to get the aircraft ready for Biggin Hill at the weekend, the Artificial Feel fault was traced to a blown fuse and the system was tested and ready to go. Everything went well on the Saturday, however while setting the flying controls up during the pre-flight checks there was restriction in the Elevator sense of the controls. A few checks were carried out and it was confirmed that the Elevator Artificial Feel was at fault as every time we started the system it defaulted to maximum feel (thought the aircraft was doing 400knots!). After a couple of hours of trying to reset the system we finally had to accept we were unable to make the Sunday display. Needless to say we have now replaced the Artificial Feel Unit and are ready for the next months exciting airshow adventures.

I’m sorry there are no pictures this month as we a bit busy but if I get some time and a few pictures from other people I will update the report, well that’s all for this month, see you all soon.”

Now that was released on 02/07/2009 but there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the permit to fly would expire the next day or that inspections necessary to renew the permit hadn’t yet been carried out.

There isn’t any mention of the fact that efforts were being made at some ‘mitigation’ with the CAA (BAE Systems or whoever) to renew the permit without the inspections being done.

Now I understand that ‘negotiations’ were being carried out up until the last minute and that the aircrew attended all the display briefings but surely the efforts at mitigation could have been carried out before the permit expired so that by 03/07/2009 it would have been certain that the aircraft would not be flying at Waddington.

Instead it seems that the VTTS website was being deliberately ‘economical with the truth’ and I can see why in the short term that may seem like a good idea, after all getting the Vulcan booked for displays must depend greatly on the ‘pull’ of the aircraft (even when it doesn’t fly).

However I don’t think this is going to reap benefits if it alienates the very paying-public that the long-term future of the Vulcan has, and will, rely on.

How about an honest press-release on Thursday:

“XH558 has positioned to Waddington and will certainly be on static display but unfortunately its permit to fly will expire before the airshow. While every effort is being made to renew the permit to allow XH558 to display on both Saturday and Sunday the outcome of the negotiations is far from certain and regrettably it is unlikely to display on either day.”

Now in possession of a realistic probability of seeing the Vulcan fly the paying public could have made an informed decision about how to spend their precious time and hard earned cash. Is that too much to ask?

…there is no way I am going to stand down. 🙂

Smiler558,

We get very few chances in life to get the facts from the horse’s mouth so please excuse me if I take this chance to ask you…

…when did it become a certainty that the Vulcan wouldn’t be flying at Waddington?

I notice in the VTST website press release that there is mention of ‘establish(ing) mitigations’. Was there any possibility that the CAA would allow the Vulcan to fly without the inspections to XM603 being carried out?

Were there any other reasons that the Vulcan didn’t fly?

I am saying if as was the case the renewal was listed to be completed by the 14th of this month and so the chances of the thing flying were nigh on impossible as is the case, they should have informed the public a week ago to say it would probably not display.

They knew in advance the chances of it getting a permit were next to NIL but still flew it to Waddington to try and maximise their revenue earning possibilities whilst it is in the static at the detriment to those that support it, finance it, and spent hard cash to get there to see it fly, something they knew would not happen…

I agree. Public perception is more influential than fact here.

No, there are no guarantees that any aircraft will be at a scheduled display, there are no guarantees that the airshow will happen at all because of the weather. Most that attend airshows accept that but…

…it is a very different matter with the Vulcan because the Vulcan relies on a very large scale of public donations to support its operation.

I suggest that a very large number of those disappointed by the no-show of the Vulcan are the very same who have put their hand in their pocket in an attempt to ensure that it remains flying.

I appreciate the difficulties with such a complicated aircraft but there is no excuse for wilfully withholding information about the possibilities of the Vulcan flying.

…I can’t allow myself to be forgetful, or get sidetracked, or do anything else that would distract me from doing what I’m doing properly.

I expect that’s exactly what the Dog Handler thought.

I think you’re being a little harsh.

Have you never, ever been in a situation where your actions endangered the life of an animal or a human being? Maybe you have and don’t even know it because you were lucky.

Yes, technically this was neglect but not deliberate neglect. I hope you manage to get through the rest of your life without finding yourself in a similar tragic situation. Nobody ever thinks it will happen to them.

RF241
Lancaster BIII
626 Squadron
Accident 13/09/1945
Scrapped 08/1946

It seems that the dogs were left in the Dog Handler’s private vehicle and that the Dog Handler was off-duty and had called into the Police Station (if a report on the radio was correct).

As has been said the Dog and Handler have to be a very close team to work effectively and I doubt the Handler concerned will ever forgive himself.

I don’t know what good any disciplinary action would do; everybody makes mistakes, sometimes with tragic results.

There is a Police Dog Handler that lives in a village near me and I often see the dog being exercised on farmland nearby; I imagine that these dogs cannot be exercised in ‘public’ areas used by other dog owners.

The ‘van’ that the dog is moved about in has signs on the side of it that state that the vehicle is ‘air-conditioned’ and that the public shouldn’t be worried if the dog is left unattended in the vehicle. Possibly there was a failure of a similar system in the van in question?

I cannot imagine that the two dogs died as a result of wilful neglect.