How is he receiving jobseekers after volunteering to be made redundant and with the sizable payment he would have received? to many holes in this story i’m afraid….

Knowing plenty of people out of work myself, i can’t feel sorry for anyone that jumped before being pushed…. Hero status or not

Redundancy is still redundancy regardless of whether the employee volunteers for it or is made compulsorily redundant. In both instances he is entitled to claim JSA.

Don’t the circumstances of voluntary redundancy preclude the UK job seeker from working within the same type of work for 12 months anyway ? I know it applies in my field for sure…

Not as far as I know. In fact, if an employer wishes to re-employ someone they have previously made redundant, they are free to do so. If they wish to employ someone to do the same job within 6 months ( I am fairly sure it is 6, not 12), they are legally bound to offer it to the redundant person in the first instance.

What an employer is not permitted to do is make someone redundant, and then re-employ them, either directly or as a freelance at a lower rate of pay.

You’d think Airlines would make more informed decisions and look at the circumstances of a crash before making a sweeping judgement like that.

I agree entirely – another example of all pervading modern day short-sighted management.

Why does XM603 need to undergo any CAA certification? It doesn’t fly, so why is it important that it undergoes any regular inspections at all?

As I understand it (no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong 🙂 ), when the RAF stopped flying 558, she was due for a ‘major’ service (the RAFcouldn’t/wouldn’t justify the cost). Thus a ‘major’ had to be carried out during the restoration to flight before the CAA would consider granting a PtoF.

Some of the inspections are quite deep in the structure of the airframe and required substantial dismantling of parts of the aircraft to carry them out. When in service, there were Vulcans undergoing a ‘major’ service most of the time, so the RAF didn’t do all the inspections on every aircraft, covering the full number across several airframes.

As 558 is the only flyer, the CAA wanted all the inspections carried out. However, due to the deep and intrusive nature of some of them (one in particular necessitates the removal of the fin to inspect the fin bolts I believe), and the damage it might cause to 558, (and the cost), the CAA agreed that the more intrusive tests could be carried out on another Vulcan as they are all of similar age.

XM 603 was chosen because:
a). as it is doubtful that any of the museums which have a Vulcan would be willing to have theirs dismantled
b). BAe own 603 and as the design authority for the Vulcan were directly involved with the restoration
c). 603, being outside, and sadly deteriorating was quite likely to end up being scrapped at some point anyway.

The idea was to scrap her and do the required inspections during the process, and a deferral of these inspections was granted by the CAA in Oct 2007 to allow time for the arrangements to be made.

For whatever reason, the work on 603 did not get done and Marshalls applied for (and got) a further deferral from Oct 2008. (There is a rumour that the inspections will now be carried out on 603 without actually scrapping her, but it is unconfirmed AFAIK)

Also, why does XH558’s certification rely on dismantling any other aircraft, particularly one that hasn’t flown for AT LEAST ten years?

Neither had 558 when the restoration was being done;)

edit: I can’t type quick enough lol

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression (from things read on various fora, including the publicly available parts of the VTST forum) that the further test/examination work that needs to be carried out on XM603, was originally granted a 12 month deferral in October 2007. The deferral was then renewed in October 2008, so presumably that deferral runs out this coming October 2009.
The 3 month extension to the PtoF therefore will then coincide with the expiry of the current deferral granted last October.

As the deferral was still current, Marshalls would quite resonably have expected that renewal/extension of the PtoF would not be affected by the lack of progress on the 603 testing. From the VTST own statements it appears that at least part of the difficulty was caused by increased caution on the part of BAe (which effectively moved the goalposts), and we know from the problems others are having with permits that the CAA are also being more pernickety.

The whole difficulty with the Vulcan permit has come about because of them not having the cash to carry out the annual service until they started to receive money from the pledge campaign – the service being eventually carried out in May and June, rather than earlier (Jan/Feb ?).

Was the service a pre-requisite of the renewal of the permit ? If so, the permit could not have been applied for earlier than its completion and the completion of the paperwork by Marshalls – hence its receipt by the CAA on 26th June.

Trust accounts show annual staff costs for the financial year ending in March 2009 are likely to be £620,000, while engineering and maintenance costs are estimated at £320,000

If engineering etc is carried out by marshalls and their staff so is inclusive of the £320,000 which one would presume it is, and all of those that tour with the Village are volunteers (and good on them) and pay their own way……..

Who is being paid the £620,000??????????????????????

Well that must be pleming and the board with a couple of office staff, as who else is there?

There are 12 full time staff employed of which about half are VTSTs own engineering staff. (I imagine that Dr Robert may be paid through his consultancy company, rather than a direct salary).

Details of the VTST staff, including MA technicians, part time and volunteers here: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/operating_company.asp

Fore planning and fore thought come to mind, or the lack of. Suggest input from a plane ‘operator’ would be of great use to the operation of this aircraft.

Bear in mind that the trust was virtually bankrupt earlier this year, and needed to launch the pledge campaign to raise the funds to not only fly 558, but also to do the annual service. As a direct result, they were unable to start the service until April/May and this and ground testing was completed literally the day before 558 had to depart for Brize in readiness for display at Cosford.
Completion of the service was required before the PtoF renewal could be applied for, therefore the application was submitted at the earliest opportunity during the last week of June.
I hope no-one will mind me posting this here (which was posted yesterday on the VTST forum).

from VTST forums – originally posted by eddief: I spoke with Robert just now so here are a few more pieces of information that help to explain the PtF situation…

Originally, the deferral of the need to perform the “destructive” testing on XM603 was granted, initially in October 2007 and subsequently in October 2008, on the basis of engineering judgement. The components under consideration were felt to be very reliable/robust and these tests had only been added from the fleet sampling programme for XH558 – they were additional to the Major maintenance/inspection schedule as originally prescribed for Vulcan airframes. If you like, they were added as ‘belt & braces’ although nobody expected (or still expects) them to reveal any lurking problems.

On that basis, MA quite reasonably expected a similar approach to be taken this year – a relatively quick, straightforward approval.

However, since October 2008 BAE appears to have adopted a far more cautious approach.

As a result, this application has required far more supporting material than was anticipated and this has necessarily taken time to prepare, review & amend. BAE quite rightly needs every piece of information & supporting evidence in place before agreeing a further extension.

With the greatest of respect Plough,

ie, with no respect whatsoever:D

TVOC are appointing blame, I know that because they told me. Separate members of TVOC / 558 that I spoke to during my 3 days at Waddington blamed both Marshals and the CAA for the permit not being renewed on time. That’s not rumour… It’s a FACT

Whilst individuals may have expressed their private point of view to you personally, all the official statements from VTST that I heard on Saturday either over the Waddington PA or Airshow/local radio, and the statements on their website have been very careful not to sling mud.
I wasn’t there on Sunday, so can’t comment on what Rlangham heard.
It appears to me that there is probably fault on all sides in this.

I would add to that, it is probably a lot quicker to get to Waddo from the Ibis than it is from the University!!

Was it not given to the people of Grimsby in 1988 and is therefore owned by them?
Could someone explain how ownership of XR770 has ended up being given away without consultation with the people who actually own it.

It was indeed presented to the people of Grimsby, via Grimsby Borough Council who showed absolutely no interest in it, and made it pretty clear that they didn’t want it.

It only survives today through the voluntary efforts of enthusiasts who found homes for it at various points in its retirement.

If you read Lightningladys post #9, you will see that Grimsby Council, not having the resources (or inclination) to do anything with the aurcraft, handed her on.