The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by quicksilver-wsr » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:39 pm


User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by mtskull » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:14 pm

Renegadenemo wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:50 pm

....humans will still find a way to scupper themselves even with a checklist. There was the Kegworth accident where, had they bothered to read it properly and not thrown their aircraft at the ground, they'd likely have picked up that they'd shut down the wrong engine.
Not quite; if they had just got on the ground straight away they would have got away with it. The trouble was that, having followed a course of action that appeared at the time to have had the desired effect, they then flew on without further investigation for long enough for the duff engine to eat itself and only found out when it was too late, even though they were the only two people on board who didn't know that they had shut down the wrong engine. As to why nobody saw fit to inform them, that's an entire can of worms in itself, albeit an issue that has been very thoroughly addressed since.
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Renegadenemo » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:30 am

It's a long time since I read either report but my recollection is that the Kegworth crew were in a big hurry to get down and this clouded their problem solving process. If memory serves - and I'll look this up and read it tomorrow because this is my anoraky subject - the duff engine shed part of a hollow fan blade, vibrated a bit and blew smoke into the cockpit but on the later 73 (on which they'd had very little conversion training but found themselves flying that day) their air was fed from the other engine so they assumed wrongly and shut down the good engine. The damaged one then ran happily through the descent until the flaps were extended and the auto-throttles tried to spool it up whereupon the remains of the damaged blade let go under load and that was that. They attempted to start the undamaged engine but that was outside the available envelope so they bounced off a field then slammed into the embankment on the side of the road and stopped dead.
A local aircraft breaker bought the wreck and I remember standing in his warehouse looking at dozens of seats caked with blood. He kept them to extract a small damper from each one that cost £400.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes

Voltaire's apology when he wrote a long letter: "I didn't have time to make it shorter."

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by quicksilver-wsr » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:32 am

Renegadenemo wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:30 am
A local aircraft breaker bought the wreck and I remember standing in his warehouse looking at dozens of seats caked with blood. He kept them to extract a small damper from each one that cost £400.
Back in 2006, I was having an in-depth medical exam courtesy of a doctor who'd been involved in examining victims of the Kegworth crash. He told me that a high proportion of the victims he examined had been killed by glass duty-free booze bottles flying from the overhead lockers and striking them on the backs of their heads.

Not a nice thought - since, if true, this would and should have been preventable - but I thought I'd check the story on the web just now and, sure enough, "All but one overhead locker sprang open and luggage flew through the air, causing head injuries to almost every passenger, and killing some of them."

Lessons were, of course, learned. But aren't they always.

Nigel

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4384
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:15 pm

Bad news from the Sea Vixen...
"Charity Appeals for White Knight

Following the emergency landing of Sea Vixen G-CVIX XP924 at RNAS Yeovilton on 27 May 17, Navy Wings is urgently seeking a ‘white knight’ sponsor to save the aircraft and restore this unique and nationally important naval heritage fighter to full flying condition.

Unfortunately the structural damage to the airframe is more serious than first thought. This includes cracks on both tail booms, warping of the main bulk heads in the engine compartment and major damage to the gear box. The important factor here was speed of landing. The Sea Vixen suffered a major hydraulic failure of both systems and the pilot, Commander Simon Hargreaves was unable to lower the flaps along with the under-carriage. This necessitated a high speed, low angle run on and the energy transferred itself through the airframe.

Work by Assessors estimate that it could take between 3-4 years and cost £2-3M to get her flying again. A white knight is needed in the next month who would be prepared to come to the rescue and under-write these costs and save the last flying Sea Vixen in the world, recognising her uniqueness and value to the Nation’s naval aviation heritage. #whiteknight #navywingsuk navywings.org.uk"

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Renegadenemo » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:59 pm

I'd guess that's the end of that then... We could make them some new bulkheads, l suppose.
Had the pleasure of meeting that aircraft at DeHavilland Aviation when we collected our Orph'.
Such a shame.
Sea Vixen.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes

Voltaire's apology when he wrote a long letter: "I didn't have time to make it shorter."

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4384
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:02 am

Renegadenemo wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:59 pm
I'd guess that's the end of that then...
Sadly, that seems to be the immediate reaction everywhere, yeah.

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by quicksilver-wsr » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:32 am

It was difficult enough raising that kind of money for the Vulcan, but for anything else I fear it won't happen in a month of Sundays. Sad, but that's the harsh reality of operating planes of this kind.

I had a feeling when I first saw pictures of the crash that it wasn't going to be a good outcome. Call it healthy pessimism.

The positive view is that folks were treated to years of Sea Vixen-watching that they would never have had if this one hadn't been saved. The bad news is that yet another iconic British Cold War type disappears forever from our skies.

Lightning, Victor, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan ... Sea Vixen :(

Nigel

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Renegadenemo » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:41 pm

It's the telephone number prices that get me. They raised £250k to rebuild a Centaurus engine! And now they're talking £3 million to repair some tinware. Do they dig a hole in the ground and throw most of the money in there before getting on with the job? Tell them to send it up here and we'll do it for a million.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes

Voltaire's apology when he wrote a long letter: "I didn't have time to make it shorter."

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by mtskull » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:52 am

Renegadenemo wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:30 am
It's a long time since I read either report but my recollection is that the Kegworth crew were in a big hurry to get down and this clouded their problem solving process. If memory serves - and I'll look this up and read it tomorrow because this is my anoraky subject - the duff engine shed part of a hollow fan blade, vibrated a bit and blew smoke into the cockpit but on the later 73 (on which they'd had very little conversion training but found themselves flying that day) their air was fed from the other engine so they assumed wrongly and shut down the good engine. The damaged one then ran happily through the descent until the flaps were extended and the auto-throttles tried to spool it up whereupon the remains of the damaged blade let go under load and that was that. They attempted to start the undamaged engine but that was outside the available envelope so they bounced off a field then slammed into the embankment on the side of the road and stopped dead.
I have just had another look at the AAIB report and you're quite right; they did in fact land with minimum delay and the resultant high workload was likely to have compromised their ability to adequately review their actions. I stand corrected.
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

Post Reply