The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:08 am

Just back from Scotland, where I paid a visit to the Museum of Flight at East Fortune on my way home. Concorde G-BOAA lives there, safely indoors and in great fettle, making for an excellent exhibit-
01.jpg
02.jpg
03.jpg
04.jpg
05.jpg
06.jpg
07.jpg
08.jpg
09.jpg
10.jpg
11.jpg
12.jpg
There was also the forward fuselage section of a Boeing 707, which was a really good display on how people used to travel in the 60s-
13.jpg
14.jpg
15.jpg
15a.jpg
16.jpg
The military hangar has just had a makeover, and was a nice job-
17.jpg
18.jpg
19.jpg
20.jpg
21.jpg
The oldest surviving Harrier- in both Royal Navy and RAF markings!
22.jpg
23.jpg
Poor old Black Buck veteran XM697 looked pretty sorry for itself though-
24.jpg
25.jpg
8-)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Terminator
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Terminator » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:34 am

I did the very same museum a few years back Mike. Excellent and well worth a visit. Pity the Vulcan is not undercover me thinks.
Novie
"Never ride faster than your Angel can fly"

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Thu May 12, 2016 7:53 am

Looking like pilot error on the CarFest Gnat crash-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36270047

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by mtskull » Thu May 12, 2016 8:20 am

Mike Bull wrote:Looking like pilot error on the CarFest Gnat crash-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36270047
I haven't yet read the investigation report but I would advise against drawing any conclusions from any journalist's summary of such a report.
Please don't take this as personal criticism Mike but I would point out the term "Pilot Error" as the cause of a crash dates from a time when there existed neither the knowledge or resources to properly investigate accidents and when understanding of human factors in aviation was in its infancy. Its use simply isn't appropriate in this day and age.
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Thu May 12, 2016 8:53 am

I understand the sensitivities re the use of the phrase and the drawing of conclusions, particularly when one frequents the aviation forums at the time of accidents, but there are times when it is still simply an absolutely grammatically correct description.

From the report-
The aircraft was carrying out an aileron roll at low level during a flying display when, at an
angle of bank of 107° to the left, the nose attitude dropped relative to the horizon. The
pilot reversed the direction of roll but also applied a large pitch input which increased the
rate of descent, and caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and impact with the
terrain. The accident was not survivable.

It was concluded that the situation was recoverable until the application of the pitch input.
(My italics)

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by mtskull » Thu May 12, 2016 9:34 am

Mike Bull wrote:I understand the sensitivities re the use of the phrase and the drawing of conclusions, particularly when one frequents the aviation forums at the time of accidents, but there are times when it is still simply an absolutely grammatically correct description.

From the report-
The aircraft was carrying out an aileron roll at low level during a flying display when, at an
angle of bank of 107° to the left, the nose attitude dropped relative to the horizon. The
pilot reversed the direction of roll but also applied a large pitch input which increased the
rate of descent, and caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and impact with the
terrain. The accident was not survivable.

It was concluded that the situation was recoverable until the application of the pitch input.
(My italics)
I wouldn't argue with any of that. Nevertheless, however gramatically and factually correct it may be, it isn't enough to simply explain away an accident with the term "Pilot Error". That would be like saying that a crash was caused by "Engine Failure" without attempting to find out what caused the engine to fail.

To put it another way, every accident has a multiplicity of causes and you have to keep asking questions; in this case, why did the pilot make the inappropriate pitch input? Why was he allowed to be in a situation where such an error would prove fatal? Are the qualification requirements for display pilots robust enough?

To paraphrase an old air accident investigator: "We can either clean up the mess, bury the dead and blame the pilots or we can try to fully understand the causes so that we can prevent pilots making the same mistakes again".
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Renegadenemo » Sun May 15, 2016 1:29 am

I wouldn't argue with any of that. Nevertheless, however gramatically and factually correct it may be, it isn't enough to simply explain away an accident with the term "Pilot Error". That would be like saying that a crash was caused by "Engine Failure" without attempting to find out what caused the engine to fail.
The report didn't explain away the accident with the term 'Pilot Error'. It explained that the guy wasn't an exceptional pilot with potentially relevant health issues and not many hours on the machine and how he dropped the ball and crashed his aeroplane just as had a fan blade separated or a fatigued component let go it would have explained that too. The background and every circumstance is meticulously explained.
But at the end of the day, no matter what led up to it, the accident occurred through the actions of the pilot because there was no one else up there. It wasn't mechanical failure or weather, the bloke driving ballsed up and that's pilot error.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

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

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by mtskull » Sun May 15, 2016 7:39 am

Renegadenemo wrote: The report didn't explain away the accident with the term 'Pilot Error'.
Precisely. The term has no place in the field of accident investigation; it belongs in the vocabulary of tabloid journalists and armchair experts (into which categories, I trust, none of us fit).
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Renegadenemo » Sun May 15, 2016 12:23 pm

I'm a real air crash anorak. The wife hates watching Air Crash Investigation with me because I usually know every nut and bolt and have the report to hand. I've been fortunate to look around the hangar at AAIB on several occasions, sit in on their daily meetings and chat with the CVR/FDR guys in their lair. I've also had a good look around their training facility at Cranfield. Don't ask me why I'm so fascinated with it - I don't know.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

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

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Ste
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:47 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Ste » Thu May 19, 2016 12:54 pm

Vulcan to the sky's new project WK163 - not yet announced, links are not yet active but seams to have prematurely made it to the home page

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/home.html

Update - now official - links to press release active

Post Reply