The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post Reply
jonwrightk7
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:53 pm
Location: sandbach cheshire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by jonwrightk7 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:10 pm

I've seen a few interviews with him on various documentaries; a remarkable chap indeed..
The world is full of Kings and Queens; who blind your eyes, then steal your dreams..

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
mtskull
Posts: 645
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
mtskull
Posts: 645
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: 4939
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: 645
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: 4939
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

User avatar
rob565uk
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: St Helens, Merseyside

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by rob565uk » Thu May 19, 2016 7:18 pm

The Canberra may not have the same presence as the mighty Vulcan, but is a very worthy Project and I look forward to seeing it fly. It was a revolutionary aeroplane in its time and like the Vulcan it is a great example of British engineering at its very best.


.

1 in 10 people understands binary. The other one doesn't

Black Knight
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:20 am

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Black Knight » Fri May 20, 2016 11:01 am

There was very little interest in 163 when she was airworthy before. She was grounded due to expired engines & no replacements available & RR were not interested in helping. I think VTTS have chosen the wrong aircraft here. A Buccaneer would've been a far more exciting project.

Post Reply