The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:48 pm

Sadly it was pretty obvious as soon as footage of the accident came out that it was probably a too low/too slow incident; that seems to be compounded by the guy being much more experienced on the Jet Provost, for which his height and speed were perfect; the report leaves it open, but the inference is clearly that he may well have forgotten what aircraft he was in.

None of the aircraft maintenance stuff had any bearing on the accident at all- it's all by-product which will have serious ramifications for the vintage jet operators for a long time to come.

User avatar
Richie
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:12 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Richie » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:23 am

The report will be damning for those running legacy engines, and say... Cold War era jet's

You know the sanctions that will be placed on those aircraft now (to prevent the remote possibility of any later issues) will be heavy, and policed to death.
Clarence come out ov zat tank at vonz !

no1traumanurse
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:13 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by no1traumanurse » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:18 am

What a tragedy it hadn't been policed properly. A poorly maintained aircraft in the hands of a pilot not familiar with the type.
Accidents will always happen but.. The paying public expect displays to be performed by highly skilled and experienced pilots, not someone who thought they could give it a go. They also expect the aircraft to be airworthy.
If those requirements cannot be met then shame on all who organise public flying displays and those that participate in them.

no1traumanurse
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:13 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by no1traumanurse » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:27 am

Mike Bull wrote:
Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:48 pm
None of the aircraft maintenance stuff had any bearing on the accident at all- it's all by-product which will have serious ramifications for the vintage jet operators for a long time to come.
The report clearly states that the aircraft was not was no longer in compliance with its permit to fly, mandatory airworthiness requirements had not been met. If that is not a maintainance issue, then what is? It doesn't matter that they didn't cause the crash, they are symptomatic of less than stringent checks and compliance.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:44 pm

no1traumanurse wrote:
Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:27 am
Mike Bull wrote:
Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:48 pm
None of the aircraft maintenance stuff had any bearing on the accident at all- it's all by-product which will have serious ramifications for the vintage jet operators for a long time to come.
The report clearly states that the aircraft was not was no longer in compliance with its permit to fly, mandatory airworthiness requirements had not been met. If that is not a maintainance issue, then what is? It doesn't matter that they didn't cause the crash, they are symptomatic of less than stringent checks and compliance.
...but it still had no bearing on the crash, which is what the AAIB found and reported.

no1traumanurse
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:13 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by no1traumanurse » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:09 am

If I have got my interpretation wrong please correct me and I will apologise on the forum.

You are basically saying it is ok to fly an aircraft that turns out to be un-flightworthy as long as it doesn't cause a crash?

You are involved in rebuilding Bluebird. The final result will be stronger, more leakproof and from what I can gather, have had all her engine/fuel defects cured. This is being done to present to the paying public a machine in as near original condition as possible, that can run again and under ideal conditions, she should run better than prior to her crash as long as she doesn't exceed speeds that can result in instability.
Naively that is what I thought I was seeing at the airshows I have been to. Aircraft rebuilt and maintained better than when they were pushed off the production line.

I have seen and helped put back together enough damaged humans to have a simplistic view. There are no such things as accidents, people were either doing something stupid or had something stupid done to them. They might not have been aware they were being stupid due to their age or infirmity, but the most accurate diagnostic tool devised, the retrospectoscope, can pinpoint when it all went wrong.
I did say it was a simplistic view, but it holds true in the vast majority of cases.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:47 am

no1traumanurse wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:09 am
If I have got my interpretation wrong please correct me and I will apologise on the forum.

You are basically saying it is ok to fly an aircraft that turns out to be un-flightworthy as long as it doesn't cause a crash?
I am saying absolutely nothing of the sort, and I don't know how more clearly it can be said;

- The aircraft crashed because the pilot made a mess of things. NO other factor caused that aircraft to hit the ground on the day.

- In the course of the subsequent investigation, maintenance issues were found that would have led to the aircraft being deemed non airworthy. But they did not cause the crash.

- Other maintenance issues found during the investigation- the fuel system stuff- are new issues identified by the original manufacturers, which will have an effect from now on. But they did not cause the crash.

- The CAA and the regulation and running of airshows has been severely criticised, and a lot of things will change going forward. But they did not cause the crash.

Sole cause of that Hunter hitting the ground was pilot Andy Hill. If in any further doubt, this is him flying a Jet Provost at the Southport airshow in 2014; you just see a peep at the crowd which shows you how low he was and as he (just) recovered from this incident, the tower red carded his display and called him in for a talking to.


conistoncollie
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:17 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by conistoncollie » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:13 am

NO other factor caused that aircraft to hit the ground on the day.
It was airborne - tend to agree with No 1 traumanurse

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by Mike Bull » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:46 pm

Presumably then you apply that to the several thousand aircraft that are in the sky at any given moment?! I'm really not seeing the point people are clinging to here- the aircraft was crashed because of an error made by the pilot. That is the finding of the AAIB-
Causal factors
• The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident
manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the
combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half
of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not
achieving the required minimum apex height.

(c) Contributory factors
• The pilot either did not perceive that an escape manoeuvre was necessary,
or did not realise that one was possible at the speed achieved at the apex
of the manoeuvre.
• The pilot had not received formal training to escape from the accident
manoeuvre in a Hunter and had not had his competence to do so
assessed.
• The pilot had not practised the technique for escaping from the accident
manoeuvre in a Hunter, and did not know the minimum speed from which
an escape manoeuvre could be carried out successfully.
• A change of ground track during the manoeuvre positioned the aircraft
further east than planned producing an exit track along the A27 dual
carriageway.
• The manoeuvre took place above an area occupied by the public over
which the organisers of the flying display had no control.
• The severity of the outcome was due to the absence of provisions to
mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing in an area outside the control
of the organisers of the flying display.

conistoncollie
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:17 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

Post by conistoncollie » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:14 pm

Presumably then you apply that to the several thousand aircraft that are in the sky at any given moment?!
Only the ones that are not in compliance with their permits to fly

Post Reply