Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Alanko on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 8:27 pm

Disturbing to hear about that, Rich. The last thing I, or anybody else on here I imagine, want is a severely damaged Shack because of the rash actions of a few. An odd situation to hear about... maybe critics of VTTS need to read about this! :whistle:

I read a thread on Key Publishing fairly recently about an amateur restoration of a Meteor. At some point they decided to simply run power into the thing without fully knowing the extent or condition of the circuitry and components within. I thought this was a little rash, and the actions of the Shackleton folk also seem a pretty comprehensively rash. Is this just a bad habit of spirited amateurs?
Alanko

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Kip Casper on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 9:35 pm

Rich is helping to restore that particular Meteor
http://www.gcse.com/english/there.htm - learn how to use 'their', 'there' and 'they're'.
Kip Casper

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Alanko on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 9:55 pm

The plot thickens. :lol: Maybe the Meteor scenario wasn't explained clearly but it read, to me, like some overactive enthusiast decided to skip a few vital steps and basically plumbed power into areas of the airframe that hadn't been assessed or inventoried. I could be horribly wrong of course.
Alanko

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Dragon Rapide on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 5:01 am

Following this story here and elsewhere is illustrative of comments posted without the benefit of the full facts of the case bring known. Always best to keep the powder dry before being clear what the target is!
Listen to that Gipsy music.....

Dragon Rapide
Dragon Rapide

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby boff180 on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 8:38 am

I would suggest that airing dirty laundry in public does nothing but damage the long term prospects of the aircraft returning to the sky.

People have no idea which account posted above is the most accurate, not defending anyone or saying either is incorrect I hasten to add.

Hopefully those involved sort things out..... privately.

Andy
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Dragon Rapide on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 9:10 am

Seconded. Private spats aired publicly do nothing to encourage voluntary support. I am saddened because I have been following and supporting the "Shack" project for some time.

I hope everything is sorted out and the good work can continue.
Listen to that Gipsy music.....

Dragon Rapide
Dragon Rapide

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Blue_2 on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 9:16 am

Alanko, yes you are horribly wrong. And why you would bring up a Meteor in an entirely different location to this Shackleton is beyond me, unless you have some malicious or mischievous motive...?

Not a friend of Sandy's, are you...?
Meteor WS788 Restoration Team
User avatar
Blue_2

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby richw_82 on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 10:24 am

There's not going to be a severely damaged Shackleton, as things have been stopped. This isn't airing dirty laundry, by the way. When I set out doing the original engineering updates for the Shack project I always said there would be no hiding behind bland statements and that I'd let people see the good the bad and the ugly, the triumphs and the mistakes. I'll continue to do so. Ask me a straight question, you'll still get a straight answer, and if I don't have the information I'll get it. If you don't want to do it in public then PM me.

The actions of the past year might have repercussions on the future. I hope not, but can't be sure.


Regards Meteor - we had the relevant manuals available, disconnected all the cable breaks to damaged areas, carried out insulation tests on portions of the wiring, and removed all the fuses except the ones for circuits we were trying to send low amounts of power to (landing lights, which had been bench tested.). It was planned and prepared for for a good few weeks before actually doing it. Sandy publicly objected as he had wanted us to permanently disable the aircraft by removing most of the wiring, and sell the jet pipes.


Regards,

Rich W
Richard Woods
Team leader Avro Shackleton WR963 2009 - 2016
http://www.facebook.com/avro.shackleton
User avatar
richw_82

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Alanko on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 2:39 pm

Blue_2 wrote:Alanko, yes you are horribly wrong. And why you would bring up a Meteor in an entirely different location to this Shackleton is beyond me, unless you have some malicious or mischievous motive...?

Not a friend of Sandy's, are you...?



Who is Sandy?
Alanko

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Blue_2 on Sun 28 Aug 2016, 5:41 pm

Yet another expert whose ideas were worth pennies yet were doled out by the pound...
Anyway I assume the above posts have put your fears about the Meteor to bed. Now if you would kindly return to the Shackleton, the topic of this thread...
Meteor WS788 Restoration Team
User avatar
Blue_2

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby craig.mason on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 9:56 am

statement from Dave Woods posted on facebook today
A statement from Dave Woods,
Chairman of Trustees - Shackleton Preservation Trust (reg charity no 1020951)
Legal owner of Avro Shackleton WR963/G-SKTN

I first got involved with Shackleton WR963 in late 2008 just after ownership had been taken back by Mike Collet following the failed attempt by ASCET to return her to flight. The aircraft had three engines present at that time, and numerous systems damaged or non-functioning.

My first job was to remove the front spinner from the No3 engine which I managed without breaking anything, then shortly after as WR963 looked in a bit of a state the decision was taken to repaint her. The then Chairman (John Cubberley)knew well of my modeling skills and asked me to head up the painting team which I was happy to do, I just approached it like a big Airfix kit. The final painting was completed over the course of five days and has lasted well since.

Over time I established a good working relationship with the management at Coventry and Mike Collet in particular as we are both northern boys . When the SPT Chair's health took a turn and he decided it was time for him to step down I was invited to join the board of Trustees and later to become Chairman, this job involved steering the activities of the Trust in maintaining and operating WR963 on behalf of Air Atlantique, and raising enough money for the project to be self sufficient.

Mike must have been impressed as in 2011 he asked me to take over the running of Air Atlantique's "Airbase", who would turn down that opportunity? Not me - so I said "Yes please!", and we did rather well at it. Then in 2012 it was decided that the whole of CAF would be moved to a new facility in Cornwall. Mike at that time realised that moving the Shackleton and Nimrod was really not an option, so on being called to the office one day he offered the Shackleton to me.

Had I declined WR963 would have gone up for auction, and YES this would have also included the scrap man. What would you do, buy the aircraft that by now you have worked on for a number of years, or say "No thank you," in the knowledge that she could be turned into scrap? It was bit of a no brainer for me really, so I bought it - out of my own pocket I might add.

Some of you may ask why I bought it myself and not on behalf of the Trust, that is simple, at that time the Trust did not want the liability that may have come with the purchase (indeed there were howls of horror from the other Trustees when I proposed handing it over to the Trust), as this may well have included insurances and parking fees which are substantial for an aircraft of the Shackletons size and the Trust just did not have the funds to cover this.

Things were working well as they were, so I saw no reason for things to change so WR963 continued to be maintained and operated by the SPT as Mike had set up and all were happy with that arrangement. A few months later when Nimrod XV232 failed to sell, the transport cost was found to be astronomically high, and the aircraft was deteriorating rapidly, Mike asked me as Chairman to take it under the wing of the Trust on the same arrangement as WR963 had enjoyed, in that the aircraft would still belong to Mike but we - the Trust - would maintain and operate it. This the Trustees were happy to do as it would give us a nice little collection in its own right when all the other aircraft had departed, we would still have Shackleton, Nimrod and Shackleton Mk1 nose all together.

Time passed and we had highs and lows, members of the crew came and went as they do, then came 2015 and the Vulcan To The Sky day. The week before this saw WR963 up on jacks to change the brakes on both wheels to allow us to taxy on the day, it was a damn near run thing but we did it in front of the biggest crowd seen at Coventry in many years. We followed this up in April 2016 with a taxy run with paying passengers onboard, the first time this has been done EVER!!

The Trust at that time was solvent with plenty of cash in the bank, what I didn't know was that things were about to change and I'm afraid to say not for the better. WR963 became unserviceable and remains so to this day.

Where did it go wrong?

At the beginning of the year I asked the crew to hit all the usual sites with messages pushing the hangar Fund and the names on the bomb bay doors, they didn't want to do it, why? They were worried that it may be seen that we were spamming people. Thinking I may be pushing too hard and with my wife's failing health taking more of my time, I decided, wrongly, to let them run things largely their way. Things fell away further and faster than anticipated.

A small group of the newer members for whatever reason felt that they needed to have private meetings to which the Chair and members they didn't favour were not invited. The whole thing degenerated into a Saturday morning "boys and their toy" club and not a group of like minded people with a common goal. Things I asked of them as Chairman of the Trustees of SPT in an attempt to try and halt the decline were ignored.

Little to nothing has been done with the Heritage Lottery Fund Application which would have given the trust £70,0000 development funding , the "Friends of WR963" has been run down and ignored with no updates and newsletters since the first one under the new Membership Secretary, so that is another source of funding gone.

The result? Since the middle of May we have had just £338 in donations.

There can be no doubt that the unserviceability this year, little to no income from events (such as monthly public engine runs) combined with the huge expenditures has killed SPT. If we didn't have the Kickstarter funds the Trust would be out of funds completely now. The majority of the newer members treat this as if it is of no concern, the only idea that was brought up to raise funds is to scrap Nimrod XV232, I have to tell you that as long as I draw breath as Chairman I will not allow this.

To add to my stress level, this year new untrained members of crew have been put in positions on board the aircraft for private "test" runs when I wasn't on site. Not only is this poor behaviour from a safety point of view, it equates to some £3000 used in fuel this year alone for private - not public - "test" runs. Given I am the culpable person in that my name is on ALL the insurances, if there had been an incident and someone was injured or killed I would be facing criminal charges despite being 100 miles away at the time.

Speaking as the owner of the aircraft would you allow this to continue? I am no longer willing to let this happen so I have with the greatest reluctance removed ALL the insurances on the aircraft.

The SPT is now so divided that I doubt it can ever be brought back together. Weighing up all the above I feel I have had no choice but to call time on the work on WR963, and look to her preservation for future generations above all else.

As such I have to say that that brilliant dream of flight for the Shackleton is now gone.

Kind regards to all

Avro Shackleton WR963
Canon 550D
EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS II Lens
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM
User avatar
craig.mason

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby PeterR on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 10:06 am

:down:
PeterR

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Pringles on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 10:41 am

Absolutely terrible news, something needs to change, for the sake of the aircraft :sad:
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby WG655 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 11:01 am

A real shame things have got to this stage - can see this from both perspectives but 'toys out of the pram' seems fairly appropriate. Given the fact lots of people have donated in the past it would have been good to have had more clarity before things got to this stage. A few things which came to mind:-

- Presumably the SPT has SOPs and documentation (including H+S) pertaining to ground running the aircraft - if even a single letter of these have been breached then why were said individuals not immediately removed from active aircraft work? Sure there'd be plenty of willing, 'safe' volunteers if word was put out that there was a shortage as a result.

- The fact more than one run appears to have been allowed to have taken place is particularly concerning. Isn't there a need to notify Coventry ATC that a run is taking place? What I mean is there must be various records showing when runs took place and I would therefore question why this was not stopped sooner.

- Is there no component/s on the aircraft the Chairman could have removed/refitted fairly easily that would prevent ground runs taking place unless he is on site or permits it?

Its easy to point the finger at others but less so to admit one's own failings. Whilst the unauthorised running is very much not your fault, other volunteers cannot be solely blamed for the funding shortage as the Chairman is by his own admission steering the direction of the project himself and therefore ultimately culpable. An absolute shambles and unsurprisingly its the aircraft which will come off worst in all these personal politics. The aircraft in a non-running state has virtually no public appeal regrettably: dare say VTST or similar need to be contacted for advice on project management and possible support.
User avatar
WG655
UKAR Staff

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Russ on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 11:23 am

An absolute tragedy. One restoration I was really looking forward to seeing fly again. :sad: :down:
User avatar
Russ

Re: What's happened at Coventry (Shackleton)

Postby Alanko on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 1:46 pm

Blue_2 wrote:Anyway I assume the above posts have put your fears about the Meteor to bed. Now if you would kindly return to the Shackleton, the topic of this thread...


Yes and no. It is clear that there isn't really a plan for the Meteor. It is an outdoor-stored example in pretty pitiful condition, and it has become a hobby for a handful of older blokes with a bit of free time on their hands. No problem there, really. Honestly, it must be fun going out and taking parts from that range wreck, or repainting parts with Humbrol and a wee brush. However, at the end of the day it is a battered Meteor relic with a small cache of battered spare parts to go with it and a team of enthusiastic amateurs with no money, limited resources and no obviously clear timeline or plan of action; simply tinker away here or replace a missing gizmo there. Why, for example, has that step unit been repaired/replaced/repainted when the whole fuselage still looks like a total dog's dinner? Are you going to restore every panel with a Black and Dekker palm sander and some big tins of Humbrol?
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Blue_2 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 2:58 pm

The above post really shows how little attention you pay. No plan? Wrong. Just because we haven't knocked on your door and told you the plan personally doesn't mean there isn't one. Older blokes with time on their hands? Also wrong. None of us are what you would call 'older', and we certainly have little in the way of free time. Also one third of the team is female...
The step unit and other small items are things we can take home and restore in our spare time on an evening. A much better use of free time than playing at armchair experts I think...
Once the museum allocates funding and resources the full aircraft will be stripped and repainted. And I prefer a Black and Decker, myself...
Anyway, for the second and final time of asking, back to the Shackleton...
Last edited by Blue_2 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meteor WS788 Restoration Team
User avatar
Blue_2

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Dan O'Hagan on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 4:25 pm

A shocking, shameful story of people taking advantage of Mr Woods, and treating an aeroplane like their own private plaything.

If this behaviour is the norm with some of the team on WR963, riding roughshod over safety procedures, it's a jolly good thing it'll be going nowhere near flying again.

I can see both the Shackleton and Nimrod being reduced to cockpit sections within a very short time.
User avatar
Dan O'Hagan

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Dragon Rapide on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 5:01 pm

It was a fine project - always has been and deserved to succeed.
Last edited by Dragon Rapide on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Listen to that Gipsy music.....

Dragon Rapide
Dragon Rapide

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby The Baron on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 5:59 pm

That statement seems fairly final. And with it, it looks like the dream of having another 4 engine Avro heavy airborne is gone.
Loafer for Mr. Da Vinci.
User avatar
The Baron

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby FGR2 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 6:01 pm

What a mess. On the outside you think these worthwhile causes are professionally run with clear processes and procedures, especially when they ask you to part with your hard earned cash for the cause.

It is a shock that you find it is being run without regards to due process and authority and is in total chaos.

How on earth could the CAA give authority to fly to this group considering the circumstances?

What with the CAF and now the SPT. I had such high hopes for both organisations :(
FGR2

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Rebecca_1984 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 6:13 pm

What a shame it has come to this, the entire project has become a total mess, but one has to ask why were so called unauthorised runs taking place, and on more than one occasion, someone somewhere was allowing this, not wishing to be flippant but a Shackleton does not fire its own engines and systems up, someone made the call to start the aircraft despite it seems not having that within there remit, why was this person or persons not immediately banned from being involved.

We can only hope an organisation with the staff and resources to restore this aircraft to airworthy condition comes along in the next few weeks or months, I've seen on Facebook and Instagram today people trying to get Vulcan to the sky to take the project on, I would imagine its unlikely given the team at Doncaster have the Canberra to restore but who knows what will happen next. I just feel for those who donated money or helped out on the project and went about things in the right way, seems a few have spoilt things for the majority, sadly something that happens far to often both in aviation and the wider world.
Rebecca_1984

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Alanko on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 6:58 pm

Just a thought, but should this be in the public domain, post-Shoreham and all? Word of private test runs with unqualified crew on an active airport might not go down so well in all quarters.
Alanko

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Dan O'Hagan on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:02 pm

Alanko wrote:Just a thought, but should this be in the public domain, post-Shoreham and all? Word of private test runs with unqualified crew on an active airport might not go down so well in all quarters.


A non-flyer. No comparison.

Getting tired of holier-than-thou members telling people what can and can't be discussed on these forums.
User avatar
Dan O'Hagan

Re: Shackleton WR963 - [Official Topic]

Postby Pringles on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 7:04 pm

Alanko wrote:Just a thought, but should this be in the public domain, post-Shoreham and all? Word of private test runs with unqualified crew on an active airport might not go down so well in all quarters.

Perhaps, but I'd also say that the chairman had a right to express his exasperation over the project, and provide an explanation as to the cessation of activities?
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests