Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Discussions regarding historic aircraft, restoration and preservation etc
Post Reply
purple_95
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri 21 Aug 2020, 6:48 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by purple_95 »

While we were always informed that we would not get approval for her to fly again by the CAA, we have recently been told that “the CAA rules may have changed”. In hearing that a ferry flight might be a potential option, it is not something that we could ignore.

Vulcan XH558 flew in the Complex category and to date remains the only ‘complex’ one to be returned to the Civil Aviation register. A condition of the Complex category, and a legal requirement, is that the aircraft’s Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or a Design Authority are contracted to provide ongoing airworthiness design support. Back in 2015, the OEMs notified the Trust that this support was to be withdrawn at the end of that year, as they felt that they could not find people with sufficient expertise to help. This meant XH558 was no longer allowed to fly.

In our current discussions with the CAA, we have been told the rules have not changed. A Design Authority is still a legal requirement, even for a short ferry flight. The VTST team are working hard to explore if there are any Design Authorities able to support an aircraft as complex as the Vulcan for a one-off ferry flight.
UKHAT and the claim said group could ferry a Lightning springs to mind, yes it was done in 1992 under very different circumstances such as the full backing of BA and a type rated and current pilot flying the thing. As sad as it is it seems the end one way or another for 558 and VTTS is now fast approaching unless someone is willing to very quickly put up the vast amount of cash needed to get the Vulcan in a fit enough state for a one off ferry flight should the CAA and OEMS be happy to sign it off, as a road move given the timescales and costs seems at best a dream.

GeeRam
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by GeeRam »

purple_95 wrote:
Fri 26 Aug 2022, 7:32 pm
While we were always informed that we would not get approval for her to fly again by the CAA, we have recently been told that “the CAA rules may have changed”. In hearing that a ferry flight might be a potential option, it is not something that we could ignore.

Vulcan XH558 flew in the Complex category and to date remains the only ‘complex’ one to be returned to the Civil Aviation register. A condition of the Complex category, and a legal requirement, is that the aircraft’s Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or a Design Authority are contracted to provide ongoing airworthiness design support. Back in 2015, the OEMs notified the Trust that this support was to be withdrawn at the end of that year, as they felt that they could not find people with sufficient expertise to help. This meant XH558 was no longer allowed to fly.

In our current discussions with the CAA, we have been told the rules have not changed. A Design Authority is still a legal requirement, even for a short ferry flight. The VTST team are working hard to explore if there are any Design Authorities able to support an aircraft as complex as the Vulcan for a one-off ferry flight.
UKHAT and the claim said group could ferry a Lightning springs to mind, yes it was done in 1992 under very different circumstances such as the full backing of BA and a type rated and current pilot flying the thing.
The delivery of F.6 XR724 from RAF Shawbury to Binbrook for the Lightning Association, was covered in one of my earlier posts, and it was rather more than full backing of BAe etc., as ownership of the a/c had to be transferred back to BAe so the flight could be operated under COMA back under its military serial, with the a/c being signed off by BAe staff and flown by a BAe TP. Which was a very generous offer by BAe at the time, and only viable because they were still operating the 3 other F.6's under the Tornado radar trial contract for the MOD.

This part of the statement....."The VTST team are working hard to explore if there are any Design Authorities able to support an aircraft as complex as the Vulcan for a one-off ferry flight." indicated that Marshall's refused to be involved again. That still begs the question about the engines though, and I'd be gobsmacked if RR agreed to it, and they are the only ones who can do that for the engines.

User avatar
aviodromefriend
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by aviodromefriend »

IIRC when it stopped flying, Martin Baker made the seats safe (removed all the explosive bits) as part of the servicing 558 got as part of the stopping. With their stance about working with non governmental/military customers nowadays (see the problems the norwegian Starfighter has had), what would the chances be of them rejoining as an OEM, even if Marshalls and Rolls Royce would be supportive?
Seahornet wrote:
Sat 20 Aug 2022, 1:42 pm
Something significantly different that I haven't thought of.
Completely scrapped, including cockpit section. I would say more than 75%
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that

Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program

GeeRam
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by GeeRam »

aviodromefriend wrote:
Fri 26 Aug 2022, 8:11 pm
IIRC when it stopped flying, Martin Baker made the seats safe (removed all the explosive bits) as part of the servicing 558 got as part of the stopping. With their stance about working with non governmental/military customers nowadays (see the problems the norwegian Starfighter has had), what would the chances be of them rejoining as an OEM
And although civvy registered, the Norwegian TF-104 is owned by their airforce museum and is almost effectively operated by the airforce on a volunteer basis.....not too dissimilar to the Swedish AFHF...so not exactly a pure civvy operation, and they've still had the issues with MB!

The combination of RR, MB support needed and needing a DA and it being on the ground for 7 years means its not even remotely viable, not even for a gear down short hop to somewhere.

Reds Rolling
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:50 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Reds Rolling »

GeeRam wrote:
Fri 26 Aug 2022, 8:42 pm


The combination of RR, MB support needed and needing a DA and it being on the ground for 7 years means its not even remotely viable, not even for a gear down short hop to somewhere.
Why would it need a Display Authority for a direct flight somewhere?

AndrewW
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun 26 Oct 2008, 11:08 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by AndrewW »

I think in this context, DA is the Design Authority

Brenden S
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue 05 Nov 2019, 5:39 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Brenden S »

They could just do this.....


A Boeing 737 took off from Perth airport and flew illegally to Jandakot. No one knew who the pilots were, done first thing in the morning. Pilots were off the aircraft and flown out of the country before the authorities knew what had actually happened.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by iainpeden »

Brenden S wrote:
Sat 27 Aug 2022, 5:14 am
They could just do this.....


A Boeing 737 took off from Perth airport and flew illegally to Jandakot. No one knew who the pilots were, done first thing in the morning. Pilots were off the aircraft and flown out of the country before the authorities knew what had actually happened.
Nuclear bomber with no agreed flight plan, quite close to Coningsby - that would certainly cause the QRA pilot to do a double take.
😇

It’ d be a land based version of The Final Countdown “ splash the Vulcan”.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

911SC
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 16 Aug 2022, 8:58 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by 911SC »

Brevet Cable wrote:
Fri 26 Aug 2022, 3:53 pm
From today's newsletter :

Snip
While we were always informed that we would not get approval for her to fly again by the CAA, we have recently been told that “the CAA rules may have changed”. In hearing that a ferry flight might be a potential option, it is not something that we could ignore.

Snip

In our current discussions with the CAA, we have been told the rules have not changed. A Design Authority is still a legal requirement, even for a short ferry flight. The VTST team are working hard to explore if there are any Design Authorities able to support an aircraft as complex as the Vulcan for a one-off ferry flight.

Snip
VVV 911SC from here onwards not Brevet Cable due quote error VVV

I do wonder what they’ve been smoking. The first part of their statement says they were told the rules may have changed. Presumably by Dave down the pub.

You only have to read the current CAA ferry flight requirements documents to see nothing has changed, they need a permit to fly, and that has to be ‘underwritten/supported’ by an authorised design authority see CAP632. Why VTTS even mentioned the possibility of a ferry flight when they should know the answer already, is extraordinary.

If Peel are playing hard ball with the leave date, then VTTS will need to start decommissioning and break down of the aircraft soon. Decommissioning will involve tasks such fuel and hydraulics removal. You can’t reuse the fuel in another airworthy aircraft due potential contamination, though you may be able to resell/donate to another ground runner.
It’s likely (with only volunteers) to take a few months to dismantle and safely store an airframe this size, (outside), if they’re then going to transport it and reassemble it ‘somewhere else’.

Not forgetting of course they’re going to have to do the same with the Canberra (less fuel/hydraulics) Looks like a busy few months ahead of them.

Thoughtful_Flyer
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 12 Sep 2008, 8:32 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Thoughtful_Flyer »

The CAA does of course have the power to issue exemptions from complying with the ANO for particular purposes. It is quite common in some areas of aviation activity.

However, I would imagine the chance of somebody senior at the CAA exempting a Vulcan bomber to allow a one off ferry flight to be next to zero! Why would anybody put their neck on the line to that extent, even if it could be kept confidential - which it can't. It would inevitably attract large crowds which compounds the risk.

With hindsight of course it should have been landed at where ever this new location is back in 2015(?) Why wasn't it?

Before criticising that however, remember how many on here were desperate for it to go to Bruntingthorpe which wouldn't have been a good idea either.

Hindsight never fails.

Despite the fact it is not allowed to fly, has the airframe been maintained to the required standards for the last seven years? Presumably just for ground running there are no specific regulations, beyond what is necessary to satisfy the private land owner and (presumably) get public liability insurance. Just a very large, jet powered car!

User avatar
Orion
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2009, 9:34 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Orion »

I think this Vulcan is doomed, sorry but that's the truth. There isn't the slightest chance of it being flown out of Finningley, and there will never be enough money to dismantle it, transport it to a new site and re-assemble.
Best to look forward to better things

Strabane!
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 07 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Strabane! »

Consider this scenario:

The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done.

purple_95
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri 21 Aug 2020, 6:48 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by purple_95 »

Does the AEO not have certain duties and functions while in flight, could a Vulcan actually be flown without one on board.

Thoughtful_Flyer
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 12 Sep 2008, 8:32 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Thoughtful_Flyer »

Strabane! wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 4:18 pm
Consider this scenario:

The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done.
Why?

If the pilots are willing to take the risk of flying without an ejection seat (their decision), does that not actually slightly reduce any risk to non involved third parties?

Wasn't one of the debates about fast jets in civilian ownership not to do with the dangers such a seat presents to third parties in the event of an accident?

Shoreham, for example, didn't that leave a live seat on the ground after the crash (with out of date cartridges if I remember correctly as the new ones were on a shelf in the hangar)!

ExVulcanGC
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2009, 9:28 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by ExVulcanGC »

Looking at that list for a ferry flight while laudable would need a few more checks in place, as has been said many times before, so for a starters:
Find a Design Authority to support the aircraft for a ferry flight.
Will Rolls Royce support the flight as an OEM for the engines.
Will Martin Baker support the flight as OEM for the Ejection Seats.
Are the ground crew still current & authorised to prep and sign off the aircraft for flight, if not who will authorise them.

The aircraft would have to be authorised for flight after the authority is assured that the aircraft has been maintained/serviced correctly IAW the Aircraft Manuals and lifed components are in date, in other words the aircraft has to be ‘more’ serviceable and fit for flight, not any less.

Find the crew and ensure they are still in date and authorised to fly, that includes currency, which they would be unable to have maintained.

And finally, if all the above can be achieved, have VTTS enough funds to pay for all the above as it does not come cheap.

Strabane!
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 07 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Strabane! »

The AEO could set his panel accordingly before he climbs out.

It would be feasible to do the hop with two pilots only onboard.

No pilot worth his salt would forgo the option to eject if it went wrong. Therefore, flying with the seats”live” would be the way it would be done.

Currency? Way back in the 1950s when the first Vulcan flight occured nobody was current on it!

ExVulcanGC
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2009, 9:28 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by ExVulcanGC »

Currency? Way back in the 1950s when the first Vulcan flight occured nobody was current on it!
Wow, that is great news, I am sure the CAA will appreciate not having to bother about that side of flying old aircraft.

As an aside are you aware of what is needed to fly any modern prototype aircraft for the first time, it is no longer a case of just jumping into it and going for a flight like the old pre CAA/FAA/EASA days.

User avatar
ericbee123
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 9:13 am
Location: Blackpool

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by ericbee123 »

Strabane! wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 4:18 pm
Consider this scenario:

The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done.
Strap the Vulcan to a dozen flying pigs. Job done.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.

Strabane!
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 07 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Strabane! »

Yes. I am very aware of the rules/protocols etc..

All I was attempting to do was to offer a bit of old fashioned practicality amongst all the gloom and doom.

I did reflect prior to posting as I knew my thinking would garner criticism. I was correct.

106500
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun 27 May 2012, 9:14 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by 106500 »

Orion wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 9:53 am
I think this Vulcan is doomed, sorry but that's the truth. There isn't the slightest chance of it being flown out of Finningley, and there will never be enough money to dismantle it, transport it to a new site and re-assemble.
Best to look forward to better things
As I have referred to twice on this thread, there is always the chance that the notice to leave can be rescinded through appeal, negotiation and/or pressure being brought to bear on the airfield owners. I believe this is the most realistic scenario.

911SC
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 16 Aug 2022, 8:58 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by 911SC »

Strabane! wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 7:14 pm
Yes. I am very aware of the rules/protocols etc..

All I was attempting to do was to offer a bit of old fashioned practicality amongst all the gloom and doom.

I did reflect prior to posting as I knew my thinking would garner criticism. I was correct.
There’s no requirement for old fashioned practicality. There’s an robust existing procedure to get a ferry flight authorisation. Once those points are met then you’d look at the individual flight.

Any one off ferry flight/PTF will cover the specific flight details including the crew complement/aircraft technical status, and probably a minimum meteorological requirement in excess of the normal VFR minima. I can’t imagine for a moment that any special dispensation would be given to this aircraft, particularly as it come under the ‘complex aircraft’ category.

5944
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed 21 Aug 2013, 7:40 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by 5944 »

106500 wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 7:44 pm
Orion wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 9:53 am
I think this Vulcan is doomed, sorry but that's the truth. There isn't the slightest chance of it being flown out of Finningley, and there will never be enough money to dismantle it, transport it to a new site and re-assemble.
Best to look forward to better things
As I have referred to twice on this thread, there is always the chance that the notice to leave can be rescinded through appeal, negotiation and/or pressure being brought to bear on the airfield owners. I believe this is the most realistic scenario.
It's Peel, they don't negotiate. It'll be leaving, almost certainly in pieces, it's just a matter of when and whether those pieces can be reassembled again or if Peel chop it and send it straight to a scrapyard. But it won't be staying at Finningley.

User avatar
tache3
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat 06 Sep 2008, 7:00 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by tache3 »

Strabane! wrote:
Sun 28 Aug 2022, 4:18 pm
Consider this scenario:

The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done.
Proof, if it was needed, that it is time for the mods to bin this thread, as stated a while ago.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13725
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Brevet Cable »

Nope, it just needs a couple of minutes moderating to get rid of all the fantasies, 'chop it up' nonsense & general off-topic wibbling.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

Strabane!
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 07 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

Re: Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

Post by Strabane! »

Good morning folks,

I apologise if my post is considered inappropriate. I don't post often and thought that this website was for genuine free speech.

My thinking is aligned with those who try to get important aircraft airborne. There are plenty of excellent examples out there which have graced our skies courtesy of those who press to get things done rather than look for reasons not to do things. Emerging examples include a beautiful Mosquito and, today, Artemis.

Best wishes.

Post Reply