Where has XH558 thread gone?

[vulcan558]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

[Brevet Cable]

[Xm657]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

[Dan O'Hagan]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.

The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

[Brevet Cable]

The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today

To be fair, it's not just the 'happy clappers' who think it's irrelevant.

[HeyfordDave111]

Yo know, thats some very valid points.

it's not as though she was being prepped for a ground run up and down the runway (dont titter at the back), she was ebing prepped for flight.

assuming what i read is correct, prepped for flight by non ground crew, or non experienced ground crew.

This wasnt a small error, but such a huge one that could have set back older jet aircraft flying by years, if not terminal.

For example of how bad it could have been, just for the aircraft, take a look at Vulcan fires on the pad at Scampton. complete burn outs of the air frame.
now imagine that in flight, a blade gets sheered, plays havic with the other blades, punches through a fuel tank and wing, and other engine, possibly fuselage?
Not sure how an 'on fire' vulcan with only 2 engines on one side flies, but the thought of crew being lost to this kind of silly mistake makes you shudder. This is why the truth must come out.

[disgruntled]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.


The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

Going to call your "tabloidism" out again Dan I'm afraid (even though I concur to a degree with your point).

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Please explain the difference between your sensationalist claims that it could have killed many (when it didn't) and the "poor" journalism that you criticize when, for instance, a photograph of RAFAT appears in the tabloids with the heading, "Jets inches from disaster".

Please explain how publicly outing and sacking an individual for genuine human error could be a positive outcome? In a sensible H&S culture you encourage maximum "by in" and reporting of near misses etc by making the workforce feel confident that they won't be outed and sacked for genuine errors but would expect sanctions in the form of retraining etc. Of course with the caveat that criminal negligence or intent is not the same as a genuine error.

Once again the validity of anything you have to bring to the discussion is undermined by the very low setting of the bar for yourself whilst championing an Olympic medal winning height of accountability and standards for everyone else around you. In fact the only thing you seem to excel at is double standards.

[HeyfordDave111]

Didnt silica gate rid them of at least 1 airworthy useable Olympus Engine?

[disgruntled]

Didnt silica gate rid them of at least 1 airworthy useable Olympus Engine?

Wasn't the refusal to support the airframe down to airframe hours rather then engines?

[HeyfordDave111]

not having enough hours on an olympus with no spares wouldnt help the OEM though.

and thinking about it Silica Gate, and the full proceedures and who's to blame etc getting back to the OEM's wouldnt have made the OEM's more likely to sign off on the continued flight of 558

[disgruntled]

Fair point Dave, but from what I can remember that wasn't what the stated reasons were...

The point I am trying to make is that this thread is full of conjecture, personal vendettas and exaggeration and sensationalism. There are individuals on both sides of the argument that spout off at best half truths and at worst sensationalist nonsense. There is, in particular, an annoying set of double standards from certain individuals who because of their claims of professionalism should be held to far greater account than they are.

[HeyfordDave111]

Fair point Dave, but from what I can remember that wasn't what the stated reasons were...

The point I am trying to make is that this thread is full of conjecture, personal vendettas and exaggeration and sensationalism. There are individuals on both sides of the argument that spout off at best half truths and at worst sensationalist nonsense. There is, in particular, an annoying set of double standards from certain individuals who because of their claims of professionalism should be held to far greater account than they are.

guilty as charged myself there mate.

i just think that she could have been so much more accessible once retired, and as such 4 years down the road, she's seemingly an insurance for some of a wage and personal grandisement, rather than as a centrepiece of a museum collection, that everyone can see and experience without breaking the bank.

[disgruntled]

Fair point Dave, but from what I can remember that wasn't what the stated reasons were...

The point I am trying to make is that this thread is full of conjecture, personal vendettas and exaggeration and sensationalism. There are individuals on both sides of the argument that spout off at best half truths and at worst sensationalist nonsense. There is, in particular, an annoying set of double standards from certain individuals who because of their claims of professionalism should be held to far greater account than they are.

guilty as charged myself there mate.

i just think that she could have been so much more accessible once retired, and as such 4 years down the road, she's seemingly an insurance for some of a wage and personal grandisement, rather than as a centrepiece of a museum collection, that everyone can see and experience without breaking the bank.

With the exception of the bit about personal gain etc I agree! It is, I believe, far more a case of "ifs" than anything murky or underhand -(careful I'm moving to conjecture etc...)

The plan "coulda, woulda, shoulda", been a good one. It's not worked out and it would appear that the whole thing is now stuck on an incessant hamster wheel of uncertainty and pointlessness... much like this thread

[Dan O'Hagan]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.


The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

Going to call your "tabloidism" out again Dan I'm afraid (even though I concur to a degree with your point).

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Please explain the difference between your sensationalist claims that it could have killed many (when it didn't) and the "poor" journalism that you criticize when, for instance, a photograph of RAFAT appears in the tabloids with the heading, "Jets inches from disaster".

Please explain how publicly outing and sacking an individual for genuine human error could be a positive outcome? In a sensible H&S culture you encourage maximum "by in" and reporting of near misses etc by making the workforce feel confident that they won't be outed and sacked for genuine errors but would expect sanctions in the form of retraining etc. Of course with the caveat that criminal negligence or intent is not the same as a genuine error.

Once again the validity of anything you have to bring to the discussion is undermined by the very low setting of the bar for yourself whilst championing an Olympic medal winning height of accountability and standards for everyone else around you. In fact the only thing you seem to excel at is double standards.

If you can't see that blowing up two perfectly serviceable engines cut the flying life considerably, then your credibility in this thread is still lower than I first thought.

[Pat Murphy]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.

The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

This and then some. Unaccountable, immovable and probably not far off insolvent.

[vulcan558]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her
forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.


The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

Going to call your "tabloidism" out again Dan I'm afraid (even though I concur to a degree with your point).

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Please explain the difference between your sensationalist claims that it could have killed many (when it didn't) and the "poor" journalism that you criticize when, for instance, a photograph of RAFAT appears in the tabloids with the heading, "Jets inches from disaster".

Please explain how publicly outing and sacking an individual for genuine human error could be a positive outcome? In a sensible H&S culture you encourage maximum "by in" and reporting of near misses etc by making the workforce feel confident that they won't be outed and sacked for genuine errors but would expect sanctions in the form of retraining etc. Of course with the caveat that criminal negligence or intent is not the same as a genuine error.

Once again the validity of anything you have to bring to the discussion is undermined by the very low setting of the bar for yourself whilst championing an Olympic medal winning height of accountability and standards for everyone else around you. In fact the only thing you seem to excel at is double standards.

If you can't see that blowing up two perfectly serviceable engines cut the flying life considerably, then your credibility in this thread is still lower than I first thought.

Engine hours was one of the main reasons and the fact Rolls Royce would not service oe extend the hrs, i:e not oems support.fatigue life I think they was mods that could be done in that repect if needed.

As for silica debate the head of engineering would i say have to sign off and manage all flying and maintenance
Records and processes, SAPs.
Same person who is still doing the job today.

[MicrolightDriver]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.


The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

Going to call your "tabloidism" out again Dan I'm afraid (even though I concur to a degree with your point).

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Please explain the difference between your sensationalist claims that it could have killed many (when it didn't) and the "poor" journalism that you criticize when, for instance, a photograph of RAFAT appears in the tabloids with the heading, "Jets inches from disaster".

Please explain how publicly outing and sacking an individual for genuine human error could be a positive outcome? In a sensible H&S culture you encourage maximum "by in" and reporting of near misses etc by making the workforce feel confident that they won't be outed and sacked for genuine errors but would expect sanctions in the form of retraining etc. Of course with the caveat that criminal negligence or intent is not the same as a genuine error.

Once again the validity of anything you have to bring to the discussion is undermined by the very low setting of the bar for yourself whilst championing an Olympic medal winning height of accountability and standards for everyone else around you. In fact the only thing you seem to excel at is double standards.

If you can't see that blowing up two perfectly serviceable engines cut the flying life considerably, then your credibility in this thread is still lower than I first thought.

Cheap attempt to escape from perfectly valid questions. Stated many times that the 'OEM' group withdrew support on account of their own dwindling expertise in legacy machinery, and you know it.

[HeyfordDave111]

[disgruntled]

So what were VTTS thinking letting a cosmetic surgeon do the pre-flight checks on '558?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end i would say, the aircraft would be in the hands of the head of maintenance.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, if its the latter, who were the "head" maintenance if the engineering team hadn't yet arrived? Taff, Mr Pleming himself? What Sam doesn't fully clarify in his post is whether the people who carried out the pre-flight servicing were qualified/certified to do so, the strong implication is they were not, but the maintenance team arriving 10 minutes before take off signed it off anyway. The VTTST team are extremely lucky that engine let go before 558 got into the air. If she had been airborne or even if it happened a few seconds later 558 may well have crashed and some people may well be currently serving time for manslaughter - particularly if the paperwork wasn't right.

We actually shouldn't grumble about where 558 is and the price of access etc.: we so easily could have lost her forever that day.

Exactly why "silicagate" remains a very important issue in the debate over VTTS' fitness for purpose. Sam's post on the official forum is far more detailed than I think a lot of us dared hope for.


The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today, but on that day a lot of people got very lucky after mistakes were made. And some of these people are still making terrible decisions over the airframe today. Not one person lost their job over something which could have killed many people, and at the very least cut 558's flying life considerably, and therefore impacted negatively on the Trust's whole reason for being!

They remain, it appears, unaccountable and immovable. Sadly, just like the aeroplane.

Going to call your "tabloidism" out again Dan I'm afraid (even though I concur to a degree with your point).

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Please explain the difference between your sensationalist claims that it could have killed many (when it didn't) and the "poor" journalism that you criticize when, for instance, a photograph of RAFAT appears in the tabloids with the heading, "Jets inches from disaster".

Please explain how publicly outing and sacking an individual for genuine human error could be a positive outcome? In a sensible H&S culture you encourage maximum "by in" and reporting of near misses etc by making the workforce feel confident that they won't be outed and sacked for genuine errors but would expect sanctions in the form of retraining etc. Of course with the caveat that criminal negligence or intent is not the same as a genuine error.

Once again the validity of anything you have to bring to the discussion is undermined by the very low setting of the bar for yourself whilst championing an Olympic medal winning height of accountability and standards for everyone else around you. In fact the only thing you seem to excel at is double standards.

If you can't see that blowing up two perfectly serviceable engines cut the flying life considerably, then your credibility in this thread is still lower than I first thought.

When it gets to the depths of yours Dan I will start to be concerned. You have nothing of value to add so it is best that you disappear frankly

[Brevet Cable]

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Semantics, really.

IF the OEMs hadn't pulled their support, then the fact that they lunched a pair of engines meant that the time they could have continued displaying was severely reduced ( from what I recall, they'd already used up - or were close to using up - 2 or 3 engines already, hence their renewed efforts after it happened to get R-R to extend the allowable hours/cycles on the engines & to be allowed to use the engine(s) they'd previously been prohibited from using.

[disgruntled]

What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?

Semantics, really.

IF the OEMs hadn't pulled their support, then the fact that they lunched a pair of engines meant that the time they could have continued displaying was severely reduced ( from what I recall, they'd already used up - or were close to using up - 2 or 3 engines already, hence their renewed efforts after it happened to get R-R to extend the allowable hours/cycles on the engines & to be allowed to use the engine(s) they'd previously been prohibited from using.

I'm not disagreeing with the semantic Brevet. I disagree with them when they are used as facts when they simply are not. And this is my point as stated previously regarding half truths and personal motivations etc etc.

[Dan O'Hagan]

When it gets to the depths of yours Dan I will start to be concerned. You have nothing of value to add so it is best that you disappear frankly

Yes, best I disappear eh?

After all, I've been wrong on so much when it comes to VTTS. You know, like V3, ETNA, the roll that never happened, the decision to dump it at Doncaster instead of somewhere where it would be welcome to fast taxi.

Still, you know best. Clearly.

[Brevet Cable]

VTST admitted at the time that the loss of the engines meant the timeframe for how long they could continue displaying the aircraft had been markedly reduced, as the engines were the prime limiting factor once the required airframe mods were carried out.
Hence why they started cutting down on the number of events they attended each year.

[disgruntled]

When it gets to the depths of yours Dan I will start to be concerned. You have nothing of value to add so it is best that you disappear frankly

Yes, best I disappear eh?

After all, I've been wrong on so much when it comes to VTTS. You know, like V3, ETNA, the roll that never happened, the decision to dump it at Doncaster instead of somewhere where it would be welcome to fast taxi.

Still, you know best. Clearly.

EDITED by Jalfrezi - reason: personal attack

Dan grow up. You have not once answered any of my points with the maturity that I originally started with - on ANY occasion. You are nothing more than a feeble keyboard warrior with an over inflated sense of self.

If you would like to enter into proper debate then please do so - but with facts only please. Not conjecture. Not supposition. Not hindsight.

[disgruntled]

Yes Brevet but I state again. The aircraft did not stop flying because of that incident. Who knows what might or might not have been the future if it hadn't have happened? Would it still have had the permit withdrawn? We cannot say because to the best of my understanding that is NOT the reasons given for the support being withdrawn. The engines could have been brand spanking new and still the companies would have withdrawn support - for the reasons stated in the report.