Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Ken Shabby wrote: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?
vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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 wrote:The happy clappers would have you believe that what happened in 2012 is ancient history and bears no relevance on where VTTS stands today
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
HeyfordDave111 wrote:Didnt silica gate rid them of at least 1 airworthy useable Olympus Engine?
disgruntled wrote: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 wrote:disgruntled wrote: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 wrote:Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:disgruntled wrote:Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:disgruntled wrote:Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
Dan O'Hagan wrote:disgruntled wrote:Dan O'Hagan wrote:Xm657 wrote:vulcan558 wrote:Ken Shabby wrote: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.
disgruntled wrote:What proof do you have that this actually cut the flying life of the aircraft "considerably"? Or is this just supposition on your behalf?
Brevet Cable wrote:disgruntled wrote: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 wrote:
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
Dan O'Hagan wrote:disgruntled wrote:
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.