RE: Vulcan to be grounded

[DamienB]

I shan't ask you to repeat any details from the report then...

[TinyCappo]

DamienB said:

TinyCappo said:

Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as...

Not practical for most of the things that need checking. How can the pilot check, for instance, whether control surfaces move correctly? You need the PFCUs running before they'll move - and thus power on and crew already onboard. They rely on the ground crew.

Were not talking about a control surface check here though are we. We were talking about a GVI of the intakes. A mandatory part of every pre and post flight inspection/walkround.

I wouldn't accept that as an answer from a 747 pilot or a MD80 pilot who is on a 40 minute turnaround and doesnt have full access to staging or a ladder, let alone from a display team operating at very limited hours this is just silly. Yes the ground crew shouldnt have left it in there but the pilot should have checked and then reamed the liney as appropriate.

However having said that every operator and ground handling company have different procedures. At some airlines, I have heard the pilots aren't even responsible for pre flight inspections! At my previous company, there were FOUR kinds of inspections all carried out by different personnel to add a multi layer of protection:

1 - Daily, first flight of the day. This would involve a detailed inspection of the aircraft which would include a security check of certain areas of the plane. Also, the pilot performing the check would be looking for the general condition of the a/c spending more time on certain items. Performed by engineering.

2 - Preflight. This is much like the first flight of the day pre flight, but doesn't include special security checks. Performed by liney and pilot.

3 - Walk-around. This inspection is done after an individual flight, just to make sure there were no bird strikes, other damage and to make sure that things are still in general working order. Performed by liney and pilot.

4 - Post flight. This inspection is done when the crew is either done flying this particular a/c and will proceed to another one for subsequent flights, or the a/c is done flying for the night. Performed by liney and pilot.

Bottom line though. The Captain has the ultimate authority and final say on if the a/c is in airworthy condition. He is ultimately responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in a condition for safe flight.

"Perfect Swiss cheese in the box" scenario though isnt it.

[Dr Jekyll]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Indeed.

Having said that, IMO anyone who places FOD in an engine intake for whatever reason is a bloody fool because Sod's Law means that it is just asking for trouble!

So do you know what the reason was? Did someone just think it was a good idea at the time or was it part of the procedure and if so at whose instigation?

[Ali Chappussy]

TinyCappo said:

Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as this?

I did enjoy this one!

[Apache]

Dr Jekyll said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Indeed.

Having said that, IMO anyone who places FOD in an engine intake for whatever reason is a bloody fool because Sod's Law means that it is just asking for trouble!

So do you know what the reason was? Did someone just think it was a good idea at the time or was it part of the procedure and if so at whose instigation?

I think that is part of the problem, lack of procedure. As part of my time spent as a Victor liney we did intake checks routinely, they were part of any see off, we also had a crew chief on the mic who was in overall charge, These guys probaby didn't have that or a 'team' of regular guys who knew what the others were doing. I agree with Ginetta though, placing anything in an intake is insane and if these were placed there for a purpose it should have been entered in the F700

[TinyCappo]

With such low usage it is more than likely part of the short term preservation requirements. But these are possibly the ones written when the vulcan was in service where there were lineys and flems crawling all over them multiple times a day to maintain the QRF.

With some high bypass engines we pack out the rear of the fan with desicant bags prior to offwing storage. So its not unusual for engines to have dessicant placed in them.

It is however unusual for what should have been 3 independant visual inspections to have not been carried out.

[Dr Jekyll]

It's interesting that only one engine had the silica in at the time the engines were started. As if there was a process for removing the bags that was only partly followed. Or someone put an extra bag in out of misplaced initiative.

[TinyCappo]

Ali Chappussy said:

TinyCappo said:

Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as this?

I did enjoy this one!

Height of the intakes are not that different to the outboard engines of a 747, yet they are checked prior to every flight.

What tickles you about what is nothing more than gross negligence?

[Kitchski]

ocallen said:

I'm not sure if its been mentioned here but we only have this fabulous plane still flying because of The Walton family who own Bruntingthorpe airfield. They initially rescued it before the Trust took over, they are real petrolheads who owned the original TVR Mongoose, Monica bits, Honda S800 with an Alfa engine, race Lotus 7 as a road car, a batch of Atoms, xj220, maybe Pistonheads can ask all followers for a donation ? I certainly would send in £20.

I've seen it fly overhead when I was walking my dog in a wood, no other sound, just this awesome sound that probably hasn't been repeated since the age of the dinasaurs. Seeing it, listening to it, it was a machine that seeing it take off on a mission would have spelt the final act upon an enemy. It has been the deterrant to our foes, the salvation of our lands.

They don't get enough mention in the whole story IMO and truthfully speaking I think once it's flying days are up it should return to Bruntingthorpe in it's own hanger. Keep it tidy and bring it out on the CWJ days and let it rip the tarmac up with the Victor, Lightnings and Bucaneers etc.

[Hooli]

TinyCappo said:

Ali Chappussy said:

TinyCappo said:

Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as this?

I did enjoy this one!

Height of the intakes are not that different to the outboard engines of a 747, yet they are checked prior to every flight.

What tickles you about what is nothing more than gross negligence?

The intakes are a touch shorter on a 747 are they not? & therefore a damn sight easier to see into from below.

[will261058]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

RedLeicester said:

Seriously noddy mistake

More like Criminal Negligence!

Who the hell places FOD in an engine intake on purpose and, having done so, fails to record it accurately?

Standard practice to but silica gel bags in the intake to prevent corrosion in uninstalled engines. There must be an open entry for these to be removed on the engine installation paperwork. These bags would have been ingested the first time the engine was started therefore it would have happened during the post installation ground runs and not a pre flight check. This is normally a groundcrew task not aircrew. Notwithstanding this a walkround and intake check is still required.

[fozluvscars]

Saw one of these for the first time at Southend air show as a boy....the noise and sheer size of it took my breath away. Such a shame that my children won't experience the same shock and awe as I did, but in these times of austerity, there are worthier causes for such large sums of cash.

[TinyCappo]

Hooli said:

TinyCappo said:

Ali Chappussy said:

TinyCappo said:

Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as this?

I did enjoy this one!

Height of the intakes are not that different to the outboard engines of a 747, yet they are checked prior to every flight.

What tickles you about what is nothing more than gross negligence?

The intakes are a touch shorter on a 747 are they not? & therefore a damn sight easier to see into from below.

The intakes are a touch shorter yes but when the Outboard engines on a 747 are 4.5m up in the air you still need to get up to atleast 4m to see that there is nothing lying on the floor of the nacelle....like a dessicant bag for instance...

Bottom line is they should have been checked and were not. I just find it scary that 3 seperate inspections should have been performed and were not.

[Kitchski]

will261058 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

RedLeicester said:

Seriously noddy mistake

More like Criminal Negligence!

Who the hell places FOD in an engine intake on purpose and, having done so, fails to record it accurately?

Standard practice to but silica gel bags in the intake to prevent corrosion in uninstalled engines. There must be an open entry for these to be removed on the engine installation paperwork. These bags would have been ingested the first time the engine was started therefore it would have happened during the post installation ground runs and not a pre flight check. This is normally a groundcrew task not aircrew. Notwithstanding this a walkround and intake check is still required.

Always wondered why they don't have a luminous strap attached to them with a little weight on the end to dangle out of the intakes so it's known whether they're present or not without even looking in.
Unless they have to stay in there when the red covers go in. In which case, attach the strap to the back of the red cover.

Simple stuff really. I should imagine whoever's at fault for that one feels a bit st.

[mrloudly]

Why didn't they just shove them into the jet-pipe? With bungs in both ends it'll soon remove all the moisture from within the engine....

I haven't seen any reports yet, I guess it'll be published as she's on the civil register.

[TinyCappo]

Despite there being an uncontained failure of the LPC on engine one due to the ingestion of the bags. Which then mashed eng2 with the debris. The AAIB are not investigating. Its going to be an Internal investigation affair only.

[mrloudly]

TinyCappo said:

Despite there being an uncontained failure of the LPC on engine one due to the ingestion of the bags. Which then mashed eng2 with the debris. The AAIB are not investigating. Its going to be an Internal investigation affair only.

This does surprise me... It's not the only jet operated on the civil register and mistakes are to be learnt from after all... (So the boys and girls at the CAA say...)

[TinyCappo]

mrloudly said:

TinyCappo said:

Despite there being an uncontained failure of the LPC on engine one due to the ingestion of the bags. Which then mashed eng2 with the debris. The AAIB are not investigating. Its going to be an Internal investigation affair only.

This does surprise me... It's not the only jet operated on the civil register and mistakes are to be learnt from after all... (So the boys and girls at the CAA say...)

It is understandable its not like theres an AD to be raised at the end the investigation to warn other operators....

[mrloudly]

TinyCappo said:

mrloudly said:

TinyCappo said:

Despite there being an uncontained failure of the LPC on engine one due to the ingestion of the bags. Which then mashed eng2 with the debris. The AAIB are not investigating. Its going to be an Internal investigation affair only.

This does surprise me... It's not the only jet operated on the civil register and mistakes are to be learnt from after all... (So the boys and girls at the CAA say...)

It is understandable its not like theres an AD to be raised at the end the investigation to warn other operators....

"AD's" Generally have nothing to do with operational incidents they emanate from engineering/maint reports and are type/part specific. Bringing all operators attention to the importance of checking intakes before start/taxi is just the sort of thing the CAA love, after all, we all know
they've never cocked up...

[will261058]

will261058 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

RedLeicester said:

Seriously noddy mistake

More like Criminal Negligence!

Who the hell places FOD in an engine intake on purpose and, having done so, fails to record it accurately?

Standard practice to but silica gel bags in the intake to prevent corrosion in uninstalled engines. There must be an open entry for these to be removed on the engine installation paperwork. These bags would have been ingested the first time the engine was started therefore it would have happened during the post installation ground runs and not a pre flight check. This is normally a groundcrew task not aircrew. Notwithstanding this a walkround and intake check is still required.

Actually I was talking ste when I wrote the above! Silica gel bags are not put in the intake at all, they are draped in bandoliers over the top of the engine casing while the engine is in its MVP transportation bag. VPI paper is placed in the intake behind the IGVs and the Ist stage LP Comp blades as a vapour barrier. The pics of the guy in the intake with the bags suggests to me that perhaps they were being used as a cushion and nobody took them out!