Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by planenut on May 25, 2018, 07:37:12 PM »
I appreciate your time and comments.
2
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by dee on May 25, 2018, 06:52:32 PM »
Thanks for the update.
3
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by steve w on May 25, 2018, 01:08:54 PM »
Thanks for the insight Steve.
4
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by SteveL on May 25, 2018, 11:52:11 AM »
Andy,

I can offer some views on your questions:

1)   The hangar is very much a live project and getting the aircraft under cover and fully accessible again is the top priority. The Trust has said this week that you should expect news on this soon; because there are other organisations involved (including DSA), everyone needs to agree on any announcements that might be made.

2)   The current funding model is designed to get us to the point where XH558 is back inside and (at the very least) H3 type activities can take place and revenue generated. The team are trying very hard to make it work. It is not a realistic prospect that ten years from now, things will be sustainable if they remained as they are at the moment and it would be difficult at that point to fulfil the charitable objectives/demonstrate public benefit to a credible degree (in my view). 

3)   No aircraft is guaranteed operation at the airport; it needs to satisfy the relevant people that it is safe and that authority can obviously be withdrawn from any operator at the airport’s discretion. As stated in the Q&A from last September, it was relatively simple to show that XH558 was safe to use the runway when it had a PtF, but less so after its expiry at the end of 2015. There was however an understanding on all sides that it was part of the plan and it was worked on in 2016, but of course came to an abrupt end in the December when it became apparent that the aircraft would need to be stored. The planned new hangar gives us a chance to restate and agree with DSA exactly what our operational requirements are for XH558, WK163 and any visiting aircraft, while getting the aircraft back inside would (in my view) provide a confidence boost for the airport in terms of quality assurance. The airport has definitely not said that the Vulcan will never fast taxy at DSA; I believe we will get there.
5
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by PhillyJ on May 24, 2018, 10:46:53 AM »
I think I'm a FG, not sure as not heard a lot recently so who knows?
6
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by ascot5046 on May 24, 2018, 08:44:42 AM »
It's all very well to suggest that a no-blame culture surrounds the silica gel incident and it has a parallel in the RAF's "I learned about flying from that" stories. The UKAR claim is really off squonk! Compare these bags with surgical swabs for a moment - they are alway counted "out" after an operation. Result - no risk of contamination/infection/sepsis/death. Now consider if the engines had exploded after V1/rotate and, as has happened with Vulcans before, were not contained?

Someone signed off the B/F servicing and the result must rest with that person. 

BUT.........was this the seed that has spawned the (unconfirmed) claims that the airport will never allow fast taxi runs?

BTW, I am still being contacted as a founding guardian even though I cancelled my subscription way back last year. Paperwork, it would seem, is not keeping up with reality - ha! - how many FG's are still active?
7
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by wcg on May 23, 2018, 07:06:22 PM »
That would be for Taff, Sam & any of the others to decide, given that the accusation was aimed at them.
8
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by planenut on May 23, 2018, 06:36:51 PM »
All well and good slagging off DanO', but it still doesn't answer the accusation regarding 'silicagate' though.

Do you really think there would be any explanation after all this time; speculation achieves nothing.
9
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by wcg on May 23, 2018, 04:54:57 PM »
All well and good slagging off DanO', but it still doesn't answer the accusation regarding 'silicagate' though.
10
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« Last post by planenut on May 22, 2018, 04:14:27 PM »
Sadly, the days of "Dan oh not again" are not past.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10