media coverage

[Xplumberlives]

Selfcontainedunderwaterbreathingapparatusman!

Put up a post on the newbie section and we'll all
get to say "Hi!".

Dan4th

OR maybe it's Jacque Cousteau!

[Pujgnie]

OR maybe it's Jacque Cousteau!

Showing your age now XP..

[Sad Sam3]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Come on, you're always so busy telling us how easy it would be to operate a Vulcan at a profit at least reply to Pat's post, cos he's gone into far more detail than anyone else could have done.

You may have got the impression the engineers are getting a little bit stroppy, and you would be right. We read constant abuse aimed at the trust, while it may not be aimed at us specifically it wears you down cos it is sort of guilty by association.

[Scubaman]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Come on, you're always so busy telling us how easy it would be to operate a Vulcan at a profit at least reply to Pat's post, cos he's gone into far more detail than anyone else could have done.

You may have got the impression the engineers are getting a little bit stroppy, and you would be right. We read constant abuse aimed at the trust, while it may not be aimed at us specifically it wears you down cos it is sort of guilty by association.

Sam can i say i have the upmost respect for all the engineers I am just a lowly car mechanic would love to work on 558 you are all doing a great job keep up the good work hope to see you at waddo this year

[Air]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Sadly that's because it seems some people are more interested in scoring points in a ridiculous spelling contest than actually being interested in what's being said.

I'd just like to say thank you to Pat and Sam for finally putting some facts into what it takes to actually run an organisation like TVOC.
It's reaffirmed my thoughts that it wouldn't be a simple case of 'AN Other' takes over, or the club keeps things running until a buyer is found as has been suggested here more than once.

Personally I don't care who runs the trust/company or whatever, but if it folds, then it's almost certain we wont see 558 flying this year. Unless its a one off ferry flight to the scrap yard.

Obviously my opinions will be less than favourable here (as usual), but hey 'free speech' and all that. I'm always up for some good honest debate.

[Xplumberlives]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Sadly that's because it seems some people are more interested in scoring points in a ridiculous spelling contest than actually being interested in what's being said.

I'd just like to say thank you to Pat and Sam for finally putting some facts into what it takes to actually run an organisation like TVOC.
It's reaffirmed my thoughts that it wouldn't be a simple case of 'AN Other' takes over, or the club keeps things running until a buyer is found as has been suggested here more than once.

Personally I don't care who runs the trust/company or whatever, but if it folds, then it's almost certain we wont see 558 flying this year. Unless its a one off ferry flight to the scrap yard.

Obviously my opinions will be less than favourable here (as usual), but hey 'free speech' and all that. I'm always up for some good honest debate.

Thanks for your input.

[Za150]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Sadly that's because it seems some people are more interested in scoring points in a ridiculous spelling contest than actually being interested in what's being said.

I'd just like to say thank you to Pat and Sam for finally putting some facts into what it takes to actually run an organisation like TVOC.
It's reaffirmed my thoughts that it wouldn't be a simple case of 'AN Other' takes over, or the club keeps things running until a buyer is found as has been suggested here more than once.

Personally I don't care who runs the trust/company or whatever, but if it folds, then it's almost certain we wont see 558 flying this year. Unless its a one off ferry flight to the scrap yard.

Obviously my opinions will be less than favourable here (as usual), but hey 'free speech' and all that. I'm always up for some good honest debate.

I agree Air, like you all i want is a flying Vulcan looked after by the fantasic bunch of engineers we have now!

It will fly, i have faith

[Dan4th]

I just have to say, Sam, that you guys that
do the work to keep her healthy and flightworthy
are our HEROS on here! I've thought about it
a lot since Pat's post, and in my own comments
about the Trust going Bust, I only ever meant
that the head of the beast could be replaced
but that all else from Smiler on down would
remain intact and in place. I guess I should have
been clearer in that respect.

I doubt very much if a new and better qualified
top management were to be installed that this
would result in the removal of CAA approval.
I believe Pat thought I was talking about having
a whole new staff from top to bottom. All I want
is a situation where you guys can get on with it
without all the drama.

But I STILL say, as I did before, that THE Most
Important Thing is for the Vulcan to Fly.

Dan4th

[P.eames]

So Pat posts War & Peace, he explains exactly why no one else is going to be able to operate 558 this year, or possibly ever, and the only comment is that he can't spell!

Come on, you're always so busy telling us how easy it would be to operate a Vulcan at a profit at least reply to Pat's post, cos he's gone into far more detail than anyone else could have done.

You may have got the impression the engineers are getting a little bit stroppy, and you would be right. We read constant abuse aimed at the trust, while it may not be aimed at us specifically it wears you down cos it is sort of guilty by association.

Thats one of the reasons i don't bother with this forum much, to begin with it was amusing but almost every thread is full of spelling nonsense which leaves anything of any worth (such as Mr Pat's post) buried under what can only be described as crap. I dare say nobody stopped to give his efforts any thought while you were playing at pedants?

[Sad Sam3]

I think you need to read Pats reply again then Dan, as he said the exposition is an extremely detailed document that states exactly who is responsible for what, including the management.

If those personnel are not involved the whole thing will have to be started again, the time scale is not workable.

And it is not just the troops at the coal face who are detailed, without TVOC as it stands I'm afraid you don't get a flying Vulcan.

In case you still don't believe what you have read, and what we have been trying to tell you in a subtle kind of way for quite some time now, the CAA are very happy with the way the aircraft is being run at the moment. Without this team we will have to start again.

[P.eames]

Is it T.V.O.C. itself that is needed or the personnel within it ?

[Sad Sam3]

Well you'd have to read the exposition which is extremely detailed, suffice to say it's not like going down to Hendy's to pick up a second hand Mondeo which has just had a greasy rag wiped over it by the bloke in in the workshop.

It's probably not even as simple as buying Hendy's, all their stoke and the workforce and then start selling cars.

[Dan4th]

I just wrote a whole long response and
then sent it off into dreamland.

Vulcan needs to fly. Certain individuals
need to step aside. Really MUST step
aside. Fine before, not capable or fit
for this stage. We need far less DRAMA.
We need a flying Vulcan with those that
have put their hearts and souls into her
continuing to do what they do so well.

Those who do NOT do so well...........

That's it.

Dan4th

[Xplumberlives]

I just wrote a whole long response and
then sent it off into dreamland.

Vulcan needs to fly. Certain individuals
need to step aside. Really MUST step
aside. Fine before, not capable or fit
for this stage. We need far less DRAMA.
We need a flying Vulcan with those that
have put their hearts and souls into her
continuing to do what they do so well.

Those who do NOT do so well...........

That's it.

Dan4th

Well just have to wait and see!

[Mayfly]

playing Devils Advocate here:

I do know the CAA are very hands on with who is employed in what position within VTST. [They were very concerned who would replace DT when he decided to leave].

Likewise if, heaven forbid an accident, were to befall someone in a management position or even if they themselves found another position within a different company, there has to be a way those personal can be replaced or the whole kit & caboodle collapses anyway.

[Old Rigger]

There has been a change of Pilot, there have been engineers added/changed and a change at the top of the organisation as far as I can remember and it has not kept the aircraft on the ground because of those changes. As MF said if something, god forbids, happens to any of the 'team', from what has been said there appears to be no provision for this so it will all get complicated and 558 will not fly until everything is buttoned down again.

I have no doubt mis-read what has been written by Pat, but then I can only respond from my perspective having read it several times.

[Xplumberlives]

Presumably those already working on the "Endeavour" are the ONLY ones allowed to and that list is carved in stone and cannot be altered. As is pointed out above, one motoring accident could theoretically close down the whole project if one key member of the Team was injured enough to be off work. Or even worse that one of the supporting cars was involved in an accident that hurt three or four of the Engineers.

How close to this situation did we get when Taff was layed up in a wheel chair, I doubt he could have checked and oversigned any work carried out on 558 for a considerable period of time.

[Ducati Boy]

Thanks to all who read my "War and Peace" and appreciated my efforts you are all most welcome, it was perhaps a little lengthy ,

Are you sure you didn't mean to put UNINFORMED?

XPL, Normally I would have to say you are the UNINFORMED one in response to your question. But, as I have UNIFORMLY INFORMED you, you now have no excuse to be UNINFORMED, ergo (thats Latin that is) have no reason to question my spelling, this time! Taffs title as Crew Chief arises from term Aircraft Servicing Chief in the aircraft manuals. Suitably trained and authorised personnel were available for that duty, such as John Hufton and myself. In the event John stepped in for Taff and did the job superbly,the lucky dog got to fly, I was on light duties at the time .

D4th, What you doubt the CAA may do, has no bearing on what must be done if the terms of the agreed BCAR A8-20 Exposition, which both MA and TVOC must meet, are changed. I really don't know how else I can explain the process. Any change, e.g. critical personnel as nominated and recorded on the CAA Form 458, means suspension of authority to operate or work on the aircraft, pending provision of a replacement acceptable to the CAA. That means Engineering Director and another 5 key posts below him. We simply can not operate outside the authorisation document.


Finally and this is not naming anyone specifically, but, amused as I am with the pedants of spelling and grammar and I can take a joke, I can see Sad Sam's point. Serious and informative posts are perhaps not the best place to be pedantic. Lots of time and effort is put in by very busy engineers to keep you folks informed and the odd spelling mistake is possibly forgiveable, not that I admit to any. But, I have to say, if folks don't take our input seriously enough to at least read it, thats their choice, just remember there is no gain for any of the engineers in posting on this forum, only the small pleasure of bringing light to the darkness of ignorance.

[Jigsaw]

just remember there is no gain for any of the engineers in posting on this forum, only the small pleasure of bringing light to the darkness of ignorance.

That is very much appreciated and I hope you keep it up ( Oooh, I sounded just like my wife then)

[Mayfly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8508604.stm

[Jigsaw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8508604.stm

Thanks MF, nice to see a bit more exposure.

Where is this Suderland they mention?

Seriously though, time is getting on and running out

[Code monkey]

Thanks to all who read my "War and Peace" and appreciated my efforts you are all most welcome, it was perhaps a little lengthy ,

Are you sure you didn't mean to put UNINFORMED?

XPL, Normally I would have to say you are the UNINFORMED one in response to your question. But, as I have UNIFORMLY INFORMED you, you now have no excuse to be UNINFORMED, ergo (thats Latin that is) have no reason to question my spelling, this time! Taffs title as Crew Chief arises from term Aircraft Servicing Chief in the aircraft manuals. Suitably trained and authorised personnel were available for that duty, such as John Hufton and myself. In the event John stepped in for Taff and did the job superbly,the lucky dog got to fly, I was on light duties at the time .

D4th, What you doubt the CAA may do, has no bearing on what must be done if the terms of the agreed BCAR A8-20 Exposition, which both MA and TVOC must meet, are changed. I really don't know how else I can explain the process. Any change, e.g. critical personnel as nominated and recorded on the CAA Form 458, means suspension of authority to operate or work on the aircraft, pending provision of a replacement acceptable to the CAA. That means Engineering Director and another 5 key posts below him. We simply can not operate outside the authorisation document.


Finally and this is not naming anyone specifically, but, amused as I am with the pedants of spelling and grammar and I can take a joke, I can see Sad Sam's point. Serious and informative posts are perhaps not the best place to be pedantic. Lots of time and effort is put in by very busy engineers to keep you folks informed and the odd spelling mistake is possibly forgiveable, not that I admit to any. But, I have to say, if folks don't take our input seriously enough to at least read it, thats their choice, just remember there is no gain for any of the engineers in posting on this forum, only the small pleasure of bringing light to the darkness of ignorance.

Another quality post Pat - many thanks for bringing some calmness and clarity to the debate.

[Ducati Boy]

Thanks code monkey,
Mate, I am only too glad to attempt to remain calm in the face of adversity, calmness = clarity. I aim to please by giving genuine information, although that may not always please or generate calmness .

We engineers don't enter into argument over factual data, thats why we are engineers. However, I believe my colleagues and I do get cross when the personal grudge card is played! Don't like grudge holders myself, their self centred, self-seeking, usually living in the past and refusing to recognise a present or future that does not involve them. They make a hard job harder and just slow everything up for the rest of us, who just want to get on and achieve the objective.

There seems to be an influx of the grudge holders appearing on Iconic lately. I guess having cried wolf too often on 'other' forums and failed to get a platform for their ire (Xpl not a spelling mistake, that means anger ) they are migrating to the calmer waters of Iconic in the hope of finding clear water to muddy up!

The good point about this forum has been "reasoned" discussion (mostly), stimulated by sensible questions, clarified by those who actually know and all made possible by normal gentlemanly behaviour and reasonable unbiased moderators. Anyone, who can't meet that criteria, should quite frankly *sling your hook*!

Personally, I was just trying to explain the process which we all at TVOC, Engineering Director down, have to abide by when operating a potentially lethal, whopping great, metal brick , either static or hurtling about at 200 knots plus.

cheers

p.s. should I have said "gentleladyily" too??? Xpl & Spitfire heres your chance!

* sling your hook* Nautical term meaning Foxtrot Oscar.

[Spitfire]

The good point about this forum has been "reasoned" discussion (mostly), stimulated by sensible questions, clarified by those who actually know and all made possible by normal gentlemanly behaviour and reasonable unbiased moderators. Anyone, who can't meet that criteria, should quite frankly sling their hook!

Personally, I was just trying to explain the process which we all at TVOC, Engineering Director down, have to abide by when operating a potentially lethal, whopping great, metal brick , either static or hurtling about at 200 knots plus.

cheers

p.s. should I have said "gentleladyily" too??? Xpl & Spitfire heres your chance!

Having read your posts in this and other sections - and noted similar comments by other posters - I did make a decision that perhaps my pedantic ways were wearing thin after an intial fun period - so I took the decision to ask opinion and it was clear I was right - so, after initially thinking I may just lower my stupid standards I have since decided to back off completely and let nature take its course.

I had not originally intended pedantry to be 'ranked' and made so much of - and I suppose I just got swept along with it. But this Forums self moderation has proved itself and I hope I've put that right.
Also having been given the honour to become a moderator I did feel it's time I grew up and lived with it as there are now, perhaps, more pressing matters

So the upshot of that is you need not concern yourself with my responses re words like 'gentlemanly' and I have nothing but admiration for you engineer types that are working so diligently on our behalf and don't wish you to think I take it lightly if I have ever niggled you by being pedantic about a serious post.

New start - Clean slate - now get back to your spanners

[Ducati Boy]

Spitters old chap, no offence taken or intended re-yourself and you have just proved the point about "gentlemanly behaviour" on Iconic

Now about my question, should the term be "gentleladily" or is that one we need to invent and add to the dictionary due to the need for gender PC?

Anticipating a twack from Mayfly, I'm off to get me hard hat!