Health and Safety shoots down entire RAF

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

The Liberals have succeeded where Adolf failed

 

Most of the historic aircraft that make up the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) have been grounded due to an engine issue.

A Lancaster bomber, two Hurricanes and three Spitfire planes are all affected by the problem.

The BBMF has three other Spitfires with different engines which are currently unavailable for other reasons.

A spokesman for RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, where the BBMF is based, said safety was its key priority.

He confirmed an appearance at Weymouth Carnival had to be cancelled on Wednesday afternoon.

The World War Two aircraft, which are all original models, have been grounded temporarily while an engine issue is checked.

The RAF spokesman was unable to say when the planes would be back in the skies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-40957271

Edited By Ady1 on 17/08/2017 07:46:46

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

[LambtonParticipant @lambton]

Ady1,

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Surely if a fault has been identified with any aircraft engine the correct and responsible thing is to ground the aircraft until the fault has been rectified. There is a very true saying "there are no laybys in the sky"

Eric

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

I recently read a book by a WW2 test pilot. He describes a design fault with some marks of the Merlin where a gear would fail and the engine seize, leading to inevitable crashes. When there are only a few of these aircraft left, anything that would threaten them, and the safety of spectators at displays, should be avoided surely?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Ady1 on 17/08/2017 07:46:02:

The Liberals have succeeded where Adolf failed

…

Edited By Ady1 on 17/08/2017 07:46:46

The RAF spokesperson actually said 'engineers had taken the action as a precautionary measure to safeguard BBMF crews and the historic aircraft they fly'.

Probably liberal engineers though – those guys are the pits. Health and Safety gone mad. When it's my time to go, I want the last flying Lancaster Bomber to crash on my head…

Dave

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

ADY1 does the BBMF encompass the whole of the RAF? talk about fake news!

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Posted by Ady1 on 17/08/2017 07:46:02:

The Liberals have succeeded where Adolf failed

"adjective: liberal

1.

willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."

Not yet a term of abuse in this country.

Rod

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Nothing to do with Health & Safety. Simply standard practice with all aircraft, civil and military.

If there is a perceived problem affecting a single mark, item or type, in this case the "Merlin" engine, they are grounded whilst tests and inspections take place to ascertain the extent of the problem.

Whats wrong with that approach?

Common sense (and good engineering practice) dictates that, its just inconvenient for the Shows.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Not an unusual occurrence for RAF aircraft to be grounded for checks and subsequent rectification, carried out numerous fleet checks during my 22 years service, problems usually identified on a Friday afternoon which meant working flat out through the weekend to get all the checks done.

Dave

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

It sounds like Health & Safety has been infiltrated by the Russians.

Edited By blowlamp on 17/08/2017 09:51:59

[Andy CarruthersParticipant @andycarruthers33275]

Presumably the problem affects many more Merlin engined aircraft apart from just BBMF aircraft…?

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

As pointed out above, the Liberal party have nothing to do with this – but don't let that upset your prejudices!!

Having, as a professional, had to deal with the results of aircraft 'failures', the dictum of "Safety is no accident" sits much better with me than the "Oh, Boo Hoo, some nasty person has stopped my toys being allowed out to keep me amused for ten minutes" Has the memory of the Shoreham Hunter carnage really faded that quickly?

Some VERY odd values around!

rgds

Bill

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

"Health and Safety shoots down entire RAF" – The headline did make me laugh though. I'm not sure whether it was Ady's or a quoted one.

Last time I checked, merlin's were not powering our front line RAF defence capability

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Maybe they should be. I'm certain that Spitfires and Hurricanes could operate from the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier. Probably even Lancasters too. I suppose one would need to build some Swordfish's for anti-ship work.

Edited By Mark Rand on 17/08/2017 12:02:38

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Sounds as we are channelling The Daily Hell or Daily Express. Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Posted by Roderick Jenkins on 17/08/2017 09:21:54:

Posted by Ady1 on 17/08/2017 07:46:02:

The Liberals have succeeded where Adolf failed

"adjective: liberal

1.

willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."

Not yet a term of abuse in this country.

Rod

Yes, beneficial in moderation but not without a catch..

I forget (May have been Carl Sagan) who once said "It is good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"

Michael W

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

DP

Edited By Michael-w on 17/08/2017 12:20:16

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Posted by Michael-w on 17/08/2017 12:17:11:

Posted by Roderick Jenkins on 17/08/2017 09:21:54:

"adjective: liberal

1.

willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."

Not yet a term of abuse in this country.

Rod

Yes, beneficial in moderation but not without a catch..

Really? I can accept your differing view but the definition neither says or implies liberal thought means agreeing with all of the opinions of others – just respecting and accepting.

Jon

[Brian WoodParticipant @brianwood45127]

I have to agree with KWIL and Cornish Jack

This correspondence just makes me angry

Having been at the front end of aero engine fault investigation in my past employment, the first action with an identified fault is to establish what effect it will have on operational flying. If it means single engined aircraft may fall from the sky then the aircraft is grounded until the problem is fixed.

To do anything else just to satisfy the pressure to fly and display as in this example is both dangerous, irresponsible and quite frankly unthinkable. Health and Safety has got nothing whatever to do with it.

Think of the muck in the fan that would follow doing what some seem to be calling for. They should be in the position of knocking on the doors of widows and families to explain why they sanctioned the flight knowing things were potentially lethal.

Brian

[Steve WithnellParticipant @stevewithnell34426]

Posted by Jon Gibbs on 17/08/2017 10:30:33:

"Health and Safety shoots down entire RAF" – The headline did make me laugh though. I'm not sure whether it was Ady's or a quoted one.

Last time I checked, merlin's were not powering our front line RAF defence capability

Not yet, but soon…

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

…but the headline "Reasonable decision by engineers prevents accident that may have caused death of crew and spectators" isn't going to sell many papers

[Steve WithnellParticipant @stevewithnell34426]

Then of course there was that privately owned Spitfire that crashed at an airshow some years back. CAA determined it had been flying on one magneto for six months or so.

H&S? I went to my Dads last weekend to demolish an old shed, so I put on my hardhat – Dad said "there is no H&S nonsense here" so I through it back into the car. Banged my head twice – "That's because you are used to wearing a hard hat instead of looking what you are doing!". Anyway, won a nice little bandsaw out of the escapade

Steve

(But I didn't find anymore SuperAdept's Neil! – but a stash of old gear boxes – if you are a Singer 9/10/Roadster rennovator 30's/40's, drop me a PM)

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Seems odd that they have grounded all the Merlin engined aircraft, there will be 4 or 5 different Mks of Merlin among those planes, and they are quite different in power alone, although the basic engine is pretty much the same.

Perhaps they found an oil leak, might have to change them all to Packard Merlins.

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 17/08/2017 13:36:43

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Steve Withnell on 17/08/2017 12:59:28:

…

H&S? I went to my Dads last weekend to demolish an old shed, so I put on my hardhat – Dad said "there is no H&S nonsense here" so I through it back into the car. Banged my head twice – "That's because you are used to wearing a hard hat instead of looking what you are doing!".

…

Steve

…

 

If you fancy having a bit of cruel fun at your dad's expense, mock up a letter from a 'Not Your Fault Accident' Claim company and send it to him. Say that you have suffered a whip-lash injury and will be unable to work for at least a year and are claiming £300,000 in consequential damages. Follow this up with a forgery from the Elf and Safety Enforcement Division notifying him that he failed to report the accident, and they are prosecuting in the Crown Court where the penalty is an unlimited fine, or  imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, or both. Please will he supply the name of his solicitor and a copy of the Risk Assessment?

No doubt he can take a joke and won't have a heart attack or soil himself.

Seriously though, I strongly suspect that chaps dismissive of H&S issues have never had to sort out the administrative mess caused by an accident claim or legal action. Or to pay the fines, compensation and increased insurance premiums that result. Every H&S cynic should spend a year in his employers back office doing nothing but post-accident paperwork; that would learn `em!

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 17/08/2017 13:45:34

[RRMBKParticipant @rrmbk]

but the headline "Reasonable decision by engineers prevents accident that may have caused death of crew and spectators" isn't going to sell many papers

+1 for Jon's comment. The action to ground until the fault is known is entirely rational and appropriate.

The journalist seeking a headline is possibly not knowledgeable enough to have any idea of the implications, and clearly knows nothing about H&S legislation. This is not so much a legal requirement as sound engineering practice and conservative decision making on the grounds of public safety.

+1 for Cornish Jack and the Shoreham incident.

Some peoples memories are short and this combined with the fact that very few journalists today will let the truth get in the way of a good story, means we as a respected engineering forum should refrain from ratcheting up such erroneous stories. There may be others looking at our words who believe everything they are spoon fed! we should not add fuel to nonsensical embers.

But get them back in the air soon please as HMS Queen Elizabeth is desperate for some decent aircraft !!

[Author]

Posts