Talk:1956 London Heathrow Avro Vulcan crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Conjecture

I removed this Para until a reference can be given to a published source confirming the conjecture.

There remains conjecture that the co-pilot, Harry Broadcast, over-ruled advice to land at an RAF base due to the weather. Whether Squadron Leader Howard ignored this advice due to the waiting press and VIPs at Heathrow is unknown.[citation needed]

--Petebutt (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've located a source that references the book The Hidden Truth by former RAF signaller Maurice Hamlin. Using this reference I have added a section including the claims made by the author.
    talk) 10:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"ignored three direct orders to divert away from Heathrow due to the poor weather conditions (noting other aircraft had already been diverted). Pilots, he goes on to say, cannot ignore these orders" - not true. Ground Controllers are not in a position to 'order' an aircraft landing to divert, the aircraft may not have sufficient fuel to do so. This decision is the aircraft Captain's.
The accident cause was due to the Heathrow manual GCA system's inherent lag, and to the controllers being unfamiliar with the aircraft's unusually-high-for-Heathrow, but-normal rate-of-descent for a Vulcan, which meant the controller unknowingly updated the pilot with his height at too infrequent intervals: [1]
Heathrow's controllers were familiar with landing slow piston-engined airliners such as the Argonaut, Stratocruiser, and Constellation.
There was in any case no need for the Vulcan to divert, it was equipped for a GCA and could have landed safely. Unfortunately the need for reducing lag in the GCA systems was only discovered with this accident. Heathrow is a civilian aerodrome. Unlike an RAF one, they had no experience of blind landing what was for the time, a fast jet. If they had known they needed to, they would have given much more frequent height and position reports. The accident had another effect - the Vulcan was one of the first aircraft qualified for full autoland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.200 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.voy.com/130994/948.html or another site hosting a copy of the same content. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials"
if you are.)

For

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Misleading caption

"A Vulcan B.2 similar to the accident aircraft". The caption is misleading somewhat, as XA897, being the first Vulcan delivered to RAF, belonged to the first production batch of B.1 version and thus had almost straight leading edge, while the pictured B.2 aircraft has cranked/curved leading edge and larger wing.


So, it has to be B.1 version to say that the aircraft is similar to the accident aircraft.
Three photos of actual XA897 are here [2], but I doubt these are free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.114.36 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1956_London_Heathrow_Avro_Vulcan_crash&oldid=1196016412"