Vulcan - Sunday 21st Mail

[HZ123]

An article stated that work will cease on the intended 'flying Vulcan' within the next few weeks as the organisers are now in excess of £4 millions short of funding and even with it work is so far behind it may not fly for 2 a further 2 years.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

A pity, but if that figure is correct one has to wonder where that money would go if they could get it. Just walk around a Vulcan, as I did 2 weeks ago at Carlisle, and try to work out how it can cost £4m! It's mind-boggling.

[Blacksheep]

and try to work out how it can cost £4m! It's mind-boggling.Not if you've ever worked on a Vulcan its not.

In its heyday, fully supported with new spares and test equipment a simple Before Flight Inspection took around 35 manhours. Plus several tons of Avtur, gallons and gallons of lubricating oil and hydraulic fluid, hundreds of litres of oxygen and nitrogen, starter cartridges etc. After it flew, the same ten man groundcrew might typically take another 35 manhours or so to do the After Flight Inspection and clearing the snags in the Form 700 would bring in more troops and raise that to about 120 manhours. Altogether thats about triple the effort needed for a full 'A' check on a B767. At today's rates, even with a lot of the work done by volunteers, that'd be a few thousand quids worth. Just for one turn around.

For a Minor* a Vulcan would keep a whole third of the MEAS establishment busy for two weeks. Plus the Mod Squad.

Today we're looking at a task far bigger even than a Major - re-assembling an aged heap, full of corrosion and using mostly custom made parts. There's obsolete safety equipment to be made safe and serviceable. There's thousands of one-off O ring seals to change - they're shelf lifed you see, so like the tyres (18 of them at a time) they need to be custom made to order. The seals for our Boeings are still in production but they cost anything from US$1 to US$20 each. And you can't use old MOD stock 'cos its all life-ex.

I'm actually rather surprised its as cheap as four million, but then I guess the estimators are still wearing their rose tinted spectacles and optimists hats. What snarls me up is that they've dismantled a nice piece of history and will quite likely leave it in such a mess it can never be seen intact again. Another old beauty destroyed for nothing. I sincerely hope I'm wrong... :(

[MEON VALLEY FLYER]

Well as least there are funds to pay the rent on the hangar .............:E

[HZ123]

Should you wish to see one close up, this weekend is the Southend Air Show at the beach but there is also two open days at Southend Airport where G-VULC is on display and should be starting up I believe and doing a taxi. I am told the Vulc burns a litre a second?

[Winco]

Blacksheep,

Are you certain about your figures?
I flew the mighty tin triangle from Scampton for many years, and I have never heard of such time scales for AF's and BF's on the Vulcan. I have seen the aircraft AF'd and BF'd in much less time than you state and get airborne again within a short space of time (and NOT on a turnround servicing)
As for starter cartridges? what are you talking about? None of the Vulcans I ever flew had cartridges. Compressed air bottles yes, cartridges NO!
Methinks some of your 'gen is abit suspect old boy!
The Winco

[Tempsford]

Whilst it will be truly wonderful to see a Vulcan flying, getting it to an airworthy condition is one thing, keeping it like that is another. Sorry to put the dampers on this. What makes it even worse is that a considerable amount of money has been spent so far on the Vulcan and just up the road at Cosford a number of 'one off' airliners have been chopped up through lack of funding to conserve them.

Temps

[BEagle]

The Cosford scandal is a direct result of the total lack of interest shown by ba towards its heritage.

Whereas Lufthansa keeps a Ju52/3m airworthy for commercial passenger flying, and has a Me 108 and Saab Safir in its historic collection:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Me108.jpg

There is nothing difficult about the restoration of 558 to flying status - the standard of work is 'better than new'. But there is a need for funding still!

[Albert Driver]

No. The Cosford scandal is a direct result of the RAFM expelling the BA Collection at a time when BA is grappling with a large pension fund deficit and exceptionally high fuel costs and has no spare cash.

The "flying" Vulcan is absorbing a disproportionate share of aviation heritage spending at a time when many other large British aircraft are under the same threat as the BA unfortunates.

[Tempsford]

Albert Driver

Spot on!

Temps

[BEagle]

RAFM had to act because ba had failed to maintain the aircraft and showed no interest in their future. The aircraft were deteriorating to an extent that could no longer be ignored.

In ba it's all 'The Shareholder' - they couldn't give a stuff about anything else. Yes, they're having to cope with their own unrealistic pension scheme - but they're not alone in facing aviation fuel costs.

Any high status ba might once have enjoyed went out of the window with their 'Dirty Tricks' era - I'm proud to say that I have never flown with them since.

[A V 8]

They finished chopping up the 707 and carting off the bits on Tuesday. Yesterday they started started stripping the insides of the VC10 - so I guess that's next.

Then it will be the turn of the BAe 1-11 and the Trident.

I'm not a spotter (honest!) but it is sad to see :{ But I can't help think about how much is the maintenance costs for these 4 aircraft? A wash now and again? I don't know.

Then there's the cost of having them broken down and transported away? Could that money not have been invested in a long term future for these a/c?

[Skipness One Echo]

Having had a very long external nosey about the BA Collection just before the JCBs arrived, let's be clear. To the public they were clean and tidy enough for display. Any problems were structural and NOT immediate as otherwise they could not be allowed on public display. A period of grace for a considered disposal would not have been impossible. Incidentally, the Trident looked immaculate.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
A paint job wouldn't have gone amiss on the VC10 and 707 but they were not falling to bits, let's be clear.

[FJJP]

Winco, your memory fails you.

The Vulcan AAPP [Rover gas turbine] had a cartidge start capability, selected with oxygen enrichment or non-essentials tripped.

[Winco]

FJJP

Oh yes, youre absolutely right. I thought the way Black Sheep was going on about it tho' that he new of some 'new' way to start the 'donks!

BTW, do you agree with his figures for AF's and BF's - I don't remember them taking that long?

The Winco

[Albert Driver]

In ba it's all 'The Shareholder' - they couldn't give a stuff about anything else. Yes, they're having to cope with their own unrealistic pension scheme - but they're not alone in facing aviation fuel costs.


BEagle

If BA doesn't get a grip on its spending and begin paying dividends again very soon it will simply get taken over by Lufthansa or another European airline the way KLM was taken over by Air France. How will that help British aviation, or what's left of it?
If you think that can't happen you may well wake up after the Bank Holiday to discover nearly all the major British airports are Spanish-owned.

As to the Vulcan, I would prefer to see the few remaining large British aircraft, both military and civil, put permanently under cover than see just one aircraft, however attractive, consuming vast amounts of fuel/money in the air.

[JW411]

Albert Driver:

You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?

BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.

If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.

Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.

This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Albert Driver:
You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?
BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.
If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.
Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.
This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .


Am I missing something here? BA is an airline operating in a highly competive commercial marketplace. The purpose of the airline is to carry passengers and show a profit - nothing else. What is the incentive to BA and its shareholders to support ex-fleet aeroplanes in museums? Where is the payback? It would be unprofessional of BA to spend its shareholders money on preserving old aeroplanes without the expectation of such a payback.

In the absence of state or lottery funds, those who would like to see old aeroplanes preserved must pay for it themselves, or rely on others who will pay, or who have worked out a method of funding such preservations.

How else do you think it might happen?

[Stevemcmli]

Surely the root cause of the vandalism at Cosford and the on going Vulcan crisis is the lack of a national aviation museum and preservation strategy which should focus first and foremost on preserving and housing aviation artefacts from the United Kingdom in the way the the Musée de l'Air focuses primarily on the preservation of French aviation history.
For example the American Air Musem at Duxford is a very commendable institution, but such initiatives should not take place until our aviation heritage is properly preserved. Even if the AAM is funded privately there still remains the question of focus and available technical expertise. Likewise the apparently arbitary acquision by the Science Museum of two Lockheed types some years ago with no obvious significance to our avation history. Both these and many other activities would be properly scrutinised and directed were there a national body with the appropriate remit.
It is not BA's or the RAF's primary job to preserve our avation history - it is the Government's through a body similar to the National Trust

[DH106]

Am I missing something here? BA is an airline operating in a highly competive commercial marketplace. The purpose of the airline is to carry passengers and show a profit - nothing else. What is the incentive to BA and its shareholders to support ex-fleet aeroplanes in museums? Where is the payback? It would be unprofessional of BA to spend its shareholders money on preserving old aeroplanes without the expectation of such a payback.
How else do you think it might happen?

Exactly BA's attitude - thanks for the example.
No payback, no spenders - period. The blinkered face of pure capitalism - nothing matters but money. What a set of ****esters. :ugh:
Not a BA executive by any chance are you? :rolleyes:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

DH106

Sorry if you don't like it (I don't either), DH106, but that's how business works. I work in the IT industry where it's just the same. Not a protected public sector employee are you by any chance? :rolleyes:

[DH106]

No - I work in the IT industry !! LOL

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No - I work in the IT industry !! LOL

:) :) :) :}

SSD

[LowNSlow]

Even the much maligned Dan Dare had a collection of every type they operated that could still be found. This has preserved a few unique types for posterity.

I understand the capitalist principles but there has to be room for a bit of heritage somewhere unless we want to turn the world into a history free zone.

[Blacksheep]

As for starter cartridges? what are you talking about? None of the Vulcans I ever flew had cartridges. Either you are an extremely elderly Vulcan pilot who only flew BMk I/IAs Winco, or you know about as much about the maintenance side of life as most pilots. As I've never seen aircrew anywhere near an aircraft during prep, I assume you're referring to the abbreviated "down route" version done by the crew chief away from base? Yes you can turn an aircraft around in an hour or so, but only by either abbreviating the tasks and deferring the defects or by throwing lots of labour at it.

As an A.Fitt.E I would plod my way out to a Vulcan BMkII lugging a toolbag, Avo, Safety Ohmeter, a pair of starter cartridges for the AAPU, two AAPU starter cartridge test caps, an ammeter clampmeter and a bag of light bulbs. (In fact I've plodded out to 558 herself on more than a few occasions.) Unless I'm imagining things, apart from testing every light bulb on the aircraft, testing the fire detection and extinguishing systems (not just by pushing the test button either!), doing a battery load test, checking the load balancing on the TRUs, dropping the ELRAT to do a load-shed/standby power test and then restowing the blasted thing, instrument power check, checking the pitot heaters, gold-film windscreen test, running up the PFCUs and checking the current draw on each, the job included:

Testing the AAPU emergency start circuit using the test caps, then doing a no-volt test on the cartridge firing caps before loading the two cartridges into the breeches.

Then there would be the 700 to clear - maybe tracing a Pitot-Static leak and fixing it. Or changing a duff TRU. How's about a nice Fire-Tec snag - that could keep three guys busy for a whole day if you had to pull the jet pipe. No one brings your parts or special tools out to you. You have to go and get everything yourself. And that's just the Electrician. There were all the Fitters, Riggers, Air Radio, Air Radar, Nav Inst, Safety Equippers, Storekeepers and MT drivers too. A whole army of us in fact. But the crews seldom if ever encountered most of us.

Not to mention the drudgery of positioning and repositioning Safety Raisers, Giraffes or step ladders at various points around the aircraft. And pulling them clear again when you're done - it all takes time. Just towing an aircraft from, say Waddington's Echo 19 to Charlie 10 would take five men half an hour. That's 2.5 manhours. Then there's the crew chief and his three man starter crew. At an hour for a typical crew-in that's another four man-hours for the start up - Of course there were a few more manhours for the crew themselves - and maybe around 30 for the sortie itself - but we're talking maintenance here. ;)

So, I do know about maintaining Vulcans - and lots of other aeroplanes too. I also know exactly what the workload can be - I've been supervising or managing maintenance for forty years.

[ZH875]

- it all takes time. Just towing an aircraft from, say Waddington's Echo 19 to Charlie 10 would take five men half an hour. That's 2.5 manhours. Strange way to move aircraft, Echo Dispersal is pans 9-12 and Charlie is 17-20.

I spent many a cold wet day walking to the aircraft with the 'Fairy Air' kit, just to drop the ECM bay doors and fill the ECM cans with 5psi Nitrogen. I wonder if my right forefinger is still calibrated to 5psi.

Best job in winter was 'Engine De-Icing' Climbing down each intake hugging a large hosepipe from a 4 Therm heater, and generally kipping for 30 or so minutes before moving to the next intake.

Best 'Gotcha' I ever saw was a baby rigger being taken to change a TBC, and having the entire task explained in great detail. So he was on the safety raiser at the tail when he called clear door, the chute door poped up, and a FLM jumped out of the hole where the TBC should have been, the baby rigger almost cr*pped himself and must have broken the 4 minute mile speed on his trip back to the crew room.:p

[Blacksheep]

Strange way to move aircraft, Echo Dispersal is pans 9-12 and Charlie is 17-20. This being the 'History and Nostalgia' forum - A piece of both.

Waddington Line, 1966:
Alpha - QRA dispersal - 1 to 4. The AWACS shed was built on top of it.
Bravo - Next to the Sleaford road - 5 to 8
Charlie - N. End of conventional bomb dump - 9 to 12
Delta - S. End of conventional bomb dump 13 to 16
Echo - Next to S. End of runway - 17 to 20
Foxtrot - Station Flight, almost opposite 5 Shed and next to the compass base - 21 to 24

Line Servicing (Centralised) was between Delta and Echo. The Special Weapons store was across the Sleaford road. They would stop the traffic and trundle them across with a tarpaulin cover over the weapon.
(As if you could disguise 'Old Yeller'.) :ugh:

We'd move them regularly - to Bravo & Charlie if they were taking off on 21, to Echo & Delta if they were using 03. It was a rotten job, the moving team. That's why it was used as a punishment squad.

[ZH875]

Thanks Blacksheep.

When I arrived at Waddington in 79, Alpha (44 Sqn) was 1-4, Foxtrot 5-8, Echo (50 Sqn) 9-12, Delta (101 Sqn)13-16, Charlie 17-20 and Bravo (9 Sqn) 21-24. Charlie was overspill for E and D dispersals.

They obviously changed the direction of travel around the base. Even the runway has now 'been moved' no longer being 03/21 but 02/20.(or is it 04/22?)

Latest cock-up was extending Foxtrot dispersal such that the LOX bay is unable to work when aircraft are running etc on the side of the pan near the LOX building. Would have thought that a large brick building would have stood out when the site was surveyed..

Never got to see anything 'special' only being involved in one load on Charlie Dispersal, I had my back turned to the aircraft the whole time whilst some people did something with the weapon and bomber.

[sucksqueezeBANGstop]

Part One of The Restoration of XH558 is available July 1st. Good way to donate to the project and find out about the restoration of this gorgeous aircraft. Available at Waddington Airshow if you are going or from vulcantothesky.com.

Can't wait to see it! :ok:

[007helicopter]

Had a unexpected diversion to Coventry today and whilst waiting for a new alternator to be fitted it was suggested to have lunch in the museum cafe - wow what a museum. Got a tour inside the Vulcan and allowed to sit in the cock pit.

Could not actually imagine flying it for many hours on end

WHAT A BEAST !!

[HZ123]

August Bank holiday weekend sees the Southend Vulcan Do at least two fast taxis and shute deployment. Well worth a visit.

[Beeayeate]

Got a tour inside the Vulcan and allowed to sit in the cock pit.

If you're the same blokes my friend (your guide) told me about today he says you're more than welcome to visit MAM at anytime. Try the Canberra PR.3 next time, working cockpit and hydraulics etc - maybe even try pumping the airbrakes out and in.

If you are one of those two blokes, your guide today is an ex-RAF Chief Tech Electrician (Canberras, Hunters and VC-10s) who has spent the past couple of years refurbing the Canberra.

:ok:

[Batchy]

With all this talk of operating XH558, Here is shot I took last weekend of Dave Thomas getting nose wheel up in XM655 at Wellesbourne.
Batchy.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/woodlands/Vulc8.jpg

[BEagle]

Nice photo!

Glad to know that the run went well - and haven't the folks at Wellesbourne done a great job in keeping '655 looking so good!

[Batchy]

Thanks BEagle,

The team involved in keeping XM655 active, do an incredible job given the lack of a hangarage at Wellesbourne. Whats more to point though is that the proposed flight crew of XH558 use XM655 to keep their hand in.

Batchy.

[Karl W Smith]

I happen to be working on XH558 aka G-VLCN at the moment and, to the best of my knowledge, it is still due for Roll-Out in August, short of funds or not.
Some of the comments made on your site are less than charitable but we're doing our best to satisfy the CAA that this exceptional aeroplane will be safe to fly around Britain for a few years, appearing on the Airshow circuit. I am fairly new to the Group who have been working hard and spending their own money to achieve these aims. So, don't be too unappreciative of them. I count myself lucky to have been asked, because of my experience, to help. What I've seen is a set of hard working enthusiasts who don't need kicking when they're under pressure.

A few bits of Vulcan are sitting on and under my desk at this moment; we've been inspecting them very, very thoroughly for signs of corrosion and are now quite happy with them.

Watch for the Roll-Out in 6 or 7 weeks.

[ExAvio]

Good luck chaps, I'm 101% behind you. Donation in the post as we speak.

[forget]

I spent six years with Vulcans, Coningsby, Cottesmore and Waddington - fairy hammer and screwdriver - and £4M to get 558 back in the air does seem ‘excessive’. One thing did occur to me ‘tother day, a large part of any cost will be the fuel system, wing tanks, quantity, pumps and plumbing. Would it be possible to forget all of the above, blank it off, and use only bomb bay tanks. Simple pumps, easily accessed, and, I’d have thought, simple plumbing- and more than enough fuel for 558's future job. Any reason why not?

While I’m here, I still say there’s no need for an AEO in the back of 558. All of the electrics can be brought on line before the door’s closed. After that if a generator comes off line it’s no big deal, the aircraft is so lightly loaded electrically. In any case, duplicate re-set switches could be fitted up top. We’re back to the old situation of the pilots having Martin Baker assist, and the AEO left to his own devices. Not good - and I wonder if the CAA looks a bit sideways at this.

[spekesoftly]

From what I've read in a recent copy of 'FlyPast', the CAA have agreed to a maximum display crew of three - two pilots and an AEO. A Navigator will also fly on transits that land away, and act as commentator on the ground.

[Blacksheep]

All of the electrics can be brought on line before the door’s closed. After that if a generator comes off line it’s no big deal (:eek:), the aircraft is so lightly loaded electrically.It would be a big deal on the Vulcans I worked on, chum. The entire flight control system is electrically powered from every one of the elevon and rudder PFCUs to the airbrake motors. Not to mention the role played by a score of fuel pumps in keeping the aircraft trimmed. As a UKCAA Avionics LAE of many years standing, I think there's no chance of the UKCAA looking "sideways" upon anything to do with the flight controls or the fuel system.

Of course if you did do away with the fuel system you wouldn't really need a co-pilot. ;)

[forget]

Thank you from the font of all knowledge on Vulcans, (starter cartridges included). I can see now why the £4M is needed!

Are you saying that the loss of a single generator on 558 will be a critical event? It never was when NBS and ECM was sucking Megawatts, so why now.

As for the ‘the role played by a score of fuel pumps in keeping the aircraft trimmed’. I’m suggesting bomb bay tanks only - moment neutral you might say. Did the aircraft go wildly out of trim when you suddenly dropped 21,000 pounds from the very same location. I think not.

I never did suggest that the CAA ‘look sideways’ at the flight controls or the fuel system. I simply suggested making best use of Avro designed options to get the aircraft back into the air.

By the way Blacksheep, apart from my time on Vulcans, my UKCAA Avionics Licence number was 13,75?, sometime before yours I suspect.

[forget]

Thank you Mr J! :ok: So the idea may have legs after all. :)

[Blacksheep]

Are you saying that the loss of a single generator on 558 will be a critical event? It never was when NBS and ECM was sucking Megawatts, so why now.Why now? Perhaps the presence of an AEO to supervise the electrical system had something to do with it? As for the ‘the role played by a score of fuel pumps in keeping the aircraft trimmed’. I’m suggesting bomb bay tanks only...Thats the problem. As it says there on the VOC website, the idea is to get the aircraft airworthy. In original condition. Are you absolutely sure the CAA will be happy to let it stagger from air show to air show across the densely populated United Kingdom with most of the original fuel system inoperative? Even if they did, the price for revising the operating procedures would be higher than the cost of keeping the original fuel system fully operational.Avro designed options Avro have been dead for a long time, as has Hawker Siddeley. You've obviously not had much experience of negotiating system design changes, Supplementary Type Certificates, that sort of thing. The current design authority holders will want an arm and a leg from each member of the VOC for that little job.my UKCAA Avionics Licence number was 13,75?, sometime before yours I suspect.Sorry, no. You've a couple of thousand to catch up with there. And my willy is probably bigger than yours too... ;)

[BEagle]

There is ample fuel capacity in the 1-7 tanks for any conceivable flight which 558 will make. Absolutely no need for bomb bay tanks at all.

Much of the NBS and other systems will be removed, so that the empty weight will be less than that of an operational bomber.

It would probably be possible, given the fixed C of G, to specify a standard fuel load which will allow a nicely aft C of G index for dispay flying without having to rely upon 1 to 7 transfer - and to keep the sequence timers in manual. But I doubt whether there will be any such limit and the aircraft will probably have a fully serviceable internal fuel system.

Yes, there is indeed a need for the AEO. The electrical system is of an earlier generation than even the VC10, so a fatherly eye on the load bus bars will be essential. As for dispatch with 2 alternators and a RAT - err, no. I very much doubt that the aircraft will fly at a height where the RAT would be of any use - at lower levels the AAPP would be used. All 4 alternators and the AAPP will probably be required routinely, although the failure of a single alternator in flight shouldn't require a display cancellation. It is not so much the individual alternator capabilities, but the load distribution which requires this. Forget the idea of flying without an AEO and 'fitting extra reset switches up front' - that would require major system redesign and the entire electrical panel would have to be redesigned and relocated.

The display will be more graceful and fatigue-sympathetic than previous displays, I understand. A good thing too, in my view.

Please remember that the aircraft is undergoing a major service and will emerge in 'better than new' condition to be operated by what will (in certification terms) be a 'one aircraft airline'. So 558 will hardly 'stagger across the UK'.....it will fly in accordance with contemporary certification requirements and safety standards.

Incidentally, one way everyone who uses on-line shopping can help fund the aircraft is by going via the www.buy.at/vulcantothesky webshop to a retailer's website. The retailer's commission will then go to the Vulcan to the Sky fund.

[Blacksheep]

Nicely put BEagle. Don't misunderstand me; despite my deep pessimism, I would really love to see 558 fly again. I'm afraid that enthusiasm and dedication aren't enough to overcome financial constraints. Everything we hear about the VOC project suggests that the true costs were seriously under-estimated.

Those outside the processes are unaware of the extraordinary costs involved in gaining airworthiness approval for even the simplest engineering changes, but certification costs can be real killers. So, there should be no major system changes. In my own experience (prior to promotion, I headed Technical Services and held limited design approval) removing original equipment and other systems such that the weight and/or balance is substantially altered is classified as "Major Modification."

A few years ago the lease return costs for moving one of our B767s from our UK CAA based regulatory jurisdiction to the FAA came to US$1.4 million. That's just for paperwork covering a fully airworthy aircraft still in current production and with no physical work on the aircraft at all. The UK CAA may have decided to allow 558 to fly after a complete overhaul, but I'm certain they'll insist on all the i's being dotted and the t's crossed. They've never accepted shortcuts and I don't expect they'll start now.

Then there's that inefficient bureaucratic nightmare, the cash gobbling EASA - they appeared on the scene after the project began and much as we may wish it otherwise, in the longer term they'll also have a say in the matter... :ugh:

[forget]

So Blacksheep had a civil licence when he was still at Waddington - a world's first!
.......and his willy probably is bigger than mine with all the apparent exercise it gets... :rolleyes:

I know I know, that was childish --- over and out!

[Blacksheep]

I know I know, that was childish --- over and out!Good banter though and that's what crew rooms are for... :ok:

You're right, my licence numbers are UK CAA 17270, Malaysian M984, Brunei 089. None current, as I've been in development engineering for a long time and don't do Maintenance any more. :)

[Blacksheep]

"If you want the release paperwork, it will cost you another £35 + VAT per item"Circuit breakers are mass produced. Release documents are customised, so £35 quid sounds about right for release documentation. I'd charge you US$70.00 an hour (or part thereof) for us to verify a component history and issue a certificate. Our labour's cheaper than UK, but we do still have to cover our overheads. Then there's the liability that the company takes on when it issues a release.

BTW, Do you know how much the CAA (or the FAA) charge for their annual audits to renew company approvals?