Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Given that the UK (IMHO) missed a great opportunity to have a Bucc flying like they're doing in SA, what are the chances of getting a Harrier or 2 flying in a civillian capacity?
The TC website is still live but only the front page. If they have shut down it is very sad but possibly understandable.
Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support.
Not disagreeing with JF, since what he says is the practical answer.
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
NoD
* The Vulcan is an exception - there may be the odd other. A degree of the problems in operating the Vulcan are the costs and procedures involved in requiring MA as a design ? maint ? support? organisation.
Not only reportedly FOD Plod, but actually. I saw it just this last weekend at the Pax River Air Expo, even with the Blue Angels and a bunch of other stuff, the Sea Harrier still drew much appreciation and applause from the crowd, many of whom have never seen vertical flight from a fast jet.
Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPRuNe, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US.
Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US.
Quite true.. when he bought it and had it shipped over he was fairly convinced the start sequencer was left out on purpose. Only by chance he had an ex-harrier mech on his team who knew it was missing, or at least where to look when it wouldn't crank.
Twos in
"Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPRuNe, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US."
I don't think he ever asked BAE and I believe Rolls Royce rejected the request very rapidly. Bear in mind, the jet had a wheels-up on an early flight because they'd removed the emergency u/c lowering so RR's attitude might be justified. The US is a bigger place than the UK and there's plenty of space to lose the jet without landing on someone.
son of brommers
"Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support."
The report on the South African Lightning might go a long way to explaining and even validating the CAA's stance. It won't be long before its issued.
I agree with John Farley (but who wouldn't...). I had this discussion with a CAA display supervisor some years ago re the Lightning and Phantom. His line was that the aircraft were too complex for 'normal people' to operate and, even though there were simulators etc, the range of emergencies put it into the too difficult category. The risk to the public of something going wrong at a display was therefore deemed to be too great.
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
Would the Hawk T1 be classed as intermediate? I have often wondered if some may eventually be disposed of in a similar way to the Hunters in the eighties, mainly because I then might be able to fulfill a long held desire to fly in one (mortgage notwithstanding).
