Harrier vs Hawk rules
Believe that ACAS's decision was a fair one to not allow a Harrier down the Mall, for [mainly] the following reason:
If a Hawk suffers a catastrophic engine mechanical failure (i.e. runs to a complete grinding halt in a v short space of time) it can glide, but also as the hydraulic pressure drops in the system (which it will as the pilot manoeuvres the aircraft), the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) will deploy and spin up to allow sufficient control authority to keep turning the aircraft towards a safe open area (The Serpentine?!!!) before he/she ejects.
A Harrier does not have a RAT, therefore if the above situation arises the controls "could" possibly freeze at any point after the donk goes. This "could" prevent the daring pilot from aiming his/her aircraft into a safe place with inevitably disastrous results.....doesn't even bare thinking about and so is probably too risky. It has nothing to do with engine / aircraft reliability IMHO. Oh, and the gliding performance as intimated in previous threads is not as good as a hawk.
No airworthy CAA-registered Sea Harrier = No Sea Harrier flypast. Good to see the senior Navy FAA guys reinforcing the point that "its all about the Navy though, you know". Complete horse-sh**! Seem to remember a certain 1(Fighter) Squadron, under the command of Wg Cdr P T Squire DFC RAF, receiving Battle Honours for the South Atlantic for many great missions flown. Plenty of RAF guys flying SHARs too as well. It was all about projection of UK Military Force on the other side of the world back in '82. We'll never do it again though .....
BD