atiuta - the certification of the VC10 was certainly to the exacting standards of the CAA at the time. The fact that it is still flown by non-civil users is nihil ad rem. But it was clearly not certificated to lose 2 engines simultaneously - and hence 50% of its thrust - in the same manner that, say, a 777 losing a single engine would be required to be today.
However, it was required to have sufficient excess thrust to survive the statistically assumed DEFATO likelihood placed upon it by virtue of the close-paired engine design. The difference between military and civil operation is merely that every military captain must practise a heavyweight double engine failure and 2-e approach in the simulator at least every 6 months - we have the luxury of sufficient simulator time available to be able to do so. Training captains also practise 2-engine work in the aircraft, but we only do so with the engines retarded to idle thrust once the landing gear is up, never simultaneously and never at a critical stage of flight; our student captains are required to cope with the simulated failure of an engine above V1 followed by a second failure once the aircraft is safely airborne, the landing gear is up and visual committal height has been achieved. Unlike the near simultaneous smacking closed of 2 HP cocks which Nigels used to have to cope with, so an old 8000+ hour BA VC10 man tells me!
The only 'beyond civil operation' which was once considered was the so-called Military Operating Standard which increased MTOW from 323000 to 340000 lbs if and when operationally essential. It came with various risk assessments; however, I don't think that it was ever used in anger and I don't think that it would ever be considered today.
Lastly may I ask that this pointless 'civil v. miltary' rhetoric is curtailed? It helps no-one, is unwarranted and utterly counter productive.
[ 02 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>