Petition running to allow Art Nalls to display his Sea Harrier in the UK

[NutLoose]

Title says it all

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/civil-aviation-authority-uk-allow-art-nalls-to-display-his-ex-royal-navy-sea-harrier-at-uk-air-shows?utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

[CoffmanStarter]

Nutty ... Signed :ok:

[son of brommers]

duly done............:ok:

[Kiltrash]

Done
Can you also put it in Spotters so they can all add to the demand?
Thanks

[Big Hammer]

Signed silly 10 character!

[WASALOADIE]

Done!
Probably in better condition than when it last flew in the UK

[Blue Bottle]

Done......:ok:

[ChristianR354]

Done. Lets hope it happens!

[Courtney Mil]

Damn, this is a tough one. If I sign we might get to see a fantastic old jet flying here, but on the other hand, if it doesn't get clearance just think how much that will annoy the Old Bearded Idiot. Ooh, I just don't know...

[sled dog]

Not resident in UK, but signed anyway. Good luck:

[Navaleye]

Signed. Can't see it changing the mind of the CAA tho.

[RetiredSHRigger]

Signed now fingers crossed

[scr1]

signed.......

[clicker]

Signed...............

[Wander00]

and me - and I was not even a Harrier jock.........

[seanbean]

Duly signed.

[54Phan]

Signed. I am in Canada and will probably never see it fly, but if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[CoffmanStarter]

Nutty ... you might like to eMail the "Bearded One" ... as I'm sure he will be only too pleased to bombard the CAA with correspondence, power point, briefings, bar charts etc. in support :E

[diginagain]

.. you might like to eMail the "Bearded One" ... as I'm sure he will be only too pleased to bombard the CAA with correspondence, power point, briefings, bar charts etc. in support While you're at it, ask him when the next version of Tubular Bells is being released.

[Two's in]

Sorry to be slightly pragmatic here but while the petition is a great way to establish the popularity of the idea, it's not the popularity of the aircraft or otherwise that is the barrier. The CAA has determined (rightly or wrongly, it matters not) there is a safety issue. Unless someone challenges that position with an informed conterpoint it's hard to see anything changing. There must be enough qualified people who can construct a robust safety case for flying the aircraft here or deconstruct the CAA's own case, maybe this is happening in the background (I hope it is) but popularity alone will not win any safety of flight arguments with the CAA.

[chevvron]

John Farley where are you?

[Wander00]

Any one got the case for the persecution, otherwise known as the CAA, to post.

[walbut]

I have to say I think Two's in has the most pragmatic post on this thread so far. I would love to see a Sea Harrier flying in the UK, almost as much as a Phantom, Buccaneer and Lightning. Unfortunately nostalgia, sentiment and excitement don't carry much weight when evaluating a safety case.

Flying fast jet combat aircraft carries a significant risk, even in a peacetime military environment. When you take the aircraft out of that environment and put it into a relatively small private organisation with much more limited resources the risk increases. The aircraft themselves are often demanding to fly and unforgiving in the event of errors. Aircrew have less opportunity to fly and maintain currency. There is probably less supervision to ensure the required skill levels are maintained and operating procedures followed. There are probably no independent 'trappers' and no simulator to practice emergency procedures.

There will be financial pressures on maintenance and possibly restricted supplies of spares. When those difficult snags occur and cannot be reproduced on the ground, does the organisation have the resources to change several components in the hope of fixing the fault or release the aircraft as is, in the hope that the snag was a transient that has now cleared. They may not have access to test equipment or manufacturers support to ensure components are serviceable. The ground crew will have limited opportunities to maintain their competency with only one aircraft of the type to work on and may well lack sufficient specialists to cover all the trades adequately.

I admire Art Nalls for his efforts in getting the aircraft flying in the USA and, judging by his website he certainly seems to have the right background and a very professional organisation. I don't believe private operators of miltary aircraft deliberately cut corners or take unnecessary risks. However after spending 40 years supporting miltary aircraft, admittedly from a manufacturing organisation, I think it is very unlikely that a safety case could be made to the CAA's satisfaction, and making my own judgement of the risk, I think they would probably be correct to refuse to allow the aircraft to fly in the UK.

[NutLoose]

Walbut, I read somewhere a German Phantom maybe at Waddo on its way to retirement,..... Might be dreaming, but I'm sure I read it.

[lj101]

List of CAA requirements doc

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP632.PDF

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/CAP632%20newsletter%203%20SPRING%202007.pdf

[Wander00]

Hmm - I guess on that basis, chances of the aeroplane being authorised to be flown in the UK are not high. Shame, but there it is.

[WhiteOvies]

Seeing and hearing the jet flying in the States was great and brought back lots of happy memories for me but I cannot see the CAA ever allowing it to fly in the UK. It was seriously looked into for the Fly Navy 100 celebrations though.

Probably the biggest issue is with the engine, that has Rolls Royce extremely worried due to corporate liability. It was (may have changed it by now) an early Pegasus 104 which was sold as scrap but somehow Art got enough lifing data to convince the FAA that it was airworthy. It has the pre-modification LP1 fan of the type that failed catastrophically at Wittering on both a T8 (RIP Jack London) and a T10.

Add to that a home made gear blow down system, a US ACES ejection seat and an off the shelf HUD and it will be a hard job for anyone to convince the CAA.

Don't get me wrong,I would love to see an FA2 over Yeovilton again, I just don't think it's realistic.:{

[orca]

WhiteOvies,

Hello mate - hope all well slightly further east.

Let's not forget that whilst the un-modified LP1 fan did catastrophically fail in Jack's case an awful lot didn't - and the modified fan actually FOD'd itself (I think technically termed 'snubber cracking') with what became boring regularity. The mod was a well intentioned shambles.

(I even remember RR giving us forms so we could write down how much time we spent at what power setting as the phenomenon appeared to be something completely new to them.)

I assume we never got to the bottom of why it happened because we were all still scratching our heads on that dark day in 2006. (That turned out to be mere duskers compared to that dark day in 2010!);)

Sorry chaps - not much 'on thread' here!

[Lima Juliet]

If the CAA can authorise an ex-mil delta wing bomber which flies in the UK with an all up weight in excess of 100,000lbs, then why not a SHar? I suspect that the Vulcan has the same spares issues and also a lack of funds to change stuff completely 'on spec'?

Seems to me that a straight bat is not being played with...

LJ

PS - I just saw a comment on the petition saying something along the lines of "this aircraft saved the country like the Hurricane and Spitfire"! What tripe, I don't believe General Galtieri was planning to invade the UK...:ugh:

[Mr Bollo]

I think there are 3 show stoppers here:

1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "- difficult to demonstrate for the Harrier, which from memory had a loss rate up there with the Starfighter and the Lightning.

2. The aircraft would almost certainly be considered to be in the Complex category by the CAA. The only aircraft in this category they have permitted is the Vulcan. One requirement for complex category is to have arrangements in place for support from a competent design organisation for the type i.e BAES and Rolls-Royce. This is in place for the Vulcan. I have had extensive dealings in my professional life with the Airworthiness Department of both companies, I confidently predict that they would not touch this particular Sea Harrier with a bargepole. Therefore, I can't agree that the CAA are not playing it with a straight bat.

3. Finally, I think the Thunder City debacle will not have warmed the CAA to enthusiasts operating complex fast jets on a shoe string.

So although it would be nice to see a British aviation classic back in our skies, it isn't going to happen - and for good reason.

Mr Bollo

[NutLoose]

You think the Harriers engine is bad, think of the likes of the worlds fleet of meteors or vampires etc still flying, the engines in those i believe were pre lifed component days, and one would imagine RR would be worried about those as some of them could have been built at the end of the war.

[tucumseh]

1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "- difficult to demonstrate for the Harrier, which from memory had a loss rate up there with the Starfighter and the Lightning.


Purely from memory, I'd say the SHAR record was pretty good. Many losses were in combat, or outriggers hitting ramps. Any sensible certifying authority would exclude them as one assumes Mr Nalls isn't proposing...........

And one is not comparing like with like regulatory authorities. For much of SHAR's life, the cost of sandwiches in MoD canteens had greater priority than aircraft safety. It would be interesting to see a detailed argument of the reasons for refusal.

[NigelOnDraft]

It would be interesting to see a detailed argument of the reasons for refusal. AFAIk there is no refusal. As the CAP632 extract says above:2. The aircraft would almost certainly be considered to be in the Complex category by the CAA. The only aircraft in this category they have permitted is the Vulcan. One requirement for complex category is to have arrangements in place for support from a competent design organisation for the type i.e BAES and Rolls-Royce. This is in place for the VulcanThe issue is not the CAA, but finding a supporting DO. I doubt an argument to classify the SHAR as "Intermediate" would be credible?

NoD

[NutLoose]

I think no manual reversion is one criteria they look at..

1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "


Between 1 August 1940 and 31 October, Spitfire losses amounted to 208 lost in combat, seven destroyed on the ground, and 42 in flying accidents.

;)


Supermarine Spitfire operational history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history)

[orca]

In the sense of having a Manual Fuel System? The Pegasus has one of those.

[ex-fast-jets]

So the Peggy 104 is not safe!!!!

I spent much of my early life sitting on the Peggy 101, 102 and 103. I didn't crash - I didn't die - I never had a major engine problem.

If the earlier engines were good enough for HMTQ's finest to fly, then why is the later 104 not safe for a well-intentioned ex-USMC flier to operate in our airspace?

Does our "special relationship" not make his request - and the desire of many to see what he, personally, can afford to do, but which we, nationally, cannot afford to do - something which should be considered as a unique and worthwhile event?

I think that we should welcome him into our airspace, to represent a magnificent achievement of British aerospace and engineering accomplishments.

I realise that my suggestion will achieve nothing - but it is a great shame that we seem unable to recognise and applaud some of the great things that we have given to the world.

[PURPLE PITOT]

I believe Art is a retired USMC officer. I don't know if he is still on the reserve list ( or whatever the US equivalent is), but that can easily be remedied in the US.

Get the USMC to "adopt" the jet, then it can be flown anywhere as a state aircraft.

Uk CAA can get fecked!:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Mrbollo

I think there were about 130 Vulcans made and about 25 lost in accidents - that's roughly 1-in-5 written off in accidents! :eek:

Having had dealings with the Campaign Against Aviation on a number of occasions with G-Reg aircraft and other issues under this QuaNGO's jurisdiction, I can say with experience that their bat is not straight! Just go and look at the complaints about them on other forums on this site and others like Flyer's - they're even subject to a 'red tape challenge' set up by Mr Shapps MP.

LJ

[tucumseh]

The issue is not the CAA, but finding a supporting DO.

DO’s usually require payment for their services. I imagine there is a well funded organisation behind the Vulcan case? I know nothing of Mr Nall’s set up.


In general terms, the entire thrust of the Haddon-Cave report was that MoD had to a large extent ceased to fund such activities. The “savings at the expense of safety” evidence he was advised of and agreed with. At the very least, this long standing policy would create huge gaps in any audit trail, which Mr Nalls and any DO may find difficult to close. (And the MAA/MoD are on record as not seeking to close, and certainly not for an out-of-service aircraft).



Last night I was able to dig out a formal notification from 7th January 1991 warning of the effects of such a run down on SHAR. The concern at the time was the FAA having only one squadron (and a short one at that) with full operational capability. This was related to a BoI recommendation which the RN ignored and RAF (AMSO) refused to fund anyway (as AMSO held the necessary funding). It wasn’t that anything in the aircraft was unsafe; rather it was the fact a necessary equipment was being actively scrapped instead of repaired by suppliers, without replacement, with the agreement of ASE(N). It reminded me of just how many of these warnings were issued at the time. I clearly remember us thinking this was the beginning of the end of SHAR. There was no policy, per se, to scrap SHAR. But it would be the logical eventual outcome if unfunded. 99.9% of the RN disagreed with the decision, but it showed how the actions of one or two men (specifically, one in ASE and one in AMSO) could determine these things.



Interesting observation about manual reversion. An old argument!
As LF says, there does seem to be double standards at play here.

[bvcu]

Not surprised by CAA , as already stated Rolls wont have anything to do with it so the safety case is completely different to the older engines mentioned previously. Single engine VTOL is very different to a 'normal' fixed wing operation.Add in the non standard gear blowdown system which is not approved by anyone , and a non standard ejection seat installation. These things are possibly all done properly but without the relevant bits of paper......Good luck to Art , but the FAA regs are a bit different to here. Seem to recall there were proposals for a Breitling team of AV8'A's to be based here a few years ago but never got off the ground , think they were going to be US registered but whole thing got very expensive.

[Chugalug2]

tuc:-
the entire thrust of the Haddon-Cave report was that MoD had to a large extent ceased to fund such activities. The “savings at the expense of safety” evidence he was advised of and agreed with.
Therein lies the rub. This aircraft was compromised long before Mr Nails ever became its proud owner. The CAA knew this but quite understandably stayed out of what was someone else's business (ie the MOD's). Now it is its business, or would be if it granted the desired permit. I imagine that the words bargepole and touch came to mind...

[Lima Juliet]

Here is a question from a non-Harrier jockey: Would it be safer to conventionally land the SHar? Would that mitigate the alleged risks associated to the Pegasus 104?

[newt]

William Hill should start a book on this one!! Its been tried before with Lightnings etc. The Campaign Against Aviation will never change its mind!!:ugh::ugh:

[John Farley]

In my view organisations that have zero reasons to say yes are always going to say no.

[Lima Juliet]

JF - I agree. If there's no money or quodos in it then they will think "Why bother?"

Can you answer my Q? Would it de-risk it if Art Nails only flew conventional landings or is it more tricky with the odd undercarriage set up?

LJ

[orca]

Errr, no not really. (From an operating point of view - not a safety case).

The conventional landing was actually trickier than any other form of arrival in the Harrier I.

For some reason this also translated (in the UK) to a fear of the manoeuvre in the Harrier II where it was incredibly easy.

Having said that - I remember in 2006 a bloke turned up at Yeovilton to quiz us on the aeroplane and collect some pilot's notes. I am pretty sure that he was trying to buy a Sea Jet and was being permitted to do so on the proviso that he had the nozzle lever wire locked. So he'd only have been able to take off and land conventionally. (Which illustrates nicely how little the jet was actually understood!)

[NigelOnDraft]

I have >500hrs on the Harrier (II) and never did a Conventional Landing (CL). Plenty of practice ones i.e. "touch and go", but trying to stop the thing would be difficult. Because the only practical way to stop is to use the nozzles, and if the nozzles were working, why were you doing a CL ;) And that was a Harrier II with a large wing, presume the Harrier I would need an even higher touchdown speed (albeit I think there was a greater % of weight on braked mainwheel?)

The general pPrune opinion was that the CAA position on this looked quite sensible post the SA Lightning report :uhoh: Seems we can alter our view at will?

It might be the CAP632 line is not relevant - after all, I doubt AN wishes to get a P2F for his SHAR. It is whether there is a process to allow, even for a limited period, a foreign "experimental cat" aircraft not only to fly, but display in the UK?

As JF says, what is the interest to the CAA in saying yes? From my pov, the environment we have in the UK wrt ex-mil jets is pretty practical, and a lot more lenient then certain countries close by e.g. for live ejection seats.

I would also add that the CAA's attitude is that the aircraft should be operated and maintained as closely as possible to the last known military standards. So suggesting aspects be disabled I suspect will not work.

As an aside, it will be interesting to see how CAP632 relates to the Hawk, if and when any are looked at. Whether the RAT is considered to act as "manual reversion" I do not know?

NoD

[John Farley]

Leon

You have had your answer from other posters. With the Harrier I (includes the SHAR) and the 201sqft wing the conv landing is fast and nasty (needs full back stick as you enter ground effect). The Harrier II is easy as it has a big wing and better flaps.

Dunno why it would be safer to land conventionally with Art's bird as the knots involved when it hit if the donk quit (160 ish) would spread the debris. Falling on the ground from a hover would be a very local event. It has only happened once (from about 50ft) and since it hit flat the gear did a great job and the pilot was unhurt even though he did not eject.

One donk failure in the hover in 53 years and over 800 aircraft with 6 nations is quite remarkable really. But Bristol did a very conservative original design (lower JPT in the hover than a 747 has in mid atlantic cruise).

[ex-fast-jets]

It has only happened once (from about 50ft) and since it hit flat the gear did a great job and the pilot was unhurt even though he did not eject.

I watched it from the OCU crewroom window when it crashed on the Alpha South Pad.

The pilot was most certainly not "unhurt". I visited him a few times in Addenbrookes in Cambridge, where his life was saved, after some pretty heroic action by the Station Doc and the fire crew who managed to keep the flames away from the cockpit. He was - and, I think, is - an inspiration to paraplegics. What he has achieved since his accident is truly remarkable.

Before his accident, he was a JP on my Sqn at Gutersloh. He is a genuinely remarkable individual.

[Just This Once...]

He is a genuinely remarkable individual.

Fine words befitting of an exceptional man.

[John Farley]

My apologies chaps.

I was thinking of the USMC engine seizure and had forgotten the one Bomber mentioned at Wittering after a blade failed due to fatigue from FOD - rather higher up and with a very nasty result for the pilot.

My apologies again.

JF

[Al R]

Bomber,

Steve H was the firefighter who got stuck in that day. Firefighters are like goalies who do nothing for 90 minutes and then have to pull off a magnificent performance in injury time.

[Lima Juliet]

JF

If I may plagerise your post?

Two donk failures in the hover in 53 years and over 800 aircraft with 6 nations is quite remarkable really

I agree, and I did not know that. That is quite remarkable. Thanks for the answers on conventional landing; I always thought that configuration might be a bit of a handful!

LJ

[John Farley]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/USMCengfailinhover_zps44db68f2.jpg

[walbut]

With reference to NoD's question in post 47, I don't think the Hawk RAT would qualify as manual reversion. It is there primarily to cover the engine failure case where both hydraulic pumps would at best be windmilling. You always need at least one hydraulic system to be pressurised to power the ailerons and tailplane so there is no true manual reversion on the flying controls. However the T Mk 1 and 50/60 series Hawk aircraft are reasonably simple aircraft with mechanically signalled, hydraulically powered, flight controls and I would guess could be considered comparable to a Hunter in complexity.

There have been a number of successful engine out Hawk landings, I would guess around a dozen overall so perhaps the CAA might look reasonably favourably on allowing an early model to fly. A small number of Hawks have been landed with siezed engines so they were totally reliant on the RAT and the battery for power. For a really exciting story, read the incident report on the T Mk 1 that was landed with a dead engine at a base in Norway some years back.

One point that has been made earlier and is mentioned in the CAA requirements, is for the aircraft to be operated in the design configuration cleared by the manufacturer, which Art Nalls aircraft clearly isn't. Some years ago the Swiss Air Force put their Hawk fleet up for sale at a bargain price and BAE Systems surveyed them with a view to buying them and selling them on to another export customer. The aircraft were in storage and were in pristine condition (my man that went along as part of the survey team saw maintenance personnel brushing the undercarriages down with a feather duster!). All the maintenance records were complete but the major issue was that the Swiss had done a number of mods under their own authority. These were generally minor and easily understood, certainly nothing on the scale of replacing the ejection seat. However the bureaucrats insisted we include a huge price and risk factor for clearing these mods or removing them and so, partly for this reason, the deal was not economic. I can't see BAE or Rolls Royce wanting to associate themselves with a privately converted and operated Sea Harrier, particularly, as John Farley says, when there is nothing in it for them.

[tucumseh]

These were generally minor and easily understood, certainly nothing on the scale of replacing the ejection seat. However the bureaucrats insisted we include a huge price and risk factor for clearing these mods or removing them and so, partly for this reason, the deal was not economic

This is precisely the problem any MoD programme manager has with every aircraft modification programme. Agreeing what Service Mods must be retained, and then working out how to clear them as the chances are no records have been kept.

Last one I managed Westland surveyed the proposed Trials Installation aircraft, listed all the NSMs they hadn't been contracted to appraise (a mandated safety requirement) and gave me a list of those that HAD to be removed before it could be flown into Yeovil. Did a little horsetrading on minor things like an unsafe IFF installation, gathered a few tens of millions to retrospectively resurrect the build standard........ It isn't just the bureaucrats who insist on this being done. It's always cheaper and better to do the job properly in the first place.

[WhiteOvies]

Bomber,

I didn't say it was unsafe, just not as safe as the CAA would like when it comes to the regs. The UK always had better engine reliability than the USMC, particulalarly on the 408/107, where we took a lot of mods from Day 1 that had cost the Corps aircraft. I have seen engines that took most of the canopy through them and yet the pilot has still been able to land on safely.

If we still had a competent Pegasus EA and Harrier Project Team there might have been some hope, without them, as well as without RR support I think the CAA won't ever go for it.

The 'FOD tolerant' LP1 blades (where the critical Z zones at the root and the snubber had been engineered out) never had the same issues in the GR7 as we saw on the FA2. By the time 899 and 801 had all the issues there were enough spare LP1 fans and 106 engines to see the SHAR Force through to Mar 2006.

[Navaleye]

Wasn't the Wittering accident the mentioned in Sharkey Ward's book?