Big Gazelle sale?

[ppheli]

Of the 12 Gazelles at Redhill owned by JCM and managed by LHC, it seems that two have been sold to UK buyers and most/all of the rest have recently "gone"!!! This would suggest a bulk sale, perhaps to an overseas military, or possibly something mundane like storing them somewhere cheaper!

Some of you guys already flying Gazelles down that way presumably know (Flying Lawyer??), so can you enlighten us?

[Flying Lawyer]

I've not heard anything, but I don't have much contact with Redhill these days.
I used to fly with the Tiger Club when they were based there many years ago, but my only contact in recent times was more than a year ago when I flew an ex-mil Gazelle for a Pilot magazine photoshoot. I fly a few different Gazelles, but always from MW Helicopters at Stapleford.

T'aint natural instructs at Redhill and will probably be able to answer your question if he sees this thread.

[LOOSE NUT]

ppheli,

have been told there are 7 left and still avialible for sale, also talk from up high of permit relaxation (4 consenting adults + pic)?

Loose Nut

[t'aint natural]

In the December issue of the AOPA UK magazine General Aviation there is a long interview with the two chaps at the CAA who are responsible for restrictions on ex-military helicopters. The salient fact is that the CAA is reviewing its policy of not allowing passengers in ex-military aircraft, and may, rpt may, allow consenting adults who have been properly briefed to fly as passengers. Children will be allowed if a parent has signed them off. A decision is expected shortly.
It seems that the owners of ex-military Gazelles may soon be able to fill 'em up, which obviously greatly improves their utility. Larger military fixed-wings may be able to take up to nine passengers.
The current restrictions date from the fatal crash of the Vickers Varsity many years ago, which was on its way to an air show with a large number of enthusiasts on board. As a result of those deaths, it was decreed that only flight crew and persons required for maintenance away from base could be carried.
In the article, the CAA people acknowledge that the wording of the restriction is probably legally unenforceable, and that there is an urgent need for change.
Lots more interesting stuff in it, too.

[t'aint natural]

...and PS, there hasn't been a big sale.
Four of the original eleven have sold so far, and the remaining seven are hangared at Redhill. An eighth is expected soon from Shawbury.

[ppheli]

t'aint...
The whole point of the thread is they are NOT hangared where they used to be at Redhill - so where are they now? Sales include the dark green/grey one to the MD902/A109E/R22B2 owner and one to Southend. Where have the other two sales gone to? Are they new PPLHs, or people transitioning from other types?

The Varsity (April 1984 it was..) killed the then editor of FlyPast magazine, but comparison with a Varsity is unfair. Just how many spares and experienced pilots, mechanics etc were available for a Varsity at that time? And how many are there for the Gazelle now? Let me give you a clue - only 163 Varsities were built...

[BlackRat]

The Gazelles haven't gone far, they have been moved out of Hgr 6 to make room for 6 - 8 B212's and B214ST that Bristow have in storage. They are now safely tucked away in the blister hangar north of the control tower.

[t'aint natural]

ppheli:
Yes, the comparison with the Varsity is unfair. The CAA blokes agree with you in the article.
The article says: 'The CAA's policy on passengers in ex-military aircraft was written after an accident in 1984 in which a Vickers Varsity crashed on its way to an airshow, killing 11 of its 14 occupants. A similar accident four years earlier had killed seven people. After the Varsity tragedy the AAIB recommended, and the CAA ruled, that passengers not needed for the conduct of the flight or the maintenance of the aircraft away from base be not
carried.
Carl Thomas (manager of the small aircraft unit of the aircraft certification section, the man who is responsible for permit helicopters) accepts, however, that the CAA's policy is unclear and
difficult to enforce. 'We recognise that we've got to change the policy. The current situation is untenable,' he says. 'We can't enforce it, except in extreme cases perhaps, but certainly we can't enforce it the way we intended the policy to be applied. We are aware that people are flying in the aircraft who are not the people we intended to be flying in the aircraft. But when you look at the words literally, which you need to do if you're going to go to a court of law, you simply can't apply the intended interpretation. We need change.'
Leon Winnert, the bloke who did the research to get the Gazelle on the Permit, makes the point that a civilian is ten times more likely to crash an ex-military helicopter than a military pilot was, and says that in one case (I believe the Scout) the accident rate now is one hundred times higher than it was in the military. Nonetheless, the CAA seems to be leaning towards removing the restriction.
Carl Thomas says that the CAA's practice of lumping all ex-military aircraft into a statistical group and tarring them all with the same high-accident brush is probably not the right approach. Most fatal accidents are air show demos that go wrong, so they're looking at precise data for individual machines. On that basis, the Gazelle looks less frightening.
There's heaps more in the article, which is well worth a read. If you know an AOPA member, he or she should have a copy.

[KENNYR]

Slightly off thread: Why are the Military selling off these Gazelles.
Are they updating the fleet, getting rid of all the Gazelles or what?
How much are these airframes fetching on the market?

Having flown the Scout in the AAC I can understand why there are so many accidents/incidents in the hands of civilians. It can be a real handful at times depending on conditions.

[The Scout]

KENNYR hi!

Just to follow your “slightly off thread” post about Scouts I’d be interested to hear those situations that can result in a “handful” when flying a Scout.

As one of those much-maligned (in Rotorheads) amateurs I’m very new at this game. I’ve got 150hrs on Scouts and, after training on both 300’s and R22’s, the noisy brute seems to be a remarkably easy pleasure to fly compared to those two. (Ok…I’m not too sure about the autos!!).

I accept that feeding in the power too quickly is, as per the Gazelle, a bad idea but as a fatty who always has to milk the collective in a piston machine on a hot day I appreciate having plenty to spare.

I’m now firmly in that hours bracket for an accident caused by over confidence so deflation required

The Scout

Ps I’m afraid that I absolutely LOVE the machine

[idle stop]

KENNYR:
Most of the ex-mil UK Gazelles are available because the MoD centralised basic rotary training a few years back, releasing the old training Gazelle fleets from the RN, Army and RAF. Basic (and some Army advanced) training is now carried out on 38 x AS350 helis leased to the MoD by FBHeliservices (aka Bristow and Flight Refuelling).

[Flying Lawyer]

Scout
"much-maligned (in Rotorheads) amateurs"
:confused:
Not sure if that's modesty or misunderstanding. Don't be misled by a minority of souls on one recent thread. It's not true of the forum in general.
Welcome to Rotorheads. You'll enjoy it, and learn a great deal from the professionals.

PS If it was a 'chip' - dump it ;)

[tabdy]

Is there anyone needing an experienced Scout pilot for their vintage helicopter?

[STANDTO]

How can the CAA put a restriction on pax carrying in an ex mil type, when the a/c was available to the civilian market anyway?

VC10, gazelle, as350, a109 HS125, 748, S61 all spring immediately to mind.

Blimey, they'll be stopping people visiting cockpits in flight next!

[t'aint natural]

Standto: In the December issue of the AOPA magazine General Aviation the CAA explains at length (3,000 words) exactly how and why it restricts passenger access to ex military aircraft, and makes quite a convincing rationale.
If you don't know a member, AOPA will probably flog you a copy. 0207 834 5631