Why can't English Electric Lightnings fly in UK airspace
 

I was wondering why can't English Electric Lightning's fly in UK airspace.
I did read that the CAA will not license any lightning's (reference wikipedia). why ?

Is there a proper reason as to why they can't fly in UK airspace or is the FAA ashamed of 'our' past achievements ?
sorry to sound cynical but we (as a nation) should be proud of our past.

RD

No doubt someone will explain that there are certification / safety issues that have to be met that can't be met - or would be difficult to meet in UK.

I'm interested why you think not flying Lightnings in UK is due to someone or something being 'ashamed' - how did you get to that conclusion?

Just undertones from our dwindling aviation history and a complete lack of national pride !

For example, the Dehavilland Hatfield site produced the first Jet Airliner in the world yet all we have to show for it is a control tower that is now a gymnasium and a few roads near by with aeronautical names.

RD

If you had done a search here or on Flypast you'll get the answer.

Basically, the CAA (not FAA:rolleyes:) go to BAe who hold the DA, and they laugh, and the CAA laugh and so say no.

But, seriously, the Lightning had a high loss rate in service, and the CAA get a bit touching about high risk lumps falling earthwood.

Even out in SA where their authorities let ThunderCity fly their 4 x Lightnings, they still have a number of restrictions about overland flying, and they can effectively operate them because of Cape Town Int's proximity to the sea.

fly em from blackpool then, if they crash it will be over IRELAND assuming they get that far:}

Do a search as GeeRam said, it's on these forums somewhere. It has to do with BAe as the Design Authority but also because CAA classifies the Lighting as 'complex' and normally they don't allow complex aircraft on the civil register (the Vulcan now being the exception to the rule).

Did it have something to do with the fact they didn't want a 50 year old aircaft in private ownership, that up until recently could outperform current RAF frontline aircaft in some aspects?

tonker, thats quite a funny idea.

maybe thats the real reason.

I can just picture it now, a planned airshow and the pilot takes off and performs a zoom climb to 80,000ft instead !

Leaving the dowdy old Tornado wheezing in its wake!

Why Can't Lightnings Fly In UK Air Space
 

Taking the last point first. Rapid climb out = equally rapid RTB either 'cos the damn things running out of fuel or the lower engines on fire. We (RR) (Never say die dept) almost, but not quite sorted the engine fires problem. Given there were more Lightnings littering the bottom of the North Sea than actually left in service by the end of their operational life sense says they's best left grounded. Nice aircraft for its day (which is long long over) English Electric. Martin Bakers best customer !

The short answer is that the CAA simply will not allow Lightnings to be flown. It's easy to get wrapped-up in all the technical babble about complex catergories, design authority issues and all the rest of it, but ultimately it's a simple issue. The CAA take the view that the Lightning isn't safe enough, even though the aircraft would receive more direct and intensive attention than they ever did whilst in RAF service, and yet the MoD judged the aircraft perfectly safe to fly in UK air space for decades - but now they're not...

If you look at it like that, you can see why I (and lots of others) think the CAA's attitude is ridiculous. The CAA is very good at wrapping things up in technical jargon and red tape but ultimately it's simply down to their judgement and I think their judgement is flawed. Likewise, I'd love to know how bodies such as the CAA are allowed to sit in judgement on such issues while we citizens and taxpayers have no right to question them or appeal against their jumbled logic.

But that's the way it is I'm afraid. Some "expert" decides he knows best and we're stuck with it. Of course there is no logic to the notion that a Lightning is somehow more dangerous than your average Cessna. They'd both ruin your day if they landed on your roof and yet, when you work out the odds of both types of aircraft ever actually causing any such damage, you realise that it's absurd to imagine that one or two airworthy Lightnings would be any more of a risk to our lives than having a road going past your front door.

But then, that's our Nanny State for ya!

even though the aircraft would receive more direct and intensive attention than they ever did whilst in RAF service, and yet the MoD judged the aircraft perfectly safe to fly in UK air space for decades - but now they're not...


Erm, would you care to "review" this observation please ?......it's just that I seem to recall spending an awful lot of time, along with others, embodying some rather detailed mods. on the RAFG fleet along with 10 months doing a very complicated "one of" repair on 92's "P" after the port u/c parted company on landing with a spurious fire warning...and then there were the many happy hours doing fuel leaks at Binbrook....so in essence, your comment can best be described as, er, utter bolleaux. Hardly "superficial " maintenance as you imply. :}

I'm still trying to get the PRC out of my armpits after doing centre section bolts and collector boxes.

But Tim, you know as well as I do that IF there was a problem involving a Frightning and the public, then people would be sued from now to kingdom come. This is NOT the CAA's fault. It is a problem that came here from America 20 years ago. Sadly, we have to go along with it, but basically it is the USA's fault, not the CAA's. The Americans are responsible via their Product Liability culture.

You forgot the Hatfield Police Station and the KFC outlet in the Grade 3 Listed DeHavilland office buildings. ;)

Having spent long periods in both RAF and civilian maintenance I can assure you that no civilian aircraft receives more direct and intensive attention than an aircraft in RAF service.

For evidence of what happens when a group of enthusiasts try to restore an ex-RAF aircraft to flight and maintain it in that condition, look no further than TVOC. Apart from trained and highly skilled labour, it takes lots & lots of money and spare parts to fly a complex military jet aircraft. From where would your prospective civilian E/E Lightning operator secure the revenue to stay in business?

Excuse me!!! I think if you compared some statistics, eg percentage of Lightnings built that crashed cf with percentage of Cessnas built that crashed I think you will see your statement is utter rubbish.

I recently organised a lecture by a friend who has extensive Lightning experience. When asked this question he said that there were not many UK runways suitable for the high wheel loads from Lightning operations. I seem to remember that 10 landings was the limit for the tyres.

10 Landings, some hope! If there was anything like a little crosswind breeze you'd be lucky to get two landings. For some reason, once put down to the location of the pilots heart, the left tyre was generally worse for wear.

Lightnings are very support intensive, even ground runners, add the flight requirements and this would probably multiply the support required by a considerable amount. The implication of all of this comes home when the bills need to be paid. The rumour is that since Mike Beachyhead sold the majority stake in Thunder City they don't fly so often. No doubt someone will know!

pmills575

Gatwick Aviation Museum - Charlwood
PROJECT53

I think some folks need to be a little more realistic - you're starting to sound like the CAA!

Come on - do the math. How many private aircraft bumble around the UK on a daily basis? How many Lightnings stood a reasonable prospect of flying again and how often? So, what are the odds of a Lightning ploughing into your attic compared to a humble Cessna. It's a no-brainer.

As for your comment Krystal, thanks for the choice language but you obviously didn't grasp what I said. Anyone can tell you that a privately-owned and maintained aircraft is bound to receive more direct attention that an in-service machine. It's kinda obvious. When you have a team of engineers devoted to the operation of one aircraft, then they can obviously afford to spend all their time on it, rather than only the minimum time required in order to meet service standards. It's not like I just plucked this notion out of the air - any jet warbird operator will say the same.

I'm not saying for a second that operating a Lightning wouldn't be extremely difficult and costly, and with the benefit of hindsight I doubt if anyone would have been able to afford it in any case, but to simply rule-out the concept (as the CAA have effectively done) is just ludicrous. Their supposed concerns with safety bear absolutely no relation to the actual risks involved. But then I think we're all familiar with the modern world of over-obession with safety; this is why air show display lines are slowly drifting into adjacent counties!

Any just how large a team of engineers would you need to employ to look after a Lightning? How much would it cost? I think HM Flying Club probably had a large team of engineers keeping Lightnings airborne.