Jaguar T4
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree - none of these systems would be a problem if the CAA didn't decide they were. This is was amazes me (and others) about the way things are. Who decides what is complex and what isn't? Based on what critera? Patently, it's an arbitary decision and in other countreis (particularly S Africa and the USA) they obviously reach different conclusions.
Pity that someone in the Government does't ask the CAA to have a re-think about their ludicrously over-blown safetly rules and their ridiculously over-cautious certification criteria. Okay, we know that if there was an accident the CAA would be rolling their collective eyes and saying "told you so" but it's a ridiculous (and typically British, or at least European) attitude to adopt. Everything carries a risk and if we have to be obsessively over-cautious about a handful of jet aircraft, we might as well start prohibiting cars on the roads and trains on tracks - as we're much more likely to be killed by them.
It's just another dose of Fun Police tactics, combined with typical British stoicism; the CAA has spoken so we must sit-back and accept their position. Personally, after years of airshow over-regulation, the B-17 saga last year, the sheer absurdity of not even certifying a Shackleton (although it seems a DC-6 is perfectly okay?!) and the continual dislike of high-performance jets, I think someone really should be asking the government to take a long, hard look at the CAA.
Pity that someone in the Government does't ask the CAA to have a re-think about their ludicrously over-blown safetly rules and their ridiculously over-cautious certification criteria. Okay, we know that if there was an accident the CAA would be rolling their collective eyes and saying "told you so" but it's a ridiculous (and typically British, or at least European) attitude to adopt. Everything carries a risk and if we have to be obsessively over-cautious about a handful of jet aircraft, we might as well start prohibiting cars on the roads and trains on tracks - as we're much more likely to be killed by them.
It's just another dose of Fun Police tactics, combined with typical British stoicism; the CAA has spoken so we must sit-back and accept their position. Personally, after years of airshow over-regulation, the B-17 saga last year, the sheer absurdity of not even certifying a Shackleton (although it seems a DC-6 is perfectly okay?!) and the continual dislike of high-performance jets, I think someone really should be asking the government to take a long, hard look at the CAA.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jindabyne
TM
Well that's a nice inspirational and convincing reply to HHA's questioning.
Well that's a nice inspirational and convincing reply to HHA's questioning.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HHA Eng
A watcher hey, qualification indeed.
But hey, let's not get into a slanging-match because it's pointless. I'm entitled to a view as are other people, and if you dont agree just because it's not sufficiently rose-tinted, then I'm sorry, but you'd think that if you looked at the CAA's track record on these matters, you really couldn't reach any other conclusion. Unless you think there's something constructive about fantasising?
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 27th Jul 2006 at 18:46.
I'm quite sure you could get a bunch of suitably qualified ex and serving Jag mates to fly the old girl if the project comes to fruition. Last time I was in Cyprus with Greengrass there was a journo there who was mad keen to get one and keep it on the Cyp register - perhaps something to consider if the CAA angle proves, as I believe it probably will, problematic. Keep me info'd I'd love to be involved with the jet again, damn this desk.
Obviously too much time off down there in Worcestershire then Greengrass?! Like Bob the Viking says, CAA rules are even more stringent than Bucc/Jag ones!!!
Gericault
Obviously too much time off down there in Worcestershire then Greengrass?! Like Bob the Viking says, CAA rules are even more stringent than Bucc/Jag ones!!!
Gericault
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Tim McLelland
I'm entitled to a view as are other people, and if you dont agree just because it's not sufficiently rose-tinted, then I'm sorry, ......
Well there is this:
A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Just a thought.............................
Forgive me for this.. I am a Jag Groupie.. Yes i did work on it as the Ops Assistant (Not Clerk - Go away Jag pilots, I helped you for years, they know what i mean)
Let me get this straight, the CAA will not allow ex fast jet military jets to fly because in no particular order:
1: Some of them have reheat. Sorry what difference does that make? Concorde did ok till the frogs decided they knew better and removed the wheel spacers and put on crappy tires, Are the CAA now saying the whole reheat concept is dangerous?
2. Military aircraft are complex, hmmmm so any other ex military/civil aircraft the CAA give a certificate to fly is not complex. I think a few marketing offices and engineers may disagree.
3. Cant get spares, no paperwork/ plans. - This is my favourite and most "Please can i fly this" companies are right. British Wasteaspace are a nightmare - They will support you but in name only and only if they think they are getting good publicity, Vulcan to the sky is a prime example, yes its supported by BA but only so they have got there finger in the pie. Thankfully the Americans have seen the light and thats why lots of fast jets get to fly in America. The manufacturers get little say, thats what insurance is for.
4. Jaguar (shut up Harrier mates) was a good steady weapons platform - at low level. Does that make a difference? It carried weapons that killed people, i take it that although the weapons are not readily available the CAA would insist the weapons control system and wing hardstandings were disabled.
Blame the CAA by all means . Call it a different slant but there not the only ones guilty. BA could and should have sanctioned something by now, be it a Bucc, be it an ex RN/Leuchars F4, there not interested and until they are, and they think there going to make money nothing will move.
As much as I would love to see a Jaguar, flown by Mr Cubin, Mr Pixton, or Mr Gallagher doing the airshow scene - Its not going to happen, till one of the big players makes money out of it. Till then they will risk nothing.
Jackindo forget the back seat, you get in the front, you deserve it - At least you say what you think m8. Lots of high flying folk on here will move into little slots at BA when there careers are over which is why they will say little in reply to your points.
The Jag - The mighty beast. Now its about to be retire, the ONLY, single seat, SUPERSONIC, aircraft in the RAF that actually flew in combat and dropped Bombs will have gone.
Trouble is it will have been the last of its breed and creed, and many would say the best of all of them.
My credentials - 3 Tours as a Jag Ops man. Lots of Jaguar back seats (1000 munute kid) - I bet Mr Cubin could identify me now.
Other Credentials - I worked on a harrier base and quickly realised i was not prepared to bow when a Harrier pilot eneterd the room. If you had bowed in front of a Jag mate, chances are he would have looked behind him to see what you were looking at
JAGUAR - The only way to fly!!
Let me get this straight, the CAA will not allow ex fast jet military jets to fly because in no particular order:
1: Some of them have reheat. Sorry what difference does that make? Concorde did ok till the frogs decided they knew better and removed the wheel spacers and put on crappy tires, Are the CAA now saying the whole reheat concept is dangerous?
2. Military aircraft are complex, hmmmm so any other ex military/civil aircraft the CAA give a certificate to fly is not complex. I think a few marketing offices and engineers may disagree.
3. Cant get spares, no paperwork/ plans. - This is my favourite and most "Please can i fly this" companies are right. British Wasteaspace are a nightmare - They will support you but in name only and only if they think they are getting good publicity, Vulcan to the sky is a prime example, yes its supported by BA but only so they have got there finger in the pie. Thankfully the Americans have seen the light and thats why lots of fast jets get to fly in America. The manufacturers get little say, thats what insurance is for.
4. Jaguar (shut up Harrier mates) was a good steady weapons platform - at low level. Does that make a difference? It carried weapons that killed people, i take it that although the weapons are not readily available the CAA would insist the weapons control system and wing hardstandings were disabled.
Blame the CAA by all means . Call it a different slant but there not the only ones guilty. BA could and should have sanctioned something by now, be it a Bucc, be it an ex RN/Leuchars F4, there not interested and until they are, and they think there going to make money nothing will move.
As much as I would love to see a Jaguar, flown by Mr Cubin, Mr Pixton, or Mr Gallagher doing the airshow scene - Its not going to happen, till one of the big players makes money out of it. Till then they will risk nothing.
Jackindo forget the back seat, you get in the front, you deserve it - At least you say what you think m8. Lots of high flying folk on here will move into little slots at BA when there careers are over which is why they will say little in reply to your points.
The Jag - The mighty beast. Now its about to be retire, the ONLY, single seat, SUPERSONIC, aircraft in the RAF that actually flew in combat and dropped Bombs will have gone.
Trouble is it will have been the last of its breed and creed, and many would say the best of all of them.
My credentials - 3 Tours as a Jag Ops man. Lots of Jaguar back seats (1000 munute kid) - I bet Mr Cubin could identify me now.
Other Credentials - I worked on a harrier base and quickly realised i was not prepared to bow when a Harrier pilot eneterd the room. If you had bowed in front of a Jag mate, chances are he would have looked behind him to see what you were looking at
JAGUAR - The only way to fly!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as I said earlier, I don't think there is any logic to it. Clearly, you can set all manner of rules and what one person regards as "complex" another might not. Doubtless the CAA have got mountains of paperwork to illustrate the technical facts on which they make their judgements but if you strip-away all the red tape, you're left with an arbitary decision as to what aircraft you judge to be mechanically and/or technically too complicated to be operated by civilians.
Apart from the vaguely insulting notion that an aircraft is going to be flown and maintained less professionally by a civilian group (mostly comprising of ex-RAF types of course), the whole concept is still based on judgement. Patently, other countries make different judgements and I (plus a few thousand others no doubt!) think the CAA have got it very wrong. But you have to assume that we're stuck with what we've got; I can't imagine anyone having the patience and/or stamina to take on a monolith like the CAA. I guess it's their way or no way...
Apart from the vaguely insulting notion that an aircraft is going to be flown and maintained less professionally by a civilian group (mostly comprising of ex-RAF types of course), the whole concept is still based on judgement. Patently, other countries make different judgements and I (plus a few thousand others no doubt!) think the CAA have got it very wrong. But you have to assume that we're stuck with what we've got; I can't imagine anyone having the patience and/or stamina to take on a monolith like the CAA. I guess it's their way or no way...
Tim your spot on.
The CAA will produce stats out of there ears, and reasons why nothing will fly.
Get British Aerospace on your side, you may have a chance, and i mean PROPERLY on your side.
Kemble and there Hunters have proved a lot of folks wrong and i salute them, but when companies such as the Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford buy what was, by all accounts, a serviceable F4 and very quickly ditch the idea of flying it once they asked the CAA what an initial agreement to fly meant, it gives some idea of the scale of the task involved and more importantly the backing that is required.
JAGUAR - Now we know why god gave fighters 2 engines!!
The CAA will produce stats out of there ears, and reasons why nothing will fly.
Get British Aerospace on your side, you may have a chance, and i mean PROPERLY on your side.
Kemble and there Hunters have proved a lot of folks wrong and i salute them, but when companies such as the Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford buy what was, by all accounts, a serviceable F4 and very quickly ditch the idea of flying it once they asked the CAA what an initial agreement to fly meant, it gives some idea of the scale of the task involved and more importantly the backing that is required.
JAGUAR - Now we know why god gave fighters 2 engines!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Down South
Age: 53
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is a thread reference the possibility of a Civvie Jag, but I am with HHA Eng on the whole Bucc saga, so much so, that I have been searching through the CAA website and found this http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/286/CAA%20...Feb%202006.pdf
Yep, its a PDF, go to page 4 and then to the 4th Bullet down.
Yep, its a PDF, go to page 4 and then to the 4th Bullet down.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buccaneer
TMc-
Sorry about the little dig, couldn't resist it and you do raise some valid points about the discrepancies between legislative bodies around the world and the CAA. That said the achievement thus far in gaining WRITTEN authority to fly the BUCC heightens the level of achievement.
No miracles have been involved in the generation of this task the success so far with the Bucc has been down to pure hard work, determination, diplomacy and the regard in which the CAA hold HHA.
Sorry about the little dig, couldn't resist it and you do raise some valid points about the discrepancies between legislative bodies around the world and the CAA. That said the achievement thus far in gaining WRITTEN authority to fly the BUCC heightens the level of achievement.
No miracles have been involved in the generation of this task the success so far with the Bucc has been down to pure hard work, determination, diplomacy and the regard in which the CAA hold HHA.
Spare Jag fuselages on U-cart at St Athan this week. At least 2 engineless outside and one inside. Went for a tour of the White Elephant Kennel (aka Superhangar).
The 3 VC-10s get crushed in the next few weeks.
The 3 VC-10s get crushed in the next few weeks.
Originally Posted by Tim McLelland
I (plus a few thousand others no doubt!) think the CAA have got it very wrong. But you have to assume that we're stuck with what we've got; I can't imagine anyone having the patience and/or stamina to take on a monolith like the CAA. I guess it's their way or no way...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what would happen. Presumably the Lancaster would be certified, as it's hardly a "complex" aircraft, but then the CAA won't even certify a Shackleton, so who knows? On the other hand, I do wonder why the RAF hangs-on to the BBMF when the country is already well supplied by a number of privately-owned Spitfires and even Hurricanes. Just seems a tad pointless to me. You'd think that even if an outight "sell-off" was too much to swallow, there ought to be some sort of scope for some kind of "semi privatised" arrangement? But who knows; I guess the only certainty on that score is that when the BBMF finally does become too expensive to maintain, the aircraft will still be around long after the BBMF has gone, so at least we don't have to lose any sleep on that score. However, over at Bruntingthorpe I see that things are sliding from bad to worse (see the appropriate thread elsewhere)...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mandria, Cyprus
Age: 69
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best be quick with the frames at SA. A few of them were seen trunddling down the road on the back of 40 footers the other day. Heading for the east coast, I think.
And Truck?
The Jaguar they are trying to keep in the air is not headed to the south coast.
You only need to look at the present day Tonka fleet to realize storage at St Athan may not be a death knell.
Certainly Jaguars have re-appeared from Shawbury and the Tardis hangar. The Jag needed a lot of money spent on it mid life following the sticky leg problem and spar issues. Not all survived that cull, it was not all about a cockpit upgrade.
The Jags heading to meet there maker via the south coast are VERY old examples, at best the single seats are a mixtue of GR1's and a bit, as it happens I think a standard edition Jag as issued to the RAF should be kept -= Might open some eyes, and I am talking when the hand controller for the NAVWASS was very heads in, slightly below the paper moving map!!
Lets keep this on track, Its about trying to keep a flying example of an aircraft that has given extraordinary service to this country airborne. For all folk carp about it, it has for 30 years given the RAF sterling service, and at the end of the day it was only shot down in combat by a F4 pilot on the same side!!
The Tornado and Harriers (hopefully soon) turn will come. Till then lets give it our full support, lets just move away from the Jags in storage at St Athan / Shawbury concept. Half the RAF fleet is in storage, that's just the way it is.
As i said- Jaguar the only SUPERSONIC, single seat, aircraft that dropped bombs for this country. (Sorry Harrier mates, your not supersonic - as much as the Jags claim may be tenious and impractible, you just can't)
The Jaguar they are trying to keep in the air is not headed to the south coast.
You only need to look at the present day Tonka fleet to realize storage at St Athan may not be a death knell.
Certainly Jaguars have re-appeared from Shawbury and the Tardis hangar. The Jag needed a lot of money spent on it mid life following the sticky leg problem and spar issues. Not all survived that cull, it was not all about a cockpit upgrade.
The Jags heading to meet there maker via the south coast are VERY old examples, at best the single seats are a mixtue of GR1's and a bit, as it happens I think a standard edition Jag as issued to the RAF should be kept -= Might open some eyes, and I am talking when the hand controller for the NAVWASS was very heads in, slightly below the paper moving map!!
Lets keep this on track, Its about trying to keep a flying example of an aircraft that has given extraordinary service to this country airborne. For all folk carp about it, it has for 30 years given the RAF sterling service, and at the end of the day it was only shot down in combat by a F4 pilot on the same side!!
The Tornado and Harriers (hopefully soon) turn will come. Till then lets give it our full support, lets just move away from the Jags in storage at St Athan / Shawbury concept. Half the RAF fleet is in storage, that's just the way it is.
As i said- Jaguar the only SUPERSONIC, single seat, aircraft that dropped bombs for this country. (Sorry Harrier mates, your not supersonic - as much as the Jags claim may be tenious and impractible, you just can't)
Last edited by Skeleton; 4th Aug 2006 at 07:19.
