Harrier in civillian hands
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 216
Likes: 15
From: the middle of everywhere
Harrier in civillian hands
Given that the UK (IMHO) missed a great opportunity to have a Bucc flying like they're doing in SA, what are the chances of getting a Harrier or 2 flying in a civillian capacity?
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: The sunny South
Reportedly, the only Harrier in private hands to date:
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
From: Back from the sandpit
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 216
Likes: 15
From: the middle of everywhere
The TC website is still live but only the front page. If they have shut down it is very sad but possibly understandable.
Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support.
Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
Not disagreeing with JF, since what he says is the practical answer.
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
NoD
* The Vulcan is an exception - there may be the odd other. A degree of the problems in operating the Vulcan are the costs and procedures involved in requiring MA as a design ? maint ? support? organisation.
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
NoD
* The Vulcan is an exception - there may be the odd other. A degree of the problems in operating the Vulcan are the costs and procedures involved in requiring MA as a design ? maint ? support? organisation.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 97
From: U.S.A.
Not only reportedly FOD Plod, but actually. I saw it just this last weekend at the Pax River Air Expo, even with the Blue Angels and a bunch of other stuff, the Sea Harrier still drew much appreciation and applause from the crowd, many of whom have never seen vertical flight from a fast jet.
Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPrune, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US.
Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPrune, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,340
Likes: 112
From: UK
This little fella is in a "back garden" near RAF Croughton in Oxfordshire.
Sea Harrier...002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Sea Harrier...002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: N42° 20' 43" W71° 04' 45"
Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
From: upstairs
Twos in
"Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPRuNe, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US."
I don't think he ever asked BAE and I believe Rolls Royce rejected the request very rapidly. Bear in mind, the jet had a wheels-up on an early flight because they'd removed the emergency u/c lowering so RR's attitude might be justified. The US is a bigger place than the UK and there's plenty of space to lose the jet without landing on someone.
son of brommers
"Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support."
The report on the South African Lightning might go a long way to explaining and even validating the CAA's stance. It won't be long before its issued.
"Purely anecdotal, but in keeping with PPRuNe, Art Nalls allegedly gets little if any support from BAE or RR for his plane on the grounds of commercial liability, so he has to beg, borrow and steal to keep it airworthy. Something intrinsically ironic in the fact the the FAA will allow a private ex-UK Harrier to operate in the US."
I don't think he ever asked BAE and I believe Rolls Royce rejected the request very rapidly. Bear in mind, the jet had a wheels-up on an early flight because they'd removed the emergency u/c lowering so RR's attitude might be justified. The US is a bigger place than the UK and there's plenty of space to lose the jet without landing on someone.
son of brommers
"Back to the Harrier question, why does the UK CAA have such a seemingly negative stance on ex-mil jets operating, if the Yanks can do it why can't we? I'm sure that there is enough expertise and funding to keep a couple flying with the right sponsorship/support."
The report on the South African Lightning might go a long way to explaining and even validating the CAA's stance. It won't be long before its issued.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 546
Likes: 129
From: London
I agree with John Farley (but who wouldn't...). I had this discussion with a CAA display supervisor some years ago re the Lightning and Phantom. His line was that the aircraft were too complex for 'normal people' to operate and, even though there were simulators etc, the range of emergencies put it into the too difficult category. The risk to the public of something going wrong at a display was therefore deemed to be too great.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
Hawk T1
A question if I may,
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
Would the Hawk T1 be classed as intermediate? I have often wondered if some may eventually be disposed of in a similar way to the Hunters in the eighties, mainly because I then might be able to fulfill a long held desire to fly in one (mortgage notwithstanding).
Don't tell the wife
Thank you.
The theoretical answer would be based on CAP632 - see Ch4 and the Harrier for all sorts of reasons would be a "Complex" type. All* current UK ex-Mil Jets are 'Intermediate' (JPs, Hunters etc.). 'Complex' types have a high hurdle of engineering support, in principle equivalent to "manufacturers' support", in order to get a Permit to Fly.
Would the Hawk T1 be classed as intermediate? I have often wondered if some may eventually be disposed of in a similar way to the Hunters in the eighties, mainly because I then might be able to fulfill a long held desire to fly in one (mortgage notwithstanding).
Don't tell the wife
Thank you.