Brits reinventing the wheel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brits reinventing the wheel
The 135 (in different forms) has been flying for years but (from Flight Global):
The UK will have to use additional methods to complete the certification of the Royal Air Force's future fleet of three RC-135 Airseeker signals intelligence aircraft, a senior defence procurement official has cautioned.
Service introduction for the US Air Force-standard surveillance aircraft is planned to start with the delivery of one example in late 2013. The asset is currently being converted from a retired KC-135 tanker by L-3 Communications in Greenville, Texas.
Referring to the certification requirements mandated by the UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA), Air Marshal Simon Bollom, chief of materiel (air) for the nation's Defence Equipment & Support Organisation, says: "The evidence [on Airseeker] may be limited, or not exist at all." Speaking at the MAA's Military Air Safety conference in London on 24 October, he added: "We must be able to look at other processes."
The UK will have to use additional methods to complete the certification of the Royal Air Force's future fleet of three RC-135 Airseeker signals intelligence aircraft, a senior defence procurement official has cautioned.
Service introduction for the US Air Force-standard surveillance aircraft is planned to start with the delivery of one example in late 2013. The asset is currently being converted from a retired KC-135 tanker by L-3 Communications in Greenville, Texas.
Referring to the certification requirements mandated by the UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA), Air Marshal Simon Bollom, chief of materiel (air) for the nation's Defence Equipment & Support Organisation, says: "The evidence [on Airseeker] may be limited, or not exist at all." Speaking at the MAA's Military Air Safety conference in London on 24 October, he added: "We must be able to look at other processes."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
135 Airseeker is different enough to other 135's to require further certification. Mind you, there is probably a requirement from an age point of view as well; after all the aircraft first flew in 1964' ish.
Last edited by hval; 2nd Nov 2012 at 09:01.
Just imagine the USAF buying a retired DH Comet and using the modern military system to certificate it ? Same era ! Would be very difficult. Aircraft of that era wont meet modern airworthiness regs either military or civil, so there will be a lot of 'exemptions' to get them into service .....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!
For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!
For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!
For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!
For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.
The 135's are still flying.....and the Comets?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all those people in Whitehall and at BAe to be kept in jobs ...........
It'll add at least £ 100 mm to the bill
It'll add at least £ 100 mm to the bill
This sort of certification "difference" is exactly why the JAA & EASA was started - and why they were based on the FAA model. The mulitiple certification of a single type, just thoughout europe, cost manufacturers and owners a fortune when most of he work was already done, but written to a slightly different spec.
Perhaps this is what is meant by Bollom when he said "We must be able to look at other processes."
Perhaps this is what is meant by Bollom when he said "We must be able to look at other processes."
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALTERNATE STRATEGY
How about this for a plan:
Survey operational pilots and determine what limits they feel happy to operate their aircraft too. Then use these limits to define your RTS. If a big enough sample was taken, the evidence gathered could be used in a court of law as a burden of proof based on subject matter expert judgement.
This would be a very cost effective way of providing legal evidence to support your risk mitigation plan/RTS. Of course it does not provide you with a safe ac or operating procedures, but when has that mattered!
Survey operational pilots and determine what limits they feel happy to operate their aircraft too. Then use these limits to define your RTS. If a big enough sample was taken, the evidence gathered could be used in a court of law as a burden of proof based on subject matter expert judgement.
This would be a very cost effective way of providing legal evidence to support your risk mitigation plan/RTS. Of course it does not provide you with a safe ac or operating procedures, but when has that mattered!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect all those above questioning the need for a rigorous certification and testing schedule for a 'new' type into RAF service, much modified from its original spec will be the first to jump on the post-Haddon-Cave bandwagon* should anything go wrong in future..... sound familiar? 
*by that, I mean demanding the correct certification procedures have been followed and 'heads must roll' if short-cuts are taken....
*by that, I mean demanding the correct certification procedures have been followed and 'heads must roll' if short-cuts are taken....
Brits reinventing the wheel??
The title of this thread appears somewhat disparaging but it can pay to be cautious.
In the '90s I was in MoD on one of the ATAAR desks. The E3D was fairly new in service and one hot summer's day took off for a mission over Bosnia. Flying into a flock of birds immediately after T/O led to a double engine failure. Apparently, it then only just cleared the trees which were noted obstacles in the climb out area, alarming all involved with the programme.
The E3D office, manned in those days mainly by ex-Shackleton AEW people, came to us for advice. They furnished me with the ODM and all the pertinent details as a result of which I informed them that instead of missing the trees he should have hit them and my only advice was that they should get the E3D working to BCARs (as they then were) instead of using the USAF ODM which was postulated, as far as I could see, on gross performance and balanced fields. Even on the Hercs we used something approximating to BCARs in most cases.
Such an explanation was clearly beyond understanding and in any case was dismissed as too expensive even before any real consideration. I then suggested that, at least as an interim, they should add 35 feet to all obstacles and calculate take off weights to clear the additional height. The only reaction that created was that that would mean carrying less fuel and thus shorten sortie lengths.
I never did hear what eventually happened but I now quote this as a reason for caution and, at the very least, making sure you fully understand all aspects of what it is you are buying and not just accepting somebody else's promises that all is well. Let me also add I am not now and never have been an advocate of elf and safety and its a*** covering approach to all things which appears to be the current fashion.
In the '90s I was in MoD on one of the ATAAR desks. The E3D was fairly new in service and one hot summer's day took off for a mission over Bosnia. Flying into a flock of birds immediately after T/O led to a double engine failure. Apparently, it then only just cleared the trees which were noted obstacles in the climb out area, alarming all involved with the programme.
The E3D office, manned in those days mainly by ex-Shackleton AEW people, came to us for advice. They furnished me with the ODM and all the pertinent details as a result of which I informed them that instead of missing the trees he should have hit them and my only advice was that they should get the E3D working to BCARs (as they then were) instead of using the USAF ODM which was postulated, as far as I could see, on gross performance and balanced fields. Even on the Hercs we used something approximating to BCARs in most cases.
Such an explanation was clearly beyond understanding and in any case was dismissed as too expensive even before any real consideration. I then suggested that, at least as an interim, they should add 35 feet to all obstacles and calculate take off weights to clear the additional height. The only reaction that created was that that would mean carrying less fuel and thus shorten sortie lengths.
I never did hear what eventually happened but I now quote this as a reason for caution and, at the very least, making sure you fully understand all aspects of what it is you are buying and not just accepting somebody else's promises that all is well. Let me also add I am not now and never have been an advocate of elf and safety and its a*** covering approach to all things which appears to be the current fashion.
Last edited by Xercules; 4th Nov 2012 at 15:40.
This flying American Aircraft must be frustrating. The other side has been operating the things for almost fifty years and thus, unless completely stupid, have probably got a pretty good grasp on how to operate the things.
You reckon just maybe....one could start from there and perhaps not go clear back to the drawing board (which was probably how the first of these aircraft were designed) and just build upon what has been proven to work?
There very likely might be two right answers to the question you know.
You reckon just maybe....one could start from there and perhaps not go clear back to the drawing board (which was probably how the first of these aircraft were designed) and just build upon what has been proven to work?
There very likely might be two right answers to the question you know.