Petition running to allow Art Nalls to display his Sea Harrier in the UK
I have to say I think Two's in has the most pragmatic post on this thread so far. I would love to see a Sea Harrier flying in the UK, almost as much as a Phantom, Buccaneer and Lightning. Unfortunately nostalgia, sentiment and excitement don't carry much weight when evaluating a safety case.
Flying fast jet combat aircraft carries a significant risk, even in a peacetime military environment. When you take the aircraft out of that environment and put it into a relatively small private organisation with much more limited resources the risk increases. The aircraft themselves are often demanding to fly and unforgiving in the event of errors. Aircrew have less opportunity to fly and maintain currency. There is probably less supervision to ensure the required skill levels are maintained and operating procedures followed. There are probably no independent 'trappers' and no simulator to practice emergency procedures.
There will be financial pressures on maintenance and possibly restricted supplies of spares. When those difficult snags occur and cannot be reproduced on the ground, does the organisation have the resources to change several components in the hope of fixing the fault or release the aircraft as is, in the hope that the snag was a transient that has now cleared. They may not have access to test equipment or manufacturers support to ensure components are serviceable. The ground crew will have limited opportunities to maintain their competency with only one aircraft of the type to work on and may well lack sufficient specialists to cover all the trades adequately.
I admire Art Nalls for his efforts in getting the aircraft flying in the USA and, judging by his website he certainly seems to have the right background and a very professional organisation. I don't believe private operators of miltary aircraft deliberately cut corners or take unnecessary risks. However after spending 40 years supporting miltary aircraft, admittedly from a manufacturing organisation, I think it is very unlikely that a safety case could be made to the CAA's satisfaction, and making my own judgement of the risk, I think they would probably be correct to refuse to allow the aircraft to fly in the UK.
Flying fast jet combat aircraft carries a significant risk, even in a peacetime military environment. When you take the aircraft out of that environment and put it into a relatively small private organisation with much more limited resources the risk increases. The aircraft themselves are often demanding to fly and unforgiving in the event of errors. Aircrew have less opportunity to fly and maintain currency. There is probably less supervision to ensure the required skill levels are maintained and operating procedures followed. There are probably no independent 'trappers' and no simulator to practice emergency procedures.
There will be financial pressures on maintenance and possibly restricted supplies of spares. When those difficult snags occur and cannot be reproduced on the ground, does the organisation have the resources to change several components in the hope of fixing the fault or release the aircraft as is, in the hope that the snag was a transient that has now cleared. They may not have access to test equipment or manufacturers support to ensure components are serviceable. The ground crew will have limited opportunities to maintain their competency with only one aircraft of the type to work on and may well lack sufficient specialists to cover all the trades adequately.
I admire Art Nalls for his efforts in getting the aircraft flying in the USA and, judging by his website he certainly seems to have the right background and a very professional organisation. I don't believe private operators of miltary aircraft deliberately cut corners or take unnecessary risks. However after spending 40 years supporting miltary aircraft, admittedly from a manufacturing organisation, I think it is very unlikely that a safety case could be made to the CAA's satisfaction, and making my own judgement of the risk, I think they would probably be correct to refuse to allow the aircraft to fly in the UK.
Last edited by walbut; 30th May 2013 at 19:59.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,121
Received 2,959 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
Walbut, I read somewhere a German Phantom maybe at Waddo on its way to retirement,..... Might be dreaming, but I'm sure I read it.
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th May 2013 at 20:32.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of CAA requirements doc
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP632.PDF
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/CAP632...ING%202007.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP632.PDF
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/CAP632...ING%202007.pdf
Last edited by lj101; 31st May 2013 at 06:24.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing and hearing the jet flying in the States was great and brought back lots of happy memories for me but I cannot see the CAA ever allowing it to fly in the UK. It was seriously looked into for the Fly Navy 100 celebrations though.
Probably the biggest issue is with the engine, that has Rolls Royce extremely worried due to corporate liability. It was (may have changed it by now) an early Pegasus 104 which was sold as scrap but somehow Art got enough lifing data to convince the FAA that it was airworthy. It has the pre-modification LP1 fan of the type that failed catastrophically at Wittering on both a T8 (RIP Jack London) and a T10.
Add to that a home made gear blow down system, a US ACES ejection seat and an off the shelf HUD and it will be a hard job for anyone to convince the CAA.
Don't get me wrong,I would love to see an FA2 over Yeovilton again, I just don't think it's realistic.
Probably the biggest issue is with the engine, that has Rolls Royce extremely worried due to corporate liability. It was (may have changed it by now) an early Pegasus 104 which was sold as scrap but somehow Art got enough lifing data to convince the FAA that it was airworthy. It has the pre-modification LP1 fan of the type that failed catastrophically at Wittering on both a T8 (RIP Jack London) and a T10.
Add to that a home made gear blow down system, a US ACES ejection seat and an off the shelf HUD and it will be a hard job for anyone to convince the CAA.
Don't get me wrong,I would love to see an FA2 over Yeovilton again, I just don't think it's realistic.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhiteOvies,
Hello mate - hope all well slightly further east.
Let's not forget that whilst the un-modified LP1 fan did catastrophically fail in Jack's case an awful lot didn't - and the modified fan actually FOD'd itself (I think technically termed 'snubber cracking') with what became boring regularity. The mod was a well intentioned shambles.
(I even remember RR giving us forms so we could write down how much time we spent at what power setting as the phenomenon appeared to be something completely new to them.)
I assume we never got to the bottom of why it happened because we were all still scratching our heads on that dark day in 2006. (That turned out to be mere duskers compared to that dark day in 2010!)
Sorry chaps - not much 'on thread' here!
Hello mate - hope all well slightly further east.
Let's not forget that whilst the un-modified LP1 fan did catastrophically fail in Jack's case an awful lot didn't - and the modified fan actually FOD'd itself (I think technically termed 'snubber cracking') with what became boring regularity. The mod was a well intentioned shambles.
(I even remember RR giving us forms so we could write down how much time we spent at what power setting as the phenomenon appeared to be something completely new to them.)
I assume we never got to the bottom of why it happened because we were all still scratching our heads on that dark day in 2006. (That turned out to be mere duskers compared to that dark day in 2010!)
Sorry chaps - not much 'on thread' here!
If the CAA can authorise an ex-mil delta wing bomber which flies in the UK with an all up weight in excess of 100,000lbs, then why not a SHar? I suspect that the Vulcan has the same spares issues and also a lack of funds to change stuff completely 'on spec'?
Seems to me that a straight bat is not being played with...
LJ
PS - I just saw a comment on the petition saying something along the lines of "this aircraft saved the country like the Hurricane and Spitfire"! What tripe, I don't believe General Galtieri was planning to invade the UK...
Seems to me that a straight bat is not being played with...
LJ
PS - I just saw a comment on the petition saying something along the lines of "this aircraft saved the country like the Hurricane and Spitfire"! What tripe, I don't believe General Galtieri was planning to invade the UK...
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Jun 2013 at 06:38.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are 3 show stoppers here:
1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "- difficult to demonstrate for the Harrier, which from memory had a loss rate up there with the Starfighter and the Lightning.
2. The aircraft would almost certainly be considered to be in the Complex category by the CAA. The only aircraft in this category they have permitted is the Vulcan. One requirement for complex category is to have arrangements in place for support from a competent design organisation for the type i.e BAES and Rolls-Royce. This is in place for the Vulcan. I have had extensive dealings in my professional life with the Airworthiness Department of both companies, I confidently predict that they would not touch this particular Sea Harrier with a bargepole. Therefore, I can't agree that the CAA are not playing it with a straight bat.
3. Finally, I think the Thunder City debacle will not have warmed the CAA to enthusiasts operating complex fast jets on a shoe string.
So although it would be nice to see a British aviation classic back in our skies, it isn't going to happen - and for good reason.
Mr Bollo
1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "- difficult to demonstrate for the Harrier, which from memory had a loss rate up there with the Starfighter and the Lightning.
2. The aircraft would almost certainly be considered to be in the Complex category by the CAA. The only aircraft in this category they have permitted is the Vulcan. One requirement for complex category is to have arrangements in place for support from a competent design organisation for the type i.e BAES and Rolls-Royce. This is in place for the Vulcan. I have had extensive dealings in my professional life with the Airworthiness Department of both companies, I confidently predict that they would not touch this particular Sea Harrier with a bargepole. Therefore, I can't agree that the CAA are not playing it with a straight bat.
3. Finally, I think the Thunder City debacle will not have warmed the CAA to enthusiasts operating complex fast jets on a shoe string.
So although it would be nice to see a British aviation classic back in our skies, it isn't going to happen - and for good reason.
Mr Bollo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,121
Received 2,959 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
You think the Harriers engine is bad, think of the likes of the worlds fleet of meteors or vampires etc still flying, the engines in those i believe were pre lifed component days, and one would imagine RR would be worried about those as some of them could have been built at the end of the war.
1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "- difficult to demonstrate for the Harrier, which from memory had a loss rate up there with the Starfighter and the Lightning.
Purely from memory, I'd say the SHAR record was pretty good. Many losses were in combat, or outriggers hitting ramps. Any sensible certifying authority would exclude them as one assumes Mr Nalls isn't proposing...........
And one is not comparing like with like regulatory authorities. For much of SHAR's life, the cost of sandwiches in MoD canteens had greater priority than aircraft safety. It would be interesting to see a detailed argument of the reasons for refusal.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to see a detailed argument of the reasons for refusal.
2. The aircraft would almost certainly be considered to be in the Complex category by the CAA. The only aircraft in this category they have permitted is the Vulcan. One requirement for complex category is to have arrangements in place for support from a competent design organisation for the type i.e BAES and Rolls-Royce. This is in place for the Vulcan
NoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,121
Received 2,959 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
I think no manual reversion is one criteria they look at..
Supermarine Spitfire operational history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. CAP 632 will only allow a Permit to Fly to be granted for an aircraft that had "a reasonable safety record in military service "
Between 1 August 1940 and 31 October, Spitfire losses amounted to 208 lost in combat, seven destroyed on the ground, and 42 in flying accidents.
Supermarine Spitfire operational history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So the Peggy 104 is not safe!!!!
I spent much of my early life sitting on the Peggy 101, 102 and 103. I didn't crash - I didn't die - I never had a major engine problem.
If the earlier engines were good enough for HMTQ's finest to fly, then why is the later 104 not safe for a well-intentioned ex-USMC flier to operate in our airspace?
Does our "special relationship" not make his request - and the desire of many to see what he, personally, can afford to do, but which we, nationally, cannot afford to do - something which should be considered as a unique and worthwhile event?
I think that we should welcome him into our airspace, to represent a magnificent achievement of British aerospace and engineering accomplishments.
I realise that my suggestion will achieve nothing - but it is a great shame that we seem unable to recognise and applaud some of the great things that we have given to the world.
I spent much of my early life sitting on the Peggy 101, 102 and 103. I didn't crash - I didn't die - I never had a major engine problem.
If the earlier engines were good enough for HMTQ's finest to fly, then why is the later 104 not safe for a well-intentioned ex-USMC flier to operate in our airspace?
Does our "special relationship" not make his request - and the desire of many to see what he, personally, can afford to do, but which we, nationally, cannot afford to do - something which should be considered as a unique and worthwhile event?
I think that we should welcome him into our airspace, to represent a magnificent achievement of British aerospace and engineering accomplishments.
I realise that my suggestion will achieve nothing - but it is a great shame that we seem unable to recognise and applaud some of the great things that we have given to the world.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 53
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Art is a retired USMC officer. I don't know if he is still on the reserve list ( or whatever the US equivalent is), but that can easily be remedied in the US.
Get the USMC to "adopt" the jet, then it can be flown anywhere as a state aircraft.
Uk CAA can get fecked!
Get the USMC to "adopt" the jet, then it can be flown anywhere as a state aircraft.
Uk CAA can get fecked!
Mrbollo
I think there were about 130 Vulcans made and about 25 lost in accidents - that's roughly 1-in-5 written off in accidents!
Having had dealings with the Campaign Against Aviation on a number of occasions with G-Reg aircraft and other issues under this QuaNGO's jurisdiction, I can say with experience that their bat is not straight! Just go and look at the complaints about them on other forums on this site and others like Flyer's - they're even subject to a 'red tape challenge' set up by Mr Shapps MP.
LJ
I think there were about 130 Vulcans made and about 25 lost in accidents - that's roughly 1-in-5 written off in accidents!
Having had dealings with the Campaign Against Aviation on a number of occasions with G-Reg aircraft and other issues under this QuaNGO's jurisdiction, I can say with experience that their bat is not straight! Just go and look at the complaints about them on other forums on this site and others like Flyer's - they're even subject to a 'red tape challenge' set up by Mr Shapps MP.
LJ
The issue is not the CAA, but finding a supporting DO.
In general terms, the entire thrust of the Haddon-Cave report was that MoD had to a large extent ceased to fund such activities. The “savings at the expense of safety” evidence he was advised of and agreed with. At the very least, this long standing policy would create huge gaps in any audit trail, which Mr Nalls and any DO may find difficult to close. (And the MAA/MoD are on record as not seeking to close, and certainly not for an out-of-service aircraft).
Last night I was able to dig out a formal notification from 7th January 1991 warning of the effects of such a run down on SHAR. The concern at the time was the FAA having only one squadron (and a short one at that) with full operational capability. This was related to a BoI recommendation which the RN ignored and RAF (AMSO) refused to fund anyway (as AMSO held the necessary funding). It wasn’t that anything in the aircraft was unsafe; rather it was the fact a necessary equipment was being actively scrapped instead of repaired by suppliers, without replacement, with the agreement of ASE(N). It reminded me of just how many of these warnings were issued at the time. I clearly remember us thinking this was the beginning of the end of SHAR. There was no policy, per se, to scrap SHAR. But it would be the logical eventual outcome if unfunded. 99.9% of the RN disagreed with the decision, but it showed how the actions of one or two men (specifically, one in ASE and one in AMSO) could determine these things.
Interesting observation about manual reversion. An old argument!
As LF says, there does seem to be double standards at play here.
Not surprised by CAA , as already stated Rolls wont have anything to do with it so the safety case is completely different to the older engines mentioned previously. Single engine VTOL is very different to a 'normal' fixed wing operation.Add in the non standard gear blowdown system which is not approved by anyone , and a non standard ejection seat installation. These things are possibly all done properly but without the relevant bits of paper......Good luck to Art , but the FAA regs are a bit different to here. Seem to recall there were proposals for a Breitling team of AV8'A's to be based here a few years ago but never got off the ground , think they were going to be US registered but whole thing got very expensive.