Andy Hill interviewed
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C.. EASA have sod all to do with PtF matters in this country. It is all covered by BCARs and specific CAPs as you well know.
Ex-military aircraft fall within the new CAA GA Unit, set up in early 2014 (about the time that the communication breakdown highlighted in the AAIB report).
This was formed to make regulation less 'gold plated' at the behest of then Government Minister Grant Shapps. After Shoreham I wonder how successful that can be have seen to have been.
Never Fretter and Alber Ratman,
I have no quarrel with the point you make, but I suspect you may have read too much into A and C's post. The way I read it was that he was remarking on the regulatory differences (efficiency) between EASA and CAA. I may have missed it, but I'm not sure he was blaming EASA for the Civi Hunter PtF.
A and C?
I have no quarrel with the point you make, but I suspect you may have read too much into A and C's post. The way I read it was that he was remarking on the regulatory differences (efficiency) between EASA and CAA. I may have missed it, but I'm not sure he was blaming EASA for the Civi Hunter PtF.
A and C?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, I was pointing out that rants against the EU system (that by god, has massive faults in it IMHO, certainly as far as PART 66 and other countries grandfather rights are concerned) had nothing to do with the regulations concerning British ex war birds. Nothing more.
Having been both sides of the fence as an engineer, I do not believe some of the things I am hearing or reading. Life limited means exactly that, regardless of military or civil aviation remits.
Having been both sides of the fence as an engineer, I do not believe some of the things I am hearing or reading. Life limited means exactly that, regardless of military or civil aviation remits.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 28th Dec 2015 at 18:43.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil
As you correctly understood I was just pointing out that the UK CAA may have their faults but these are minor when compared to EASA. ( with a hint that if you make unjustified criticism of them and the press run with it you may end up with something far worse )
Some on these forums are too fast to read and too slow to understand what is written some times, as to the "warped agenda" I have no idea what that is all about !??!
Some on these forums are too fast to read and too slow to understand what is written some times, as to the "warped agenda" I have no idea what that is all about !??!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A & C.. I cannot understand your judgement on life limited pyrotechnics and the fact that life expiry extension decisions can be decided by the operators maintainer as seems to be the case here. Explosives fail, even if they are within life. The type I am employed on has more explosive devices on it that just fire bottle squibs (explosive separation bolts) and we did have a case of one fail in emergency use. Martin Baker have a strict guidance policy that such charges in their equipment should be discarded either if shelf life or installed life is reached (always the first date to be hit was MoD policy). CAP 533 A3-7 Para 12 makes interesting reading on the matter of service lifed components and airworthiness reviews for C of V, seems fairly black and white.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 28th Dec 2015 at 23:00.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange that you should pick para 12 there, Alber, as it deals with what the CAA will check in the operator's documentation. It isn't the most relevant reference for what the requirements are for lifing equipment. Just the one reference to lifted items there:
"all service life limited components installed on the aircraft are properly identified, recorded and have not exceeded their approved service life limit;"
And, again, that is what the CAA should audit, not what the regulations are regarding lifed items, what the operattor's responsibilities are beyond identifying and documenting items, nor does it explain who approves the service life limit.
Not really a relevant reference, Alber Ratman.
"all service life limited components installed on the aircraft are properly identified, recorded and have not exceeded their approved service life limit;"
And, again, that is what the CAA should audit, not what the regulations are regarding lifed items, what the operattor's responsibilities are beyond identifying and documenting items, nor does it explain who approves the service life limit.
Not really a relevant reference, Alber Ratman.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
Exactly atomkraft, so what do we "think" we know, well at the moment nothing points towards anything but pilot error? To low an entry for the manoeuvre ? Faulty procedures at the maintenance company? Life expired components? The need to revise air show procedures?
If that is simply the case then surely they would audit other companies also carrying out Hunter flying and if everything checks out maintenance, pilot currency, and lifed components wise, why are they not being released to resume flying?
After all, the planet is littered with pilot error wrecks, and one does not see the myriad of other types from 737's to Spitfires grounded.
It just all seems strange that resumption has not been resolved all be it for a limited amount of operators, carts etc could be months old on some jets, not years, or did every company miss understand the life limits, and if they did, then that speaks volumes as to any ambiguity.
If that is simply the case then surely they would audit other companies also carrying out Hunter flying and if everything checks out maintenance, pilot currency, and lifed components wise, why are they not being released to resume flying?
After all, the planet is littered with pilot error wrecks, and one does not see the myriad of other types from 737's to Spitfires grounded.
It just all seems strange that resumption has not been resolved all be it for a limited amount of operators, carts etc could be months old on some jets, not years, or did every company miss understand the life limits, and if they did, then that speaks volumes as to any ambiguity.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alber Ratman
Once again I don't think that you are reading my post correctly and jumping to conclusions based on a very black and white reading of manuals.
Tha fact that historic military aircraft have had a substantial change of role from being avalable for service world wide in any environmental conditions to being occasionally flown museum exhibits requires a review of ALL maintenance practices to ensure they are appropriate to the current operating environment.
If you take the trouble to carefully read the last paragraph of my post # 45 rather than picking out bits and jumping on the outrage bus you will understand that a review of the operating conditions may well involve new and or tighter restrictions than the original manufacturers imposed.
Tha fact that historic military aircraft have had a substantial change of role from being avalable for service world wide in any environmental conditions to being occasionally flown museum exhibits requires a review of ALL maintenance practices to ensure they are appropriate to the current operating environment.
If you take the trouble to carefully read the last paragraph of my post # 45 rather than picking out bits and jumping on the outrage bus you will understand that a review of the operating conditions may well involve new and or tighter restrictions than the original manufacturers imposed.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nut
I suspect that everyone is hanging back waiting for someone (anyone) to move things along officially
No-one will want to pre-empt the police investigation publically - they decide if there is a case or not, then there is the inquest etc etc - keeping a few old aircraft grounded through the winter is acceptable to the authorities compared to gettting a bollocking from m'Learn'd friends for screwing up some legal process
I suspect that everyone is hanging back waiting for someone (anyone) to move things along officially
No-one will want to pre-empt the police investigation publically - they decide if there is a case or not, then there is the inquest etc etc - keeping a few old aircraft grounded through the winter is acceptable to the authorities compared to gettting a bollocking from m'Learn'd friends for screwing up some legal process
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C.. Reading the special report by the AAIB. The CAA requirements are stated in the report. The maintenance provider used a completely different approach to the life requirements outside the guidelines specified by the CAA, that really WAS a requirement for the continued validity of the PtF and may prove to be in a court of law. The operating organisation should also have been aware of the issues, they have the technical records for continued airworthiness. Of course none of this remotely caused the accident to happen, however what legal implications arise because of this, only time will tell.
One shot hard life calendar items like a seat cartridge. OEM has tested the hell out of them and came up with 6 years on a shelf (storage conditions) or 2 years in a seat in a cockpit (installed). Chief Engineer who is not legally a specialist on the equipment then gives them a 6 year installed life, way passed their total life expiry time?? I just am thinking... WTF?
One shot hard life calendar items like a seat cartridge. OEM has tested the hell out of them and came up with 6 years on a shelf (storage conditions) or 2 years in a seat in a cockpit (installed). Chief Engineer who is not legally a specialist on the equipment then gives them a 6 year installed life, way passed their total life expiry time?? I just am thinking... WTF?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alber Ratman
Do you ever read things and take the trouble to understand or do you just jump to conclusions based on just skimming the data and an interpretation that fits your agenda ?
Please take care to read what I said about extending the life of items in post #45
The last as the last sentence is critical to my views on the subject I shall repeat it......................."it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data."
From this statement most people would assume that it follows that if you have no data to support the life extension of an item of equipment then you should not do it.
Please take care to read what I said about extending the life of items in post #45
The last as the last sentence is critical to my views on the subject I shall repeat it......................."it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data."
From this statement most people would assume that it follows that if you have no data to support the life extension of an item of equipment then you should not do it.
Last edited by A and C; 29th Dec 2015 at 19:37.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your statement.. "It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in either direction to ensure reliable performance."
Think the CAA will disagree with you there. If I knowingly fitted out of date components and certified the CRS, my company management and quality would take a dim view on it indeed. There is no way that Martin Baker agree to cartridge extensions, never did with air force equipment unless in exceptional circumstances. The David Stock death in ZU-BEX was due to out of date cartridges not functioning correctly. I would seriously doubt that MB would consider extensions for any British civil seat or give the CAA formal OEM approval to issue variations for that reason alone, not worth their corporate image or reputation. All I will say now on the matter, if you disagree, so be it, everyone has an opinion.
Anyway the CAA no doubts will examine all the details and make changes to CAPS and BCARs if they see fit.
Think the CAA will disagree with you there. If I knowingly fitted out of date components and certified the CRS, my company management and quality would take a dim view on it indeed. There is no way that Martin Baker agree to cartridge extensions, never did with air force equipment unless in exceptional circumstances. The David Stock death in ZU-BEX was due to out of date cartridges not functioning correctly. I would seriously doubt that MB would consider extensions for any British civil seat or give the CAA formal OEM approval to issue variations for that reason alone, not worth their corporate image or reputation. All I will say now on the matter, if you disagree, so be it, everyone has an opinion.
Anyway the CAA no doubts will examine all the details and make changes to CAPS and BCARs if they see fit.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 29th Dec 2015 at 21:23.
Alber Ratman, again I feel I must say something because this is getting tedious. It is quite obvious that A and C is NOT advocating the use of our of date components. He is suggesting that, as the conditions under which a component is used change, there may be a case for the manufacturer (for example) to re-evaluate the in use life of the item. It may be that changes in conditions affect the safe life of the item.
If the manufacturer were to collect and analyse new data, they may wish to declare a different in-use life. Frankly, I doubt this will happen, especially for equipment that is no longer supported, but that is not the point.
The point is, Alber, you are clearly not reading A and C's posts and are arguing against something he's not saying. I would drop it there if I were you, you are massively disrupting the thread.
If the manufacturer were to collect and analyse new data, they may wish to declare a different in-use life. Frankly, I doubt this will happen, especially for equipment that is no longer supported, but that is not the point.
The point is, Alber, you are clearly not reading A and C's posts and are arguing against something he's not saying. I would drop it there if I were you, you are massively disrupting the thread.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil
A big thank you !
Mr Ratman clearly has not taken the trouble to read or understand my posts on the subject especially the part of post #45 that said that while reviewing maintenance practices the life of components could be moved in ether direction.
The problem with maintaining old aircraft is that some of the manufacturers assumptions about component life was based on hours flown in the type of service that the aircraft was designed for. In 1944 the manufacturer of a military transport aircraft components would never have expected them to be on the shelf for more than a few years and set the service life with this in mind, in 2015 I find myself with new and unused parts with serviceable labels dated in the mid 50's that if I took Mr Ratmans view would be OK to fit to an aircraft.
I take great care to look at old but unused parts as the passing of time could well have rendered the bit of paper that says it is serviceable worthless.
On the other hand some components had been given calendar lives for military service ( to fit into servicing schedules ?) that should have been based on cycles or flying hours and result in over maintaining the aircraft for no reward in reliability. The DHC-1 is a prime example of this, following the withdrawal from military service and DH support becoming the type certificate holder maintenance practices have been reviewed and maintenance data changed to be more appropriate to the operational conditions of the fleet in private hands.
As someone who is currently certifying the maintenance of two pre 1945 aircraft to public transport standard ( one on an AOC ) I have found the UK CAA very supportive of the flexible attitude all aspects of maintenance to ensure that it is appropriate to the current service environment of the aircraft.
I do hope that this realistic attitude to maintenance at the CAA will continue and they are not forced by the lawyers to retreat in to a position dogmatic adherence to inappropriate or out dated maintenance practices.
Mr Ratman clearly has not taken the trouble to read or understand my posts on the subject especially the part of post #45 that said that while reviewing maintenance practices the life of components could be moved in ether direction.
The problem with maintaining old aircraft is that some of the manufacturers assumptions about component life was based on hours flown in the type of service that the aircraft was designed for. In 1944 the manufacturer of a military transport aircraft components would never have expected them to be on the shelf for more than a few years and set the service life with this in mind, in 2015 I find myself with new and unused parts with serviceable labels dated in the mid 50's that if I took Mr Ratmans view would be OK to fit to an aircraft.
I take great care to look at old but unused parts as the passing of time could well have rendered the bit of paper that says it is serviceable worthless.
On the other hand some components had been given calendar lives for military service ( to fit into servicing schedules ?) that should have been based on cycles or flying hours and result in over maintaining the aircraft for no reward in reliability. The DHC-1 is a prime example of this, following the withdrawal from military service and DH support becoming the type certificate holder maintenance practices have been reviewed and maintenance data changed to be more appropriate to the operational conditions of the fleet in private hands.
As someone who is currently certifying the maintenance of two pre 1945 aircraft to public transport standard ( one on an AOC ) I have found the UK CAA very supportive of the flexible attitude all aspects of maintenance to ensure that it is appropriate to the current service environment of the aircraft.
I do hope that this realistic attitude to maintenance at the CAA will continue and they are not forced by the lawyers to retreat in to a position dogmatic adherence to inappropriate or out dated maintenance practices.
Last edited by A and C; 30th Dec 2015 at 13:30.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the SWISS!!!When Swissair went bust several years ago,they did the dirty allegedly on their Creditors and started up again with same aeroplanes and crews,having repainted them all white!Then after a short period they were "SWISS",which of course stands for "SO WHAT I AM STILL SWISS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Their Hunters have never stopped flying,as far as I recall.Just repainted them after being in the Newspaper Print Scheme!
A word about life extension to RAF escape system explosives, not necessarily related to non RAF aircraft. Extension of installed life was a fairly common event as I remember. Provided a justifiable operational reason was given, an extension of installed life could be granted up to the limit agreed by the OEM, but never to exceed the storage life. Of course things may have changed by now.
Regarding ex RAF aircraft, I was once asked, asked! after a lot of 1* name dropping, it was almost demanded of me to provide a copy of the OEM authority to extend a set of AAES explosives installed in an ex military jet, otherwise I would be responsible for that ac not completing the display season.
Having demurred on this I suggested the retired RAF officer contact the OEM. The full story could almost fit the 'Deference to Senior Officers' thread.
A bit off thread, but does anyone remember an unarmed seat falling out of an inverted JP (I think) over Suffolk late 80s early 90s?
Regarding ex RAF aircraft, I was once asked, asked! after a lot of 1* name dropping, it was almost demanded of me to provide a copy of the OEM authority to extend a set of AAES explosives installed in an ex military jet, otherwise I would be responsible for that ac not completing the display season.
Having demurred on this I suggested the retired RAF officer contact the OEM. The full story could almost fit the 'Deference to Senior Officers' thread.
A bit off thread, but does anyone remember an unarmed seat falling out of an inverted JP (I think) over Suffolk late 80s early 90s?
Provost inadvertant ejection
Think this is the one you're talking about. Mr Maloneys brother.
Jet passenger tells of fall from 3,000ft: Ejector-seat malfunctioned during victory roll | UK | News | The Independent
Jet passenger tells of fall from 3,000ft: Ejector-seat malfunctioned during victory roll | UK | News | The Independent