Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Sentinal Fleet sold to possibly the US Army

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Sentinal Fleet sold to possibly the US Army

Old 19th Nov 2021, 14:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: York
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
So it pre-supposes a fully airworthy aircraft with the exception of the specific named fault for which the dispensation of a single flight (RTB) is being authorised. So will these two aircraft fit that bill? Will the person authorising their flights out of UK airspace be able to make such a supposition? If so, how? He or She would be well advised to seek the advice from higher authority that you mention. In writing, with a dated and named signature!

PS just seen your link, Nutloose. Thank you. So the CAA, and not the regulatory authority responsible for the aircrafts' airworthiness (the MAA), issues the permit to fly. Why is that? How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved, or do they simply cross their fingers (rather as the MAA does)?

Chug, I can only answer for my time period 72-07 and aircraft within the RAF, not leaving the RAF to another Air Force.
As a footnote a cannot remember any fast jet that didnít have its fair share of reds and greens, although reviewed regularly some could be open for very long periods if the fix could only be achieved at a certain depth of servicing. I guess the civilian airline sector must use a similar system or nothing would ever fly.
dctyke is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 14:26
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
Yup. Jag eng door hinges were a classic, when they sheared off they could only be repaired at deep strip and overhaul as access to the F4 tank was required, so the doors were painted up no door hinges fitted and the airframe parts replaced on Majors.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 21:55
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 4,554
Thanks dctyke, and I absolutely understand the system you describe. I have to assume though that all those aircraft you so despatched were otherwise airworthy. That is the query I raise with these Sentinels; not their serviceability, not their Red/Green entries, not their deferred defects, just are they airworthy? Presumably the Military Regulator knows the answer to that. Presumably the US Army needs to know the answer to that.

Depending on the intended routeing through UK airspace, those resident below their track might wish to know the answer to that. I know I would. Maybe I do need to know the answer. Perhaps the CAA, if they are to issue the Permit to Fly, will tell us?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 22:01
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 22:06
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 4,554
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.
Is 'airworthy enough' ALARP, is 'airworthy enough' even a thing? Or was it simply unairworthy because it couldn't be proved to be otherwise.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2021, 07:51
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 51
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by Rigga View Post
Quite often seen on the Interiors Design market - additional holes and even large gaps aren't really an issue - Skin changes if needed.
I sold three ex-police aircraft and the buyer repaired and refurbished - and resold them for a large profit. There is enough of a market out there for used civil business jets.
Rigga, if only it were that easy! The chronic lack of investment/botched purchase of these aircraft means that there is lots more to continuing to use these aircraft than the interior!
DCThumb is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2021, 16:58
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,012
Yes, I understand the amounts of looms, back plates and mounting brackets that must've been in use and are still in place even after being 'stripped'. Often not a stopper for the right price.

IIRC, they are civil types (with Mods for operating equipment) and the engineers had (Civil) Part 66 licences to be able to certify them. So, if I'm correct, they could go to the civil market again (Which, I believe, was the original plan anyway!)
Rigga is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2021, 18:48
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,047
@Rigga - No, they did not have a valid TC or even a DO for the aircraft itself in RAF service (long story) and no licences required for RAF personnel. They key thing about this proposal is that Bombardier is actually part of the program. Smells suspiciously like doing it properly...
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2021, 23:44
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
Originally Posted by Rigga View Post
Yes, I understand the amounts of looms, back plates and mounting brackets that must've been in use and are still in place even after being 'stripped'. Often not a stopper for the right price.

IIRC, they are civil types (with Mods for operating equipment) and the engineers had (Civil) Part 66 licences to be able to certify them. So, if I'm correct, they could go to the civil market again (Which, I believe, was the original plan anyway!)

Also without windows, would the added structure to house the windows have ever been installed as it would be cheaper stronger and weight saving just to have skinned it minus openings, it’s not like a freighter conversion where they are replaced with metal blanks that could be changed back. I wouldn’t be surprised if the floor structure was stressed differently for the consoles and sideways facing seats.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2021, 01:12
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 417
There seems to be some confusion here as to who has airworthiness responsibility for these aircraft, MAA or CAA. Also, there is clearly some confusion between "Airworthy" and "Serviceable," I don't know too much about the MAA world, but in the CAA/FAA world these terms have very different meanings and are NOT interchangeable. The partial statement in Post #1, i.e. “Work has started to make them serviceable for flight already. Just enough to get them over the pond. Nothing to do with the mission side.” is probably correct.
Saint Jack is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2021, 03:25
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
I thought that was taken as read, most of the kit has already been removed, so it would be just the Airframe they are after readying.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2021, 06:28
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 51
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Also without windows, would the added structure to house the windows have ever been installed as it would be cheaper stronger and weight saving just to have skinned it minus openings, itís not like a freighter conversion where they are replaced with metal blanks that could be changed back. I wouldnít be surprised if the floor structure was stressed differently for the consoles and sideways facing seats.
The aircraft were all made with windows which were blanked out when the green aircraft were converted. At one stage, Raytheon approached BBD and asked if they wanted to buy the windows back as spares. BBD politely declined....and pointed out that they could have built them without windows easily!!

The structural mods to the aircraft, electrical changes, bleed air changes etc. all make it way too expensive to convert the aircraft back to Global Spec - and this was never the plan! Just look at the prices of early Global Express (not even XRS standard) on the used market and you quickly see why it is not economically viable to change the aircraft.
DCThumb is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2021, 09:46
  #33 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,129
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
@Rigga - No, they did not have a valid TC or even a DO for the aircraft itself in RAF service (long story) and no licences required for RAF personnel. They key thing about this proposal is that Bombardier is actually part of the program. Smells suspiciously like doing it properly...
That's intriguing to learn. I was working as a contractor at Waddington not long after the type was introduced and talking to other engineers, applications to work on the type were over subscribed due to the attraction of getting a licence. I am also aware of two other engineers more recently, four years ago in fact, who were also sent on a licence course prior to their posting on type.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2021, 10:26
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 953
I've never heard of sentinel engineers being licensed, shadow are.
downsizer is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2021, 01:13
  #35 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
I still cannot fathom why the military ever had to go down the licensing route for aircraft on the military register, the previous system pre licensing had worked since the RAF’s inception.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2021, 08:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 65
Posts: 4,744
The Sentinel is obviously being bought by the US Army to allow the General to travel with his horse!


Wensleydale is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2021, 22:56
  #37 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,940
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...us-army-report


An update, I do wonder if part of the deal in selling them would be a part ex so to speak against the wanted biz jets to replace the BAe 146 or am I just being far to sensible in MOD land.

After all the tooling, experience and operational skills set is available in the RAF to look after the biz jet variant.
NutLoose is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.