RAVN ex-RoKAF Hawk Mk 67 aircraft
(I have amended my previous post to strike out the bolleaux I was repeating.)
I too have read something about a ranging radar but can't find it now but anyway I consider CAEBr has definitively refuted that myth. When Air USA/RAVN Aero were trying to sell them in 2022 the only radar mentioned was the sole
ELTA EL/M-2052.
At the time of the two incidents Air USA had with N509XX and N506XX BAES were not supporting their operation and the FAA appeared to be happy with them applying the OEM maintenance procedures with no external supervision - BAES suspended talks following the write off 506 I haven't seen anything to the effect they later agreed to support them. They were also using USAF owned but not BAES approved SUU-20 practice munitions dispensers fot the installation of which they had commisioned a structural comparision report from a FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative) but nothing on aerodynamic effects of using them and non-OEM approved munitions. I hope this isn't indicative of a tendancy to sail too close to the wind.
I too have read something about a ranging radar but can't find it now but anyway I consider CAEBr has definitively refuted that myth. When Air USA/RAVN Aero were trying to sell them in 2022 the only radar mentioned was the sole
ELTA EL/M-2052. At the time of the two incidents Air USA had with N509XX and N506XX BAES were not supporting their operation and the FAA appeared to be happy with them applying the OEM maintenance procedures with no external supervision - BAES suspended talks following the write off 506 I haven't seen anything to the effect they later agreed to support them. They were also using USAF owned but not BAES approved SUU-20 practice munitions dispensers fot the installation of which they had commisioned a structural comparision report from a FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative) but nothing on aerodynamic effects of using them and non-OEM approved munitions. I hope this isn't indicative of a tendancy to sail too close to the wind.
SLXO, we didn't really suspend talks after the second loss, we never really engaged in the first place. US Air contacted us as well as MBA and RR, telling each (when we compared notes) that the other two were content and just waiting for the third member to sign up. All of us were unhappy, and never took them up on the offer.
We supported both field investigations to ensure the company information was correctly available and assessed for which the NTSB was grateful. The second loss (ground fatality) was captured on a rear cockpit go pro (without the apparent knowledge of the pilot) and confirmed the prior assessment of a botched take off compromised further by the carriage of an unapproved long store.
We supported both field investigations to ensure the company information was correctly available and assessed for which the NTSB was grateful. The second loss (ground fatality) was captured on a rear cockpit go pro (without the apparent knowledge of the pilot) and confirmed the prior assessment of a botched take off compromised further by the carriage of an unapproved long store.
The following 2 users liked this post by CAEBr:
CAEBr - thanks for inside track, my only source of information was the NTSB reports and I probably read more into the wording than I should.
I can't claim any real knowledge of the COMRA regulations in the UK and how they apply, if at all, to a US based company operating US registered aircraft under contract to the US Government but wonder if they like FAA Title 14 Part 91 were really intended to be stretched to cover such a situation, which takes us back to Walbut's original question.
I'll shut up about this now as I am probably continuing to talk bolleaux.
I can't claim any real knowledge of the COMRA regulations in the UK and how they apply, if at all, to a US based company operating US registered aircraft under contract to the US Government but wonder if they like FAA Title 14 Part 91 were really intended to be stretched to cover such a situation, which takes us back to Walbut's original question.
I'll shut up about this now as I am probably continuing to talk bolleaux.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
To add clarity, all that RAVN or any other operator requires to operate a non-type certificated FAA registered aircraft with a Special Airworthiness Cert in the Exp category in the U.K. is to obtain a Foreign Carrier Permit under Article 252 of the Air Navigation Order 2016. This applies to those operating under Transport Canada regs who are also partaking in these AUAs. An example is below, CAA don’t care one iota if there’s an active DA unless it’s on the G Reg under their purview.
The following users liked this post:
