|
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11144216)
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 didn’t 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. |
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.
|
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? |
Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11144606)
Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.
|
Originally Posted by Rigga
(Post 11144417)
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. |
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 - 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...
|
Originally Posted by Rigga
(Post 11144912)
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11145024)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 11144944)
@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...
|
I've never heard of sentinel engineers being licensed, shadow are.
|
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.
|
The Sentinel is obviously being bought by the US Army to allow the General to travel with his horse!
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....de1e8e50cc.jpg |
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. |
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....883b57106c.jpg
First one departed Waddo today but had to return 🤣 |
Looks way more like a post maintenance air check - the RAT is out!
|
Originally Posted by DCThumb
(Post 11238062)
Looks way more like a post maintenance air check - the RAT is out!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.