As ex mil i've seen both sides , RAF engs on C130's & Harriers could c/o EGR's upto & including t/o pwr . As someone has previously stated the harriers were 'tied ' down for nozzle rotations at high power settings, although a few of the GE's logged some solo time on 4 Sqdn when i was a member in the mid 80's !. The civvy GE's are allowed to ground run & taxi most of the types on which they are'fully'qualified(Usually 'heavies' are only taxied by flt crew), in fact the only person in my present employ to put one on the grass (twice in the same spot !!! )was a captain (sorry Andy !! :eek: ).

In the early days of the V's, co-pilots had the pleasure of doing engine runs but when I returned in 1970 the engineers had taken them over as well as attempting to run the flying programme and anything else they felt they were entitled to. However one foggy day in Norfolk, with the temperature just above freezing, the rising moan of a Sapphire was heard. There were some anxious looks around the crew-room when the moan rapidly became a roar. The worries were confirmed when the roar was followed by a crump and silenced reigned until the Tannoy announced an engine fire on pan x. In spite of the carborundum on the blade tips the weather conditions were just too much. Moral to the story, just that whoever does the run must be aware of the limitations involved.

Some of the foregoing posts aroused my curiosity. Are you saying that military 'ginger beers and magicians' are restricted in what they can do these days?

Throughout my career, both civil and military, technicians have always performed ground runs on fixed wing aircraft and at all power settings. In fact, since we also adjusted the limiters, we possibly ran them at power settings greater than those used by the Drivers, Airframe. [and that includes V Bombers in the sixties, Art] Ground testing of engines is an essential part of the powerplant engineers job, for no-one else is really qualified to do diagnostic engine running or adjustments. We never did ground runs in helicopters though, because of the attendant risks - manipulating controls to ensure blade clearances might involve becoming airborne and we weren't authorised to receive flying pay. In some civilian jurisdictions engineering staff may taxi aircraft types on which they are rated, in others driving is forbidden.

We did have a mad Kiwi here some years ago, who was wont to do thrust reverser tests by taxying up to 100 knots then deploying the reversers. He once did it with me in the flight deck, and I kept a hand on the fire axe handle, just in case! :eek:

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Here`s some food for thought

Being ex RAF and having experience of ground running Harriers, Tornados and Hawks i`m now a civvie :) going rear seat on Hawk air tests, plus plenty of `fly and fix it` jobs.

Have to agree with Art Field, the benifits are unmeasurable but here's a few- better diagnosis & rects post air test, air test continuity, flight safety awareness, not to mention improved customer confidence!

Plus i love it!

Also had occaision to sit in on chinook, puma & wessex testing in my distant youth.:p

Swiftone,

Glad you enjoy the airtests, I've known one RAF Engo who point-blank refused to fly during an airtest in any helicopter he or his men had worked on, not far from "The home of the Support Helicopter" you were probably based at.

The RN allow maintainers to ground run Lynx aircraft 'engaged', subject to a twice yearly check with the MTP in the sim and a 'check ride'.Why then is it the RN will allow maintainers to G/RUN however the ARMY will not!
At the risk of inflaming the commissioned ranks, is that because the officers don't deem g/runs as worthy of their time so therefore they'll let the maintainers do it where as in the army 'cause they've got JNCO pilots 'THET CAN DO IT'!
Surely if it's good enough to let maintainers in the RN do it, in this age of jointry, why can't the army do it?

DANGLEBERRY Could it just be a cost benefit analysis on the sim time to get sufficient bods traineed up (I believe REME are more generalist orientated)?

Incidentally the the Aussie AAC use a flight sim to train maintainers to do Rotor Track & Balance on their Blackhawks (cost save on test flights exceeds cost of sim time). I wonder what the RAN do on their Seahawks...