Westland Lynx (Merged threads)
How hot-and-high is the countryside around Fremont County Airport? If the Lynx is to replace the 205 and 214B in Oman, it should be capable of USL tasks up at the top of Jebel Shams (9997 ft) on a summer's day, like they (used to) do.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think height's a problem in Colorado - one of the steps of the Denver City Hall is exactly one mile amsl. Fremont County must be about the same elevation and the nearby Rockies go up to 14,000'.
When we think of the Rockies we think of skiing but temp in the foothills in the summer is mid 80's / low 90's.
When we think of the Rockies we think of skiing but temp in the foothills in the summer is mid 80's / low 90's.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freemont County Airport
http://www.airnav.com/airport/1V6
Leadville
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXV
http://www.airnav.com/airport/1V6
Leadville
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXV
Thanks for the answers. Jebel Shams is just about on the Tropic of Cancer, so in the Omani summer (55 deg C inland) the DA on top can be in excess of 14000 ft. Hope it all works!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This is high-density testing when the temperature is hot and the altitude is high,"
As many as 16 Agusta Westland employees are on the job in Colorado
Still a few of us around 
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future sale's of Lynx
Quite a few lucky people are the owners of some very nice and pristine Gazelles, you only needed to look down the line at Helitech to see just how good some are,
.. however when its active life is considered finished with the Military, will the Lynx ever finish up flying in private ownership?
.. however when its active life is considered finished with the Military, will the Lynx ever finish up flying in private ownership?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR
The rules are pretty strict on how an un-certified aircraft can be operated by civilians. The ex-military Gazelles and Hueys that we see are all civil certified against a civil type certificate, the Lynx has no such coverage (at least I can find no reference to a civil version).
When a military aircraft is "civilized" it is sometimes modified to exactly fit its certified cousin, usually with some placards and small pieces of equipment that allows it to meet FAR. The FAA then deems it to be airworthy and issues a certificate for it.
Except for some limited warbird restricted category certificates, the purely military aircraft, such as Lynx, cannot be operated by civilians unless they are fully certified. Most military designs do not meet civil standards for handling, fatigue strength and safety of systems (a surprizing statement when most of the flying world sees military aircraft as somehow more rugged). Certification therefore means expensive redesign, and full qualification testing, a multi-million dollar investment.
One exception (that draws lots of flack on pprune) is when an aircraft is operated in the US by a public agency, which is generally exempt from FAR certification rules. A US State (like the US Federal Government) can actually "certify" an aircraft for its own use, so some ex-military aircraft are allowed into service as-is.
Here is a bit of background:
http://www2.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/awcertqa.htm
The rules are pretty strict on how an un-certified aircraft can be operated by civilians. The ex-military Gazelles and Hueys that we see are all civil certified against a civil type certificate, the Lynx has no such coverage (at least I can find no reference to a civil version).
When a military aircraft is "civilized" it is sometimes modified to exactly fit its certified cousin, usually with some placards and small pieces of equipment that allows it to meet FAR. The FAA then deems it to be airworthy and issues a certificate for it.
Except for some limited warbird restricted category certificates, the purely military aircraft, such as Lynx, cannot be operated by civilians unless they are fully certified. Most military designs do not meet civil standards for handling, fatigue strength and safety of systems (a surprizing statement when most of the flying world sees military aircraft as somehow more rugged). Certification therefore means expensive redesign, and full qualification testing, a multi-million dollar investment.
One exception (that draws lots of flack on pprune) is when an aircraft is operated in the US by a public agency, which is generally exempt from FAR certification rules. A US State (like the US Federal Government) can actually "certify" an aircraft for its own use, so some ex-military aircraft are allowed into service as-is.
Here is a bit of background:
http://www2.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/awcertqa.htm
I'm not an expert on these things, but clearly the rules must differ in the UK as we have Scouts, Jet Provosts and Hunters etc all flying around in civillian hands on G registrations. Permits to Fly I assume?
212 - you're quite right, but given Nick does business in the colonies it would be unreasonable to expect him to be fully conversant with aspects of UK air law that most brits struggle with.
The UK has a sub-ICAO document called a "Permit to Fly", which is used for anything where UK-CAA have been persuaded that the machine is basically safe, but is not (generally for the sort of reasons that Nick gives) eligible for issue of an ICAO compliant CofA.
Some of the Gazelles, and all of the Westland Scouts flying on the UK civil register are approved under permits to fly. The basic requirements to obtain one are:-
- An acceptable safety record in military service
- A new set of operating and maintenance procedures to reflect civil use.
- A review of the aircraft against any relevant civil regulations (instrument fit minima, compliance with Airworthiness Notices, harness standards, radio types, etc.)
- CAA approval of a civil maintenance organisation to look after it.
Once obtained, the aircraft will be limited to day-VMC flight, for private or (owner's) training use only and because it's a UK only document the aircraft would need individual overflight/landing permission from any other country if it were to leave our borders. There's also a bit of a debate at the moment about passenger carrying - the rules at present limit to minimum essential crew + 1, but there are voices trying hard to get this modified to something more sensible to perfectly safe larger aircraft.
There is supposed very shortly to be a new CAP coming out - CAP733, which will be covering the permit regs, but it seems to be caught in a logjam at Gatwick somewhere.
From my experience, I'd say that Lynx has a good chance of gaining a permit when it's retired, so long as it's not totally out of hours and doesn't develop a suddenly higher accident rate in it's last few years in service.
G
The UK has a sub-ICAO document called a "Permit to Fly", which is used for anything where UK-CAA have been persuaded that the machine is basically safe, but is not (generally for the sort of reasons that Nick gives) eligible for issue of an ICAO compliant CofA.
Some of the Gazelles, and all of the Westland Scouts flying on the UK civil register are approved under permits to fly. The basic requirements to obtain one are:-
- An acceptable safety record in military service
- A new set of operating and maintenance procedures to reflect civil use.
- A review of the aircraft against any relevant civil regulations (instrument fit minima, compliance with Airworthiness Notices, harness standards, radio types, etc.)
- CAA approval of a civil maintenance organisation to look after it.
Once obtained, the aircraft will be limited to day-VMC flight, for private or (owner's) training use only and because it's a UK only document the aircraft would need individual overflight/landing permission from any other country if it were to leave our borders. There's also a bit of a debate at the moment about passenger carrying - the rules at present limit to minimum essential crew + 1, but there are voices trying hard to get this modified to something more sensible to perfectly safe larger aircraft.
There is supposed very shortly to be a new CAP coming out - CAP733, which will be covering the permit regs, but it seems to be caught in a logjam at Gatwick somewhere.
From my experience, I'd say that Lynx has a good chance of gaining a permit when it's retired, so long as it's not totally out of hours and doesn't develop a suddenly higher accident rate in it's last few years in service.
G
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three doubts:
1) Considering that passengers are specifically not permited in the Scots and Gazelles, will it really be that economic?
2) Q for Genghis - Isn't another factors if CAA regard it a 'complex' type? So far the ex-mil helicopters have all been singles I believe. Is the safety record all that impressive?
3) Aren't most of the airframes potentially going for rebuild to meet the BLUH requirement?
1) Considering that passengers are specifically not permited in the Scots and Gazelles, will it really be that economic?
2) Q for Genghis - Isn't another factors if CAA regard it a 'complex' type? So far the ex-mil helicopters have all been singles I believe. Is the safety record all that impressive?
3) Aren't most of the airframes potentially going for rebuild to meet the BLUH requirement?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 48 Deg South
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to Warbirds in the UK things have changed recently because of some changes in CAA management.
Ray Hannah from the Old Flying Machine Company has had to ship the Corsair, Kittyhawk and I think the LA-9 back to Kiwiland because even though they have been giving them a permit to fly for the past ten years or so, the new CAA big wigs have decided that if they cant track the history of every single nut and bolt then they wont allow them to fly in the UK.
I heard that this came about because of the influx of Eastern Bloc YAK-52s and the like.
Droopy - In the case of Caroline Grace and her two seat Spitfire, the saying of one lady owner, is absolutely spot on
Ray Hannah from the Old Flying Machine Company has had to ship the Corsair, Kittyhawk and I think the LA-9 back to Kiwiland because even though they have been giving them a permit to fly for the past ten years or so, the new CAA big wigs have decided that if they cant track the history of every single nut and bolt then they wont allow them to fly in the UK.
I heard that this came about because of the influx of Eastern Bloc YAK-52s and the like.
Droopy - In the case of Caroline Grace and her two seat Spitfire, the saying of one lady owner, is absolutely spot on
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Butts and Jolts.
To: Autorotate
Hell, they (The CAA) couldn't even do this on a brand new 777. The only hardware that has traceability are those elements that have been determined to be reliability sensitive. As long as they use approved parts (common hardware made to mil specs (MS) or AN specs) or the British equivalent they should have no problems.
the new CAA big wigs have decided that if they can't track the history of every single nut and bolt then they won't allow them to fly in the UK.
Complex type?
The permit to fly rules are pretty much infinitely elastic, the more complex the type the greater hoops get invented for you to jump through. Two types that have failed (although they're still trying) are the Lightning and Vulcan. There (I've just checked) a Canberra, a Sea-Vixen, a B29 and a Gloster Meteor currently UK civil registered on permits. Okay, they're all fixed-wing, but in terms of overall complexity I think you'd struggle to argue that a Lynx was more complex or presented greater public risk than a Sea-Vixen. (For that matter, I think for reasons best known to themselves, BAC had a VC-10 on a permit on one point, and I know I've flown an Islander with a permit).
So, I'd worry about how many hoops CAA will make you jump through for your private Lynx Mk.9 rather than whether they'll permit it at-all. And as for economics - you'd struggle I suspect to make a Lynx cost anything like as much to run as your private Canberra, as well as being a little more useful.
G
N.B. I thought that King George just handed you over into Canadian control, which is why you're using a version of the Canadian dollar, or did I miss some legal detail there?
N.B.B. Why on earth have we got a B29 and not a Wellington, there's something wrong there ! Mind you, at-least we've had the sense not to try and keep a WG30 flying under any circumstances.
So, I'd worry about how many hoops CAA will make you jump through for your private Lynx Mk.9 rather than whether they'll permit it at-all. And as for economics - you'd struggle I suspect to make a Lynx cost anything like as much to run as your private Canberra, as well as being a little more useful.
G
N.B. I thought that King George just handed you over into Canadian control, which is why you're using a version of the Canadian dollar, or did I miss some legal detail there?
N.B.B. Why on earth have we got a B29 and not a Wellington, there's something wrong there ! Mind you, at-least we've had the sense not to try and keep a WG30 flying under any circumstances.
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 25th Oct 2003 at 04:29.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis and 212man-
Thanks!
The value of pprune!! I learned something new and useful.
Of course, this is now a slight chink in the discussion "Why the FAA is better than the CAA" since the permit to fly is quite reasonable, unlike the FAA. Now that's a switch!
Thanks!
The value of pprune!! I learned something new and useful.
Of course, this is now a slight chink in the discussion "Why the FAA is better than the CAA" since the permit to fly is quite reasonable, unlike the FAA. Now that's a switch!