Civilian Harrier operating in the UK

This is getting increasingly bizarre now. I could probably find another Douglas Adams quote to fit, but with 3 beers up, I really cant.

Unless anyone can come up with a good reason, thread closed…..

Name me just ONE lighthouse in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, where a group of people have taken it upon themselves to take on and upkeep a single Lighthouse.

The answer was not made in relation to just lighthouses, as you are well aware.

that is the best way at looking at it mods, there are some interesting points in here and great to see a post by J.Farley!

If you say so :rolleyes:

Will you ever stand up behind your claims? No, evidently not. You made the claim that Blackman should be believed over Kelleher, but clearly you cannot substantiate it.

Seems that was an ace you can’t return.

Yes, I’m thinking the same thing!

I’m not quite sure why this thread is dragging on.

No amount of circular reasoning will have any influence of the chances of a civilian-operated Harrier in the UK.

Still, I suppose it’s a discussion forum; I just wish the discussion just had a little more direction.

Moggy

All this discussion about the CAA allowing a Lightning to fly is pretty pointless, as some of you enlightend soles may remember a certain Operator of lighnings has listed numerous times on here the reasons why they wont fly in the U.K. Most of those reasons scupper flight way before the C.A.A. get involved.

Actually that’s nonsense. There are many groups in the UK doing exactly this, often with corporate support.

Name me just ONE lighthouse in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, where a group of people have taken it upon themselves to take on and upkeep a single Lighthouse.Without the help of the relevant authorities, or Company/ies
I expect your answer in about 50 yrs. 😉
Lincoln. 7

If you say so :rolleyes:

Still no answer on why Blackman should be believed over Kelleher I see, Chox.

Ramstein is relevant, my over-emotional little friend, because it relates to safety and not because of the specific issues that caused that incident but because it is about safety of the public where they interact with high performance aircraft – and why there can be no such things as a “sterile area” in the UK. That is directly relevant to the potential operation of machines such as the Harrier and Lightning in the UK and one of the reasons that contributes to the current attitude of the authorities. Were it not so then the rules on display flying in the UK would not have been tightened post-Ramstein.

I refer you to my previous posts. This is just repetition.

As for the Ramstein incident, it has nothing to do with operating Harriers or anything else. The accident was caused by poor display planning, allowing a dangerous manoeuvre to be incorporated into the display routine which guaranteed that if a collision occurred, at least one aircraft would fall into the spectator area. The planning also failed to take into account the local terrain. Naturally, such points should be addressed by any aircraft displaying at a show. But this is an entirely different subject.

In the USA, and I know this for certain, that should a lighthouse or it’s internal workings start to fall into a state of disrepair, then a group will be formed, and members will take it upon themselves to repair, re paint said lighthouse.Also many USA Companies chip in to keep their heritage going.In the U.K. just don’t hold your breath, cos it aint going to happen here.
Lincoln.7.

Actually that’s nonsense. There are many groups in the UK doing exactly this, often with corporate support.

Chox, just because you in your “wisdom” think the rules are wrong, that does not mean that they are. Sure rules can and should be questioned, but do it from a position of knowledge, not just the emotion and uninformed opinion that marks so many of your posts on this forum.

I see you still can’t or won’t answer the point on the relative veracity of the two quotes – that in itself speaks volumes.

Of course it’s the CAA’s decision, whose do you think it is – Father Christmas?

Of course Ramstein is relevant, it marks your position well that you think it isn’t. There is no such thing as a “sterile area” in the UK and the operation of high performance jets puts their potential effects far beyond the perimeter of any airbase in the UK, particularly one where such a machine is likely to be displayed. Do you *really* think a Lightning over Duxford (for example) could be contained in that space? As Lindy’s Lad says, the decision is a measured and informed result of the factors put before the experts and specialists in that authority. The fact that we in the UK have had so few problems shows it works – it may not be perfect and it could no doubt be improved on but thank god that the CAA is not staffed by armchair experts like you.

LISTEN!!!! Rules and regulation amendment will NOT make an aircraft type safer. The decision by the COMPETENT authorising body is not just a case of ‘its my trainset’. Its a measured decision based on FACT taken by competent and experienced people .

In Britain, there is no such thing as a ‘sterile’ area.

The CAA will let you fly a harrier, BUT you must prove that it is safe to do so.

Indeed, the CAA would let you fly any aircraft, but only if you can prove it is safe so to do. This is where I came in! Effectively, that means the CAA will allow you to fly any aircraft that they perceive to be safe enough. They might dress-up their position differently but when you strip-away all the rules, dogma, regulations, advice, data, statistics and everything else, that is what you’re ultimately left with. It’s their decision, no matter how they care to present it.

But yes, as I said before, I agree entirely that operating a Harrier would be a very risky and expensive venture but even though I’d be inclined to say that maybe it would present too great a risk to authorise, I still think there could (in theory) be suitable regulations to make a Harrier’s operation safer. As I said before, given that it is the jet-borne elements of the aircraft’s perfromance that must presumably be the most risky, surely non-conventional flight could be permitted in sterile areas? The comment about Ramstein previously isn’t relevant – that was a completely different situation.

However, as Bruce and others have said, the very idea is too expensive to contemplate. It’s never going to happen. To operate “exotic” aircraft like the Harrier one needs a country with a completely different mind set.

As has been said plenty of times before, the CAA rules are not set in stone and can be amended provided that suitable justification is provided. In the case of a civilian Harrier, you cannot provide the following:

1. The aircraft is supported by a suitable engineering body, ie. the Design Authority
2. The Engine is supported by a suitable engineering body, ie. the Design Authority
3. The aircraft had a satisfactory safety record in service. Usually excludes combat losses, or those losses as a direct result of combat maneuvres (ie. high speed low level CFIT
4. The operating company is deemed as suitable – past experience with a similar type, or expertise on a similar type.

As far as the categories go, the CAA employ engineers to come up with these rules. They are not designed by beaurocrats but by the people who operated these aircraft in front line service. Do not think that operating an aircraft for airshows is safer than operating an aircraft for any other purpose. It will cause the same amount of damage if it crashes.

The CAA will let you fly a harrier, BUT you must prove that it is safe to do so. Sadly with that aircraft type, you cannot.

edit: comparing the CAA to the FAA is a bit odd. Take the engineering license as an example. If you have an EASA B1.1, you can convert to an FAA equivalent with the addition of a couple of module exams (legislation) and suitable experience. To convert an FAA license to an EASA B1.1, you must do ALL modules and have relevant experience.

The same argument could be made for any warbird…from Sopwith Camel through the Spit and Lancaster, up to the Hunter.

Here in the U.S. if people don’t like the “Official” answer, they work at changing the rules instead of just griping about it.
THAT’s why there are civil Phantoms, SU-27s and Harriers here.

JB I couldn’t agree more, with you re us here in the U.K. we sit back and take whatever flak is shot at us, and don’t return fire!! I used to do a hell of a lot of restoration work for all the lighthouse authorities refurbishing items one or two hundred yrs old which would have been thrown away, had I not refurbished many of said items. It was a case of “You can do it at your own expense, but we can’t help”. In the USA, and I know this for certain, that should a lighthouse or it’s internal workings start to fall into a state of disrepair, then a group will be formed, and members will take it upon themselves to repair, re paint said lighthouse.Also many USA Companies chip in to keep their heritage going.In the U.K. just don’t hold your breath, cos it aint going to happen here.
Lincoln.7.

Rules and regulations are fine, but if they are perceived as being wrong, grossly over-cautious, or even just rather questionable, it’s entirely reasonable to scoff at them.

How and who perceives them as wrong? They reasonably set a regulation for safety, I would hope that we all appreciate that, and the fact that it costs money ensures that the right organisations are involved.
You also seem to be missing the crucial DA aspect to all this.

I really don’t understand what your saying about DVLA there either.

we should say that DVLA should not have the authority to lay down the rules for vehicles just because some drivers don’t like them

Ahh, finally, we return to the point which was made pages back! Exactly, that’s what we were talking about! Rules and regulations are fine, but if they are perceived as being wrong, grossly over-cautious, or even just rather questionable, it’s entirely reasonable to scoff at them. As we were saying, in the US, there’s a mind-set which allows and encourages people to question such matters. In this country, the prevailing attitude is more like yours. I know which I prefer.

Now, sorry to disappoint you Webpilot, but I disagree with your comments entirely. You can rant as much as you like, repeat yourself as much as you like, and accuse me of talking complete claptrap, but that isn’t going to change my view. Doubtless you will see this as some failure to understand your wisdom. It isn’t. It’s just that some of us do see things differently. Perhaps you could accept that?

John, thanks for the RAT input, do you think it became less desirable (for want of a better word) because of how good the seat was, ie the aircraft was relatively easy to lose after a serious mishap but a high percentage of pilots survived?