If you operate jet warbirds, especially if you have one for sale, then please watch out for anyone strange approaching you about possible purchase/training.
Word is that it could be a reporter looking to expose the lack of background checks and regulations that goes with the ownership of such a “weapon”.
You can guess the rest…
By: Chipmunk Carol - 9th October 2003 at 14:42
I understand that the Iraqi weapons inspectors have, at last, found something highly volatile, explosive and an enormous threat to man …
… a group of angry women.
By: Snapper - 9th October 2003 at 14:21
I worry about us lot sometimes, I really do.
A News (!) of the World reporter apparently bought 50 litres of highly explosive incendiary liquid this morning.
It should last him a good few hundred miles.
By: Chipmunk Carol - 9th October 2003 at 13:15
Originally posted by RobAnt
[PEDANTIC][/PEDANTIC]
Nice one!
By: Taifun - 9th October 2003 at 13:11
Sorry derrr, thicko. Honestly I’m razor sharp from 2pm onwards…
😀
By: RobAnt - 9th October 2003 at 13:06
[PEDANTIC]
Would that be a paper plane
No – that would be a stationery airliner!
[/PEDANTIC]
By: Taifun - 9th October 2003 at 13:02
Sorry….an “aircraft” – not a “plane”!!
I’ve been spending too much time out of the country.
🙂
By: EN830 - 9th October 2003 at 12:58
Originally posted by Yak 11 Fan
a stationary Airliner?
Would that be a paper plane !!! Never mind.
Taifun I quite agree with your observations, and with the present situations in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan I bet there are disgruntled ex-air-force officers who may be prepared to fly such aircraft in the name of their ideology.
The sale of these aircraft should be handled through licensed and reputable organisations, who have proven track records and conduct thorough checks on those who are purchasing.
We have to do anti money laundering checks when taking on clients who wish to trade through the Channel Islands for various reasons, it wouldn’t be too hard to do the same for prospective warbird purchasers.
However there would always be someone willing to circumvent the system in the name of making a quick buck
By: Taifun - 9th October 2003 at 12:47
I think the point is that you could buy, lets say, a Hunter share (ex front line fighter), and be trained to fly it by the worlds best (ex RAF instructors) all for less than £15k and no back ground checks or references unlike for example when you want to own a shot gun. Now when you consider the possible damage you could cause with each “weapon”..
This is in my opinion a good point. I also don’t think the average man in the street believes that this is possible. I do however fear that, as far as old planes are concerned, the reactions could only possibly be negative to this fact being highlighted to a neurotic general public. A total of thirty or so owners with their “rich mans toys” v. majority public opinion. No contest.
Maybe I am being irresponsible and selfish to my love of old planes and the desire to see them fly. If there is a risk then maybe the rules should be tightened. I know what you mean about the 172 but I think most airliners could out run or out climb such an aircraft if it appeared as a threat on their TCAS, creeping up at 100knts. Certainly not the case with a Hunter or equivalent. Plus I suppose if I put my terrorist flying hat on I might even have a chance to bang out of the Hunter at the last second and live to fight another day…
Oh God I better shut up – at this rate I’ll have the rozzers round and I’ll be deported to Guantanamo Bay..
🙁
By: Taifun - 9th October 2003 at 11:45
Originally posted by cas
if i understand this correctly you beleive the upstanding uk press are seeking to join the warbird scene by buying up un-wanted jets. …………. when you can go to former soviat block countries and purchase L39 jets for a fraction of the price you would pay here it does sound a bit odd………….mind you i dont believe there is much demand for ME108 taifun`s
simon………:p :phow is the old girl?????????????
Cas,
Well anyone approaching me to buy the 108 would mark themselves out as being a complete nut case and I would inform the Police / Social Services immediately!!
No being serious she is back flying again after all the work and problems. She had her CofA renewed about two weeks ago. I just have my fingers crossed that we get some nice clear winter days so I can get some flying in..
🙂
By: gbwez1 - 8th October 2003 at 23:55
Well maybe it’s no bad thing that the issue is getting looked at. A background check before owning and operating a fast jet sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
By: cas - 8th October 2003 at 23:14
if i understand this correctly you beleive the upstanding uk press are seeking to join the warbird scene by buying up un-wanted jets. …………. when you can go to former soviat block countries and purchase L39 jets for a fraction of the price you would pay here it does sound a bit odd………….
mind you i dont believe there is much demand for ME108 taifun`s
simon………:p :p
how is the old girl?????????????
By: Chipmunk Carol - 8th October 2003 at 22:43
Word is that it could be a reporter looking to expose …
Taifun: What was it that sparked off this thread? Has a jet operator already been approached? Do you know the journalist involved?
By: Taifun - 8th October 2003 at 17:36
Well yes I suppose you would expect that. However my understanding of it is that you write the cheque and advise the CAA of the new owner (and I don’t believe they check that info, it simply provides them with a postal address for the new owner). Thats it as I understand it but if its different then I am sure I will be corrected. I have been lucky enough to own a number of aircraft (not jets) and that was all there was to it..
Does appear crazy when if you want a shot gun you have to jump through all sorts of references / police back ground checks / etc..
By: EN830 - 8th October 2003 at 17:28
Mind you I would think back ground checks and strict due diligence should be the first priority of anyone selling what could deemed to a fairly potent weapon to an unknown individual.
It’s not quite the same as selling on a used car !!!!
By: Taifun - 8th October 2003 at 16:50
No I think it has more of a terrorist / maned missile / bring down an airliner for little investment angle to it…
:-/
By: DOUGHNUT - 8th October 2003 at 16:35
This appears to be an attemp to recreat the sale of Tom Maloney’s Strikemasters G-UNNY and G-BXFP last year to a South African film company. Both aircraft left the UK bound for Malta, whilst there some maintance was carried out and G-UNNY was repainted from her Botswana Air Force colours and given the Ivory Coast reg TU-VRA. By March this year both aircraft were do to be delivered to the Air Force of the Ivory Coast, the South African film company was a spoof. As UK Government and Customs are involve with the case I do not know if the Strikemasters were delivered or impounded at Malta, nor if any legal action is impending for Tom Maloney. Photos of both aircraft air on airlines.net.
DOUGHNUT
By: Taifun - 8th October 2003 at 14:53
Not at all.
I guess we can’t avoid the regs being the regs but at least if an owner/operator shows “good sense” when dealing with such an approach it may not give the media quite the article they were after..
By: Manonthefence - 8th October 2003 at 14:42
Taifun
I took the liberty of posting this and a link here on Avi8 I hope you dont mind. I will do the same on PPRuNe as soon as its back up.
MOTF
Sign In
October 8, 2003 at 2:36 pm