Silly question again.

A few basics.. I am an LAE working for an airline, so do have a little knowledge on Air legislation.

If you wish to take passengers paying full fare as revenue service, you need an Air Operators Certificate. The regulations and requirements to get that since the early 2000’s are EU driven if your aircraft is over 5700 Kgs maximum take off mass. The Air Navigation Order has been amended to match the EU regulations on this. EU regulations also now apply to passenger aircraft at 2350 Kgs MTOM as well now. That is outside of the day job knowledge but would be fairly similar.

Non EASA regulated civil frames come under the British Civil Aviation Regulations (BCAR’s). These cover the ex military war birds and jets. If you have a Spitfire etc. That is a simple complexity airframe. No OEM requirements for support however the maintenance schedule must be no less restrictive that the basic requirements of LAMS. The CAA decide on the level required to award the PtF (annual and case by case basis). Hunters, Canberras, Se Vixens etc, are intermediate. They have higher performance and more complex systems such as hydraulically ASSISTED controls. However the aircraft have manual reversion of these controls. The terms of the PtF are more restrictive to maintenance and operating conditions.

If you have a frame that has thrust augmentation (reheat), auto stabilisation or autopilot and fully powered flying controls with no manual reversion, the frame is classed as complex requiring OEM oversight, fairly rigid maintenance and operations structures similar to in service and also the CAA will investigate the technical safety record of the aircraft in military service prior to awarding the PtF. The Lightning had an awfully high accident ratio due to technical failures. The CAA know that. The Vulcan proved it could be done and the Swedish Historical Flight dispel “the reheat is banned in private aircraft in the UK sketch”. SAAB still act as OEM for the SHF Viggen and Draken. 😀

No: from memory the only other recent ex-miltary UK warbirds which fell into this category were the Victor, VC-10, Nimrod, Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar and Lightning (apologies if I missed a few).

Me nitpicking now… I may have missed a few copies of Flypast but I can’t believe I missed out on displays of these warbirds over the last summer! And I was sad about not seeing the Vulcan fly again…

Incidentally, the recently demobbed VC10s were originally civvies anyway, and the Nimrod was just a modified Comet (you know what I mean…); would they still be classed as ‘complex’?

Out of interest. does the “Complex” category apply to any other current UK historics? I’m thinking that the Canberra PR9 and Sea Vixen would have roughly comparable airframe/systems complexity to the Vulcan.

No: from memory the only other recent ex-miltary UK warbirds which fell into this category were the Victor, VC-10, Nimrod, Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar and Lightning (apologies if I missed a few). I think the hyd systems and flying controls on the Canberra and Sea Vixen place them outside of Complex. Ditto the Hunter and the F-86A (IIRC the F-86D, E, F, H, K and L are considered Complex however). Not sure about the Tucano however.

It’s a bit of a dry read, but the CAA regulation is worth a look.

Out of interest. does the “Complex” category apply to any other current UK historics? I’m thinking that the Canberra PR9 and Sea Vixen would have roughly comparable airframe/systems complexity to the Vulcan.

Thanks Sabrejet. That makes sense. 🙂

So who has design authority for the various a/c at Old Warden. Gloucester Gladiator, Westland Lysander, RAF SE5, Sopwith Triplane, Percival Provost, Bristol Boxkite, Bristol M1C, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, Polikarpov PO2 etc

Who is/are the Design Authority/’s for the newly built Sopwith Camel airframe and its engine?

Does every a/c need to have a modern day and current Design Authority to fly? If so who says so and why?

No DA required if aircraft operate outside of the CAA’s ‘complex’ category.

You have more chance of making a pie fly 🙂

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Mr Kipling has withdrawn design authority.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about Design Authority being the reason for the grounding of the Vulcan, yet not so long ago IIRC the reason for this being the last season of flight was due to fatigue life. When did the situation change?

I thought I understood what a Design Authority and Type Certificate Holder is but in the case of very vintage a/c at places such as Old Warden, do design authority or type certificates apply? Gloucester Gladiator, Westland Lysander, RAF SE5, Sopwith Triplane, Percival Provost, Bristol Boxkite, Bristol M1C, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, Polikarpov PO2 etc

Who is/are the Design Authority/’s for the newly built Sopwith Camel airframe and its engine? Is it the person the obtains the blueprints and builds one or is there still a British Aircraft Manufacturer out there who wants to maintain such an authority?

Does every a/c need to have a modern day and current Design Authority to fly? If so who says so and why?

Hi All,
Lazy8,
Many thanks for clearing that up always willing to learn….:eagerness:

Geoff.

BAe did absorb BAC. BAe was a partner in Airbus, and not just for it’s wing-manufacturing expertise. IIRC Concorde support had been consolidated to a single joint office sometime early in the aircraft’s life as the production run was so short. When BAe pulled out of Airbus it made no sense whatsoever to split Concorde support back to two separate organisations in order to support a dozen airframes or so. So it had to stay with one or the other…

Hi All,
Many thanks to all who replied :eagerness: I was aware that the fantasist Concorde project would need mega millions, I also assumed incorrectly that it would be the same company’s who supported the Vulcan would be needed to support Concorde. One more question then I can lower my head below the sand bags again..:D

I thought BAE absorbed BAC and not Airbus absorbing both Aérospatiale and BAC ? or was it a bit of both cherry picking what they needed at the time and sharing the civil supersonic technology ?

Geoff.

This is getting daft: there is no airframe, so anything else is just a waste of everyone’s time!

But there are pies 🙂

There is no obvious Concorde airframe, most certainly. None of the British Airways Concordes would be available for such a venture. If the various stories are to be believed, it was Air France’s wish to stop operating the aircraft at a loss which was instrumental in Airbus’ withdrawal of their support, so it is difficult to see how a French airframe would be involved either. That doesn’t leave very many….

So all the project actually needs is (in no particular order):
> A sponsor with almost bottomless pockets.
> The design authority question to be brought (or bought) to a satisfactory conclusion.
> A suitable airframe found and transported to a suitable airfield.
> An insurer found who would cover the evolution at a sensible price.
> Regulatory authorities to be convinced, not just in one, but probably many countries, as you can’t give people the supersonic airliner experience without going supersonic, and that wasn’t allowed over land when the aircraft was in commercial service. Even if you allow for departure and return always to UK airports you will still need alternates. That was bloomin’ difficult with the backing of two governments back in the day. It won’t have got easier.
> An entirely new regime devised for inspecting and recertifying retired supersonic transport aircraft – the old stories about the fatigue index being reset by each prolonged ‘soak’ at cruising speed are close enough to the truth to make this an entirely different project to any other.
> Don’t even mention the engines…
> Pilots? Training? Currency? If it is only a sensible, practical proposition provided passengers can be carried, there are an awful lot of non-technical hurdles to overcome before the first fare-paying passenger (never mind the first hundred, or 96, or whatever you might be allowed) is permitted to board.
> Did I mention bottomless pockets? Not just for the organisers. How much would a ticket cost? I’d love to see the business case that can produce sufficient guaranteed income from taking people round the Bay of Biscay or for a quick dart up the North Sea. Don’t forget the windows are tiny and you don’t actually get much sensation of going through the Mach. The source of enthusiasts prepared to pay top dollar just to say they’ve done it would dry up much too quickly, I fear.

Much as I and many others would love to see, hear, and feel, a live Concorde again, it simply isn’t going to happen.

This is getting daft: there is no airframe, so anything else is just a waste of everyone’s time!

There is the PIEtenpol Air Camper

(I get me coat!)

The whole thing is pie-in-the-sky…..sadly.

You have more chance of making a pie fly 🙂

So, it is really ‘all about the money’! 😉

That’s what I was driving-at by saying ‘commercially’; commercially, you’d look at the profits against the potential liabilities. But in the case of ‘Concorde To The Sky’ you wouldn’t be looking at it commercially (other that to support the potentially semi-commercial operation of Concorde for pleasure flights?) and there would only be one Concorde flying that the (new) ‘Design Authority’ would also control…

…but, that’s still one hell of a potential liability!

The whole thing is pie-in-the-sky…..sadly.

…. what other companies would take on that responsibility …?

And more to the point, why would they?

Moggy

The “design authority” isn’t just about money (or documents), it’s about accepting the liabilities of that type of aircraft and underwrite the parts. This is the point that people who want the Vulcan (or Concorde) to continue to fly don’t seem to understand. If the main manufacturers no longer want to know, except in a few cases of a more basic type, what other companies would take on that responsibility or have the capacity to do it?

Commercially, yes. But, if it was up to me (non-commercially), I’d acquire the Design Authority first…

…because without it, acquiring an airframe (for flight) would be pointless.

Mind you, who would donate money to acquire a ‘Design Authority‘???