hypersonicHealth and Safety was very much an afterthought back in those days. With that follows airworthiness, I guess! I can remember de-greasing motor and generator bearings over a trik bath, in the mid 1970’s, often feeling quite dizzy at times. I can still hear the Chief saying “stand outside and take a few large breaths son and then get back to it”.
Interested to hear EWAD still existed in 2007. I could have sworn it was contractorised whilst at Wyton in 1993 or so. However, its life past, the OSD of the Nimrod R1, in Jul 2011 is non-existent.
Today, config change is by SM or DA mod. The MAA very much encourages the latter. But is not in a position to mandate. Both sides (MOD and the platform DA) have equal responsibility for DA mods and sign up to that fact.
Engineering decision making re different platforms is carried out within the relevant platform Project Team (largely based at MOD Abbey Wood, Bristol). The DA’s have oversight of all the decisions / activities by regular communication and meetings. The actual decision-making engineers AKA Engineering Authority (EA) are individually licenced by the MAA. They must have a good knowledge of their systems, hold an annotation of IEng or CEng. IEng and CEng annotation is a form of licence issued by the Eng Council (UK) – they are seen as “leaders” in engineering experience, knowledge and ability. Additionally, they must also have a very good understanding of the MAA regulations. These individuals are typically RAF Flt Lt / Sqn Ldr or Civil Service equivalent.
SM’s, would be written by EA staff and installed by either industry (working on behalf of the DA) or the RAF itself. The SM process of clearance does not allow industry / DA to make comment or sign up to it. However, out of courtesy a copy of the SM leaflet would be handed to the DA if they have not already seen it.
DA mod’s, on the other hand are drafted by the DA and cleared by a top-level committee called the Mods Committee (MC). The MC is chaired by a MAA licenced senior engineer (typically RAF Group Captain) or Civil Service equivalent. Issues are identified and mitigated before both sides sign up to the change. This is BEFORE any metal is cut. Issues identified during TI or PI are then put back throu’ MC following mitigation the MC documentation is resigned before production is ramped up.
The biggest mod programme I ever had any dealings with was Project JULIUS – the Chinook HC4 programme. This major change was the largest ever seen on the World-wide Chinook Force. The programme ran very smoothly indeed. In the early days a few minor issues occurred. But all were solved, to the satisfaction of both sides, within 24 hours of being notified.
Another example of what would be seen, today, as bad practice – at the time of Project JULIUS (2010) there were 20 different Special Trial Fit’s (STF’s) installed across the fleet. They all disappeared as part of JULIUS but some had been flying around since the mid 1980’s. When does trial become permanent? I had previously forgotten to mention STF’s.
12jaguar – you might like to know the Chinook RWR SRIM was later “cleared” to become SEM 238 and then DA mod 263. All before my time on the Wokka. But a good example of making progress towards best practice, I guess.
hypersonicI haven’t seen a Shack on ground runs for years. Well done guys.
hypersonicPlough – I used the term “Emergency Powers” because that is what I have heard a Government Minister say.
I agree with you the Government’s legal team are going to find it very difficult to explain to the Judge / Judges why they think they have the right to do what they have done thus far. As well, as their plans going forward. Its a shame previous court hearings have not brought about a pause in development.
Let’s be honest if they had applied for Planning Permission, in the usual way, it wouldn’t have been granted. WLDC would have seen to that!!
What we are seeing here, I’m afraid, is a land-grab on an industrial scale.
hypersonicTrial Fit (now-a-days called Trial Installation / TI) and Proof Fit (now-a-days called Proof Installation / PI) are standard ways of carrying out mods. TI is all about does everything fit where we want it to / IAW the drawings. PI is a test of how long it takes to fit and how many personnel are required along with skill sets and relevant ergonomics.
What you are explaining, Re SRIM 3799, is systematic of a failed process / system. I gave some examples earlier. BAC (the DA) not involved and looking on in dismay. You are trying your best but the shopfloor is not the place to rectify such poor decision making. Issues and possible issues should be managed at the Assessment Stage – Is it possible? What are the risks? What is the Mitigation Action for the risks? How, do we fill the empty rivet holes? Etc, Etc, Etc. These should be managed and developed by the “Seniors” in the office BEFORE any sort of production is attempted. Once you go into production as early as the TI identified issues should be small and as such easily mitigated.
I mean who came up with the idea of sawn-off rivets and araldite – and who signed that idea off? Lets be honest as the wings flexed in flight the rivets would be popping probably followed by panels falling to the ground. No amount of Bob-the-Builder hats would have saved those below.
Further, the use of the DA in config change introduces an extra set of eyes and therefore reduces the risk of issues occurring. Both sides have a responsibility when it comes to signing actions off.
But sometimes it can become frustrating even in more recent times…..
During my time on Chinook, as a Civil Servant, my Boss an RAF Group Captain had been trying to convince Boeing, our DA, that we should be allowed to use Rain-X on our window screens. The product is widely available and used on car window screens up and down the land. The UK Chinook Fleet is unique in that all three window screens have wiper blades. The rest of the World utilises two wiper blades. Our system is operated by two motors with one powering two blades and always under strain. The idea was Rain-X would help to lubricate the screen. Boeing had claimed all along that the screens would not be able to dissipate heat and therefore crack if Rain-X was applied.
We discovered that the Dutch armed forces are cleared, by Boeing, to use a similar product on their CH-47 Fleet. As a result we tasked Boeing to carry out a series of trials. They decided to use a brand-new HC6 which was on pre-delivery flight trials in California. They parked the Chinook nose into the sun and powered up the screen demister, the ambient temperature was more than 35 C. Twenty or so minutes later the screen cracked. Point proven said Boeing. Until we pointed out that we do not use the screen demister in outside temperatures of 35 C. The screen itself would have seen something in excess of 50 C during that short period.
It is all about understanding the issue and managing it correctly as I said above. SRIMS, SEM’s and in most respects, SM’s didn’t identify the risks. An unidentified risk can’t possibly be managed.
My records show that many of the ex TFF Lightnings were SFS during 1974 presumably as part of the draw down programme of 60 MU. F1A XM173, which may well have come from the storage hangar at 60 MU, arrived at RAF Binbrook during 1974 and was used as an “Airfield Decoy”. I got my aircraft tow licence using that aircraft. It is now proudly displayed in the staff dining room of Dyson’s HQ in Wiltshire. Hanging from the roof!
I was at RAF Leconfield, with the Bolt Holed Lightning Force out of RAF Binbrook in 1976, I seem to remember the last few Jaguars still there but 60 MU had closedown. The Airman’s Mess was very good! Considering the site was technically on care and maintenance by then. The Lighting Force was undergoing a paint programme and as a result the Painters set up a temporary spray bay facility in one of the hangars. A recently resprayed Lighting was seen taking off one day and left its coat of paint halfway down the runway. Much to the annoyance of the following Hastings T5 which was sitting patiently awaiting its turn on the runway.
However, I returned in the early 1990’s as an RAF SNCO to complete a specialist driving course at the Army managed Joint Service Driver Training School (can’t remember the exact title). I was learning how to drive and maintain the tracked BV-206 – often referred to as the Snow Cat. Whilst driving throu’ Beverley one morning I shed a “wheel” which rolled down the road and finished up among the pick and mix in Woolworths. “Catering” was somewhat different by then with meals eaten out of mess tins in the dining room. You were then responsible for washing your own tins and cutlery. Glad I joined the RAF and not the Army!
Green Satin, for those who don’t know was a navigation system originally developed for the V-bomber Force in particular the Vulcan. It was also known as ARI 5851 (Airborne Radio Installation). The staff at Leconfield were right to be concerned about design / structure changes on the Canberra PR9 when compared with the PR7. The PR7 was developed from the B6 AKA 2nd generation Canberra. However, the PR9 was developed from the B(I)8 AKA 3rd generation. Certainly, in the case of the PR9 the structure was considerably different from the PR7 to allow for “high level” operations amongst other things. I never worked with the B(I)8 but its structure was probably similar to the PR9. During my time at RAF Wyton, on the Canberra Force, there was still a handful of PR7’s left – operated by 100 Sqn. As well as a small Sqn of PR9’s (39 Sqn / 1 PRU) at different times.
hypersonicIt is being widely reported in the press..
The High Court has ruled in favour of the of the Essex Council (MODP Wethersfield) and WLDC (RAF Scampton). The government will have to explain at a Judge led review why they think both sites can be developed, as holding centers, throu’ “Emergency Powers” and therefore without formal Planning Application. The first occupants have arrived at Weathersfield – but that does not stop the process going forward.
hypersonicNice to see it fly in. I thought it was going to arrive by road.
hypersonicJaguar34 – I’m not familiar with the SkyEcho system. Presumably the box is picked up by the Captain / Pilot when signing for the aircraft. Some how the Captain got hold of the wrong box or didn’t update it – if that is the correct procedure. Which causes more concern such an incident should never have happened. By default the Lanc was seen “by the world” as being Chipmunk WK518 with no top level clearance from the MAA.
Also of course how did the Lancaster get to the South West with nobody in the world of ATC noticing.
An unplanned deviation from a criteria based standard of competence me thinks!!
Oracal – earlier in this thread you were asking about SRIM activity at Leconfield. I will create a new thread tomorrow to answer your points.
Cheers….
hypersonicWith apologies to trumper, the thread has changed somewhat. Oracal, in some respects the answer, to your question, is actually within the question. Mode-C is a basic system and therefore changing the box between aircraft over a decade ago wouldn’t have been a problem. There are no unique codes built into Mode-C. The activity you speak of almost certainly pre-dates the Military Aviation Authority which was formed on the back of the loss of Nimrod MR2 XV230 in Sep 2006. At that time Mode-C was the standard. Mode-S boxes are very much an individual aircraft allocation. They have an embedded 24 Bit Address code in the contained software. ATC and flight tracking sites see that code as 40xxxx for UK registered civil aircraft and 43xxxx for UK registered military aircraft.
Looking back on FR24 and using a bit of grey matter I drew the conclusion that the Lancaster normally 43C392 was pretending to be Chipmunk WK518 AKA 43C38E. Others in this thread had observed unusual activity around that point.
Having been in the military side of UK aviation for over 3 decades I don’t know of any such aircraft still flying, on the military register, with Mode-C. If the Chipmunk was on Mode-C switching its box to the Lancaster (PA474) would not have required, the Lanc to use the call-sign of WK518. As Mode-C boxes, if that was what was in use, are not uniquely coded ATC would have seen an airborne aircraft – but not its “true” ID / type.
The chipmunk, of course, is not normally used for display activity being used by the BBMF in a support role only.
Hope that clears up your question.
hypersonicWearing my avionics hat – the Mode-S code 40xxxx or 43xxxx is inbuilt into the transponder box. It responds when “pinged” by ATC radar with the unique code to ID the aircraft. Also providing speed / heading / altitude / call-sign etc.
I spotted “WK518” flying over Exeter, the other day, on FR24. However, I did become a little confused at the speed the “Chipmunk” appeared to be doing!!
I think what happened is the Lancaster was using the Chipmunk transponder box – I hope with permission from the Military Airworthiness Authority. Otherwise very naughty. PA474 was using the WK518 call-sign at that time.
Anyhow, good to see all the Merlin powerd aircraft previously grounded back active again.
hypersonicSally B now cleared to continue ops. Noted on FR24 earlier overflying Cambridge Airport on crew training.
hypersonicThrough out all this I have been trying to understand the Governments strategy here….
The phrase short term use keeps cropping up. It was my view that if the site is used as a holding centre it will always be a holding centre – the demand / requirement is not going to go away anytime soon.
Having spoken to a friend of mine (who works for DIO, Defence Infrastructure Organisation) as a Chartered Surveyor. She is of the view that the holding centre is to be created using permitted development rules. The Government has not, according to her, applied for planning permission for the change of use, of the site, and has no intention of doing so!
However, for the SHL development planning permission has been requested and granted – through WLDC of course. It is her view that WLDC can order the holding centre be closed within twelve months because of the lack of full planning permission. The Government seems to accept that fact hence the phrase short term use.
As aviation enthusiasts we appreciate that the relatively small area, of the Scampton site, required for the holding centre precludes SHL starting / carrying out their development plans. The tenants of the holding centre, under international law, have to be granted free movement around the site and out into the local community. That has H+S implications for a building site and / or active airfield.
When it was first announced, a few years ago, that the Reds were leaving Scampton in the future. They stated that they would like to use the Scampton airfield overhead as a practice base. Their airspace restriction is due end in the next few days. They will require a renewal in the Autumn for concentrated practice sessions. This will not be possible, of course, under the Governments plan.
I have heard that WLDC are putting together a robust legal case, to present to the High Court, to have the Governments development plan “thrown out”. Lets hope for some success there.
In a perverse way SHL’s development of the Scampton site is a major project that sits within the Government’s own Levelling Up Policy.
WLDC is also reportedly carrying out a root and branch review of all historic buildings on the site to ensure they are considered for Listed status (protected) where that is appropriate. The Home Office may well find themselves being responsible for the care + maintenance of several historic buildings they have no intention of utilizing.
I live in hope all is not lost yet.
hypersonicThanks Plough,
It appears I was jumping the gun a little – maybe hanging onto some hope. I heard, this morning, Serco are recruiting. What a shoddy affair!
I suppose there is still a small chance that the government will be “forced” to look elsewhere – we’ll have to wait and see.
I’m already drafting a letter to my MP, on the matter, along with a number of Ministers in the MOD and Home Office.
hypersonicThanks BAZV, not exactly the photo, and in my case it was only one, I was referring to. Mine was published in a book or magazine and slightly later than those you have provided. All the sections were laid out on the hangar floor following full dismantlement. However, the photos you have provided give a good idea of what the process looks like.
MODP Wethersfield is the second base being looked at and I’m led to believe 2 sites are required. It is currently the MOD Police HQ and training base. Previously, the former RAF Linton-on-Ouse had been looked at and rejected.
In amongst all this politics is the fact the SCA site is no longer owned by central government. But rather local government. WLDC to be exact. So that should go in its favour – compulsory purchase aside of course.
hypersonicJust seen a press release………
The UK government has identified SCA as a possible immigration holding site. According to local authority personnel they had not been informed at the time they purchased the site from the UK MOD a few days ago.
I suppose we will just have to wait and see. But, history tells me previous attempts to use ex military airfield sites, by the government, for the role have not had a great deal of success.
hypersonicIn a previous thread, I hinted that XH558 may well finish up at SCA. I understand that dismantling will start later this month. This following a very successful public observed ground run this last weekend. The aircraft is believed to be going into storage at a third party location in South Yorks – before onward movement to a final location.
Vulcans were actually designed to be dismantled – by reverse engineering the original build process. The fuselage breaks down into 3 or 4 sections. A few months ago I came across a published photo of XL318 fully dismantled in a hangar at SCA prior to roading to the RAFM Hendon in Dec 81. A road distance of approx 150 Miles. Unfortunately, I can’t locate the photo to provide a reference here. XM652,was also dismantled, this time at Waddington, during Apr 84 and roaded to Sheffield for display. The idea of placing the aircraft on display, in the city centre, was abandoned after part rebuild for “political reasons” the nose still survives but the rest was SFS.
It is good that SCA now appears to have a firm future going forward. But I would say that wouldn’t I – the nearby city of Lincoln is “my home town”.
I noted on FR24 yesterday that the HHA Hunter T-Bird did a flypast of the SCA site. Maybe they could move back shortly!
Sign In
