Is it just the CAA thats needs to approve a ferry flight or the CAAand the airframe and engine type holders as well?

——-

I understand there appears sceptical support, for this project, on the forum going forward in particular regards a ferry flight. But I would like to clear up a point that I made earlier in the thread.

I spoke about the Safety Case….

A Safety Case is a documented record of the steps or processes undertaken by the system concerned and evidence that the system has been designed, tested and implemented as safely as is reasonably practicable.

Each flight safety critical system will be identified, along with its OEM, hazards and corresponding safety risks. Also included would be the significance of the hazards in the terms of their likelihood of occurrence (failure) and potential effects on the safe operation of an impacted aircraft. Failure mitigation would also expect to be included (duplicated systems Etc).

Also expected to be identified is the aircraft type top-level OEM (more commonly referred to as the Design Authority (DA)). As I remember BAE formally handed the DA responsibility for XH558 to Marshalls Aerospace at the time of restoration.

So, it should be clear that any OEM, or DA who does not support their part of the Safety Case will “punch a hole” in the idea that their equipment can be used. However, the final arbitrators of civil aircraft safety for aircraft on the UK Civil Register or being proposed for entry is the UK CAA.

That is as I hinted previously only written / presented in a slightly different way now.

The Safety Case itself is a top-level engineering management document. Last time such a document appeared on my desk, for review, it contained close to 800 pages. Granted each example is different but in my experience 800 pages is about the norm.

If the aircraft Safety Case process is managed correctly safe operation will result. However, get it wrong and you will see the results as per recent B737 Max 8 and further back RAF Nimrod MR2 XV230 – to name but two examples.

Hence my comment previously about a sporty timeline. Because as has been pointed out a number of the OEM’s withdrew support and as a result XH558 was grounded in the Autumn of 2015.

I think I understand why they would like to fly it out of SDA. The reason is more of logistics than vanity. But I fear it maybe a mountain to high to climb. Delivery by road has its own issues – but does mitigate the flight safety issues of course.

Time will tell!

I operate in the Military Air Environment and don’t think for one minute the Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) would allow its inclusion on the Military Aircraft Register. In the modern era, post XV230, the requirements are equal to if not more robust than that of the UK Civil Register.

A few months ago, VC10 K3 ZA150, at Dunsfold, was placed on the US Civil Register as N150ZA initially for the purpose of a ferry flight to another UK location for restoration to flight. It is quite possible, of course, that the US FAA have a more laxed rule re ferry flights – but I doubt it.

I wish Chief Engineer Taff, and his team, the best of luck with this project. From where I’m sitting, they are working to a very sporty timeline to remove the aircraft by the end of June next. Where it finishes up and how it gets there is not going to be easy.

To enable a flight – all the flight safety critical systems will have to be removed and maintained to OEM specifications. That stands good for a 5 min flight as it does for a 30 min flight. With the business case / Safety Case signed off by the UK CAA.

I’m hearing rumours (that I’m not going to further elaborate here) that one of the possible destination sites has not even become available yet. Last time I checked two organisations were in the bidding to purchase that site from its current owner.

As a Cold War aviation historian and STEM Ambassador XH558’s future is of particular interest to me.