Canopener AlAs enthusiasts what do we expect?
Alongside the spectator enclosures and trackside at motor racing circuits the vertical surfaces are adorned with signs advising that motor sport is dangerous. Even the tickets say so. It doesn’t save lives or make the sport safer and far more people have been killed or injured in motor sport than non commercial aviation; yet it still goes on without the need for a national regulator.
Lots of people die or are injured skiing or travelling to and from the slopes. Avalanches, coach tour crashes, kamikaze speed freaks at or beyond their limits careening into other people some of whom are barely able to stay upright…and yet nothing is done to regulate the snow sports industry!
We seem to love a bun fight, drool over over hyped up stories in tabloid papers and froth at the mouth on internet forums. But why?
We know that the Civil service, government departments and quangos are highly bureaucratic, under resourced and increasingly under pressure to prove that they are worthwhile. In reality there are few staff there that would be prepared to stick their head above the parapet for fear of affecting their gold plated pensions. You won’t find them getting stuck into online discussions about the rights and wrongs because 1. they’re not allowed to and 2. its just a well paid job that’s not worth risking by showing a bit of passion and vitality.
For a sensible and cost effective solution to the issues relating to airshow safety, a credible and independent not for profit organisation needs to be established. The Campaign Against Airshows (CAA) appears only get involved when something goes wrong perhaps in an attempt to protect their own interests. Sadly that is not how it should be done. As the CAA is keen to see that airshow regulation and oversight is self funding, let another organisation be responsible, then perhaps it will be fair and reasonable. 🙂
I laugh when I read stuff like this. Aircraft crashing on innocent people doing their own business with no interest in what the aircraft is doing is what is being investigated. Because it maybe upsetting you view on your hobby has nothing to do with it . The AAIB has already issued several reports including question marks on the aircraft fitness to fly within the remit of its permit. The CAA has a legal responsibility to enforce the law as stated in the ANO and have to self fund to do so. If it requires more people and money to regulate air shows and civil display authorisations, so be it. Flying over UK airspace must always be safety first, everything else is of secondary importance IMHO (as a professional aviation engineer). It can be nothing else and anyone whom thinks otherwise is deluded.
Canopener AlWhat makes you think that vintage jets will not display at Airshows any more? If they have been looked after properly and operated properly, you will see them. If they haven’t, you will not. Martin Baker is going to be the show stopper. Why do people post crap comments? Nice photo BTW.
Canopener AlI can very easily think of a number of examples. Mainly, but not exclusively, in the US.
I would suspect the more relaxed view to airworthiness requirements has a major part to do with that. The best pilot in the world isn’t able to repair his aircraft in flight if something that was recommended to be changed at a set point or a procedure/check that was defined to be carried out at a set time wasn’t carried out because the regulator did not insist on it. I do not wish to see the death of airshows, the death of ex military war birds, Piston or Jet, but I can see the reasoning behind the CAA decisions. Does anyone think they are not listening to the AAIB and the AAIB have actually hasn’t told them anything of their findings from both Shoreman and The Carfest accidents? If they have to employ more staff to deal with the updated requirements, the money to pay them must come from somewhere.
Canopener AlDon’t let me put you off Charlie but if you have a trek there and back it may disappoint.
A quick point on tightening up the DA’s ,this can only be a good thing.
Just because you were in the services 20 years ago doesn’t mean you can get away with displaying a demanding aircraft with relatively few hours on type today.
Contrast this with the RAF demo pilots who have to be very experienced on type and often instructors.
During the season they will maintain currency with ISP’s whether they fly King Airs,Hawks or Tiffies.
In addition to this they will be closely monitored throughout the work up and the season itself.
They would have been carefully selected from the pilots on the squadron for not only their flying ability but their temperament.
It’s no coincidence the CAA have tightened up the DA system after last year.
I was surprised that the currency requirements were not tightened up. I was shocked to hear how many hours on type the shoreham pilot actually had. His day job was nowhere like the same flying as displaying the Hunter. One has heard rumours of display flying of intermediate jets not being to the same standard as a military display (that is not surprising in the slightest). Currency is a big part of that IMHO. Howhere that is an opinion on the past in general, not a reason for Shoreman or Oulton Park, one awaits the full AAIB report on both.
Canopener Alhttp://badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=283661830799
Seems feasible :rolleyes:
If the writer of the article could have got his facts right. AIM-6 Sidewinders. Really.
Canopener AlVal Kilmer has most likely the correct response to such a claim.
Canopener AlWe went two years ago and it was a good day out. Including bus tours of the
airfield. Carolyn Grace flew her Spitfire and a Yak flew. Probably no flying this year (?)
I imagine their Jaguar will be “live”
Some time before the Jaguar is likely to be viewable to the general public. Got most of the bits, but smaller attachment bolts special to type need to be found and really the amount of time people can spend on it against what is required to get it near completion is the biggest issue.
Canopener AlThanks to all those that donated. The BCWM has received the jacks, just trying to find the time to assemble them and use them! The appeal is over.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244237[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244238[/ATTACH]
Canopener AlXX741 gets a LASER!
Thanks to Oz Jag for the contact, The XX&41 restoration has received a deactivated Laser Ranger & Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS) courtesy of SELEX ES (the company that now owns Ferranti, the original OEM for the laser). The BCWM are very grateful for the donation.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244235[/ATTACH]
The laser in place.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244236[/ATTACH]
With the AEI systems donated chisel nose fairing in temporary position (we still have to fit glazing to the fairing).:D
Canopener AlWell done to the UAS team. Dismantling it, moving it and reassembly I believe was almost as expensive as buying it!
Canopener AlAs it happens ours was an all or nothing deal. Our fuel system was treated from beginning to end as though it was being returned to flight with no compromises – how would you decide where to compromise? It’s anathema to the aerospace mindset with good reason. We also have a LP boost pump with certificates of release, not that we’d do anything other than put it back where it came from, but it could fly and we were told during its rebuild that its internals were in better condition than many similar pumps that were flying.
The capability certainly exists to keep these things going, though the people with the ingrained expertise are thinning fast due to retirement and redundancy but to go as a commercial customer with your Cold War jet and its fuel system and as to have it brought up to date would be pretty much impossible in today’s climate, I think.On the subject of inhibiting the system when not in use, we have the proper juice in a bottle for that very purpose and part of the agreement when handing all of this over to the people of Coniston in perpetuity is that we have to wheel her out once a year to run up the engine, hydraulics, pneumatics, electrics and every other thing that moves. I know it’s not possible to run the perfect project but we’re trying hard.
Thanks for the enlightening and informative answer Bill.
Canopener AlI see no problem with the current paint. A thick layer of (house)paint might have prevented a lot of corrosion. Might make restoration (in the right colours) easier 🙂
The ten gauge paint makes it a complete pain to take out the screws to strip the frame for the move.
Canopener AlThe first line of compliance mentions that any engines that have had less than twenty years since overhaul are not affected by this MPD. Question of how many are not.
Canopener AlUnfortunately not quite the case. Those being leased by the military, sit under MAA permits, but are maintained by a civi MRO, and are supported for this scenario only. What this CAA MPD covers is permit a/c operated under A8-20, E4/M5, which is 99% of the civi vintage market. Neither the Avon or Viper are supported for civi operations by Rolls Royce, unless some sort of tie up can be negotiated and set up going forward. Rolls pulled their support for these types under civi permits a long time ago. What remains out there in terms of parts and overhauling flying engines, is new old stock under the part M maintenance category with relevant approvals, which up to now has not had the above MPD from CAA. However, it has always been there in black and white in the engine manufacturer SOP manuals (standard operating procedures) and relevant air publications for type. If anyone tells you otherwise, they simply haven’t read the gen or are telling porkies. This MPD has been there in a different guise in the OEM manuals.
To put some perspective on this. As others have already stated, this was coming at some point anyway. The war birds have been doing this for years, and no doubt contributes to the massive sums of money to fly them.
The FCU’s and associated systems on these engines are being operated in many cases, way past their anticipated life span in terms of time, under “on condition” discretion under the hours reached or calendar back stop scheme. Trouble is, while these components are currently covered under that scheme, they are still degrading (as has been found in several cases) possibly due to OEM anti det and inhibition recommendations not necessarily being followed and age (see Tony t post above). So simply looking at the calendar back stop or hours reached for “time before overhaul” won’t do, many of these engines only do a dozen hours a year, and sit around for months on end static off season. Not a problem if you can prove that the engine has always been and is being subject to the manufacturer anti dets.
Leave your car parked in a cold garage for 4-5 months over the winter without running it, then use it, likely it will be fine, but you don’t see the cumulative damage from hygroscopic brake fluid, petrol in the injectors and fuel hoses becoming aireated, breaking down etc, attacking and degrading the system very very slowly, jet engines are no different.
These anti dets are what is being enforced under the MPD, but back dated to last overhaul too. We can’t really complain about it, since the directive simply requires that the engines have been maintained to the original OEM recommendations, which is what the part M approval already requires of an MRO anyway!!
IF, as an MRO you have not been following the manufacturer recommendation for anti det exercises, and/or standing engines, or there are gaps in the engine’s history, the engine is no longer airworthy under the manufacturers guidelines. IT could be worse, they could be saying, well if the fuel system on the engine is more than 10 years old, you cant fly it at all, regardless. Admittedly, proving that you have covered the engine since its last overhaul or back stop exactly according to the OEM anti det rules, will be challenging, as most will have gaps, unless they have sat in their bags inhibited since last overhaul, or have been ground run once a month. The second you drain the inhibiting oil from the fuel systems and fit the engine to an airframe, it is subject to the relevant anti det runs for its life, unless you re-inhibit it as per the book, overhaul it.
Fact of the matter is, the degraded diaphragms have been found, and the manufacturer has simply stated that to help stop it, follow our original operating procedures. It is harsh, but simply echoes what the manuals already state.
A significant game changer if the draft is approved.
That it unfortunately is. Absolutely correct in everything that was said. Ridiculous thing is ground running for anti dets is not long or expensive, sure the Adour was 9 minutes at idle and 1 min at a higher power level, about 100 kilos of fuel maximum. I would wager the Viper and Avon have similar time values. I had a massive agruement with another LAE (BCAR working outside EASA land rules) about his attitude to lifing of components and schedule work on ex military frames (mainly explosive carts, but seals also come under shelf lifed items etc before fitment). I could not believe that LAEs as chief engineers think they can re life items without authority from either the OEM or the regulator as seems to have been the case. Horrified when I read that, variations like that in EASA land are not in the remit of an LAE. We can apply for them, cannot authorise them.
Canopener AlAlas, the CAA has a valid point here. A few years ago a vintage jet was brought down by a failed elastomer in the fuel control system. It had been stored half filled with fuel leaving a ‘tide mark’ across a diaphragm, which in this case was basically rubber coated canvass. The air above the fuel level had dried out the elastomer causing it to fail in flight. This was only discovered during the subsequent strip inspection.
They let it go that time but if the Shoreham aircraft has been found to have deteriorated elastomers they really can’t let it go again. These are moving parts that flex and bend to send vital pressure references around a hydro-mechanical computer and they have to work properly yet they aren’t lifed in the normal way.
I am intimately acquainted with these systems from our work on Bluebird’s original fuel system that was totally overhauled by the OEM as a gesture of support and goodwill and all our elastomers were re-manufactured, which may be why the Orph’ is not on the list of suspect engines (I must stress that I have no knowledge of this if it’s the case and this is absolutely 100% speculation on my part)
But, what I can say with reasonable confidence, is that these elastomers have hidden away unnoticed and un-cared-for in many legacy engines for long enough that they need looking at.
Nor is it just a case of buying a seal kit and rebuilding your fuel control modules. As an example, another problem we faced was that the design called for asbestos gaskets so an amount of engineering work had to go into specifying new materials. Then there were things like special, no longer produced tab-washers and all the unique tooling for setting up the units before they were rig-tested and finally signed off.
It can be done, and we also know that properly inhibited and stored components can be brand new after half a century on the shelf but bringing this all together safely and cost effectively to maintain flyable vintage jets is going to be challenging to say the least. Let’s hope there’s enough empathy between the CAA, operators and OEMs to maintain some middle ground for now.Bill Smith.
Cannot argue with that Bill, I would suspect the OEM had little issue with your fuel system as your intentions are not for airworthiness use (Bluebird having failed on that score twice before). Worth considering inhibiting your system properly mind after the test runs.
Sign In
