Ive never been a huge fan of the clowns at the CAA, Ive used clowns in place of far stronger and abusive phrases that are sat in my mind (when it comes to preserved aircraft flying again), but in this case I think they have acted correctly,in plain terms translate to “something broke, its not easy to monitor the fatigue, so until its sorted becareful”. Also, unlike other industries, the CAA deal with problems and learn from accidents pretty quickly. I worked in the rail industry for 15 years and rail safety was and still is a joke compared to air safety. Bex

I’m going to buy it tomorrow……………….watch this space.

I will, and thank you for all your posts, they have been and hopefully will continue to be very informative. Bex

HP, forgive me for being lazy and not rereading all the posts, but, have u read 100 days by Sandy Woodward yet? That is a rather good book I must admit. And, Vulcan 607 is a rather rivetting read too, others may or may not agree with me, but I reckon its a pretty good book too although my partner got the hump because I wouldnt put it down LoL. Bex

Yes, but on what?

Too much to hope it’ll land on 10 Downing Street:diablo:
The powers that be tend to get a bit touchy over things like that, don’t they:confused:

John

We can but hope LoL The powers that be have no sense of humour tee hee Bex :diablo:

123, Good luck with the Interview Phil, I dont envy you at all. Bex

That was in the good old days, pre 9/11, 7/07 etc!

My appollogies, I forgot about that, although thinking out loud again, surely aircraft originating from highly secure airfields would be exempt? Oh hang on no theres a spanner in the works on that one………… we cant use armed guards as all the ammo personnel & rifles are too busy being shot at else where in the world thanks to President Blair……. D’oh. Bex

P.S: Moment of sillyness now over :diablo:

MEgalith is correct, military actions & politics go hand in hand and I feel the discussions we’ve had have brought some varied views, especially as Ive mentioned before in this thread that in my view and probably everyone else that Black Buck missions were more for political & propaganda purposes than strategic value, whereas the SHAR missions were strategic and defensive.
Bex

Just to clear up the ‘sale of carrier’ issue.

Before the Falklands it was proposed to sell HMS Invincible to Australia. During the war New Zealand sent a frigate (HMS Canterbury?) to relieve an RN warship in the Gulf. Embarrassed by this assistance, Australia offered to relinquish the purchase of HMS Invincible which Britain accepted (much to the disappointment of the RAN).

HMS Hermes wasn’t sold to India until much later (1986) when all three Invincible class carriers were in service.

Thanks for putting me right CD, much appreciated. Mind u didnt know that NZ sent one of their frigates out so we could get one back. Bex