Guess we have to agree to disagree. Naturally, you can claim that the Lighting is “advanced” when compared to the Canberra but it isn’t. It’s a very conventional aeroplane – albeit a very fast one. Agreed, it has more complicated systems but my point was that it is scarcely different to the Canberra in terms of engineering and vintage. As you say, hydraulics could be one issue and reheat is another, but my point was that the CAA make subjective decisions on whether such systems are judged to be “complex” and therefore “risky” for civilian approval. Clearly, a Lighting in the hands of very experienced tradesmen is far safer to operate than a whole fleet which was once used exhaustively for high-performance operational use, but the CAA evidently don’t see things like that. I think their attitude is vaguely insulting as it presupposes that very experienced technicians are somehow incapable of safely maintaining one aeroplane when (in the RAF’s hands) it was perfectly acceptable to operate a whole fleet. Just doesn’t make sense.
I often chuckle to myself at your long posts but this one is by far the funniest so far and betrays a breathtaking ignorance of the complexities of aircraft engineering, systems and operation that is particularly surprising coming from someone who has written books on various aircraft types including the Lightning. Do you just type out stuff from the manufacturers’ documentation, blindly uncomprehending, slap a few photos in and then forget it all and move on to the next subject?
I don’t want a Lightning – or Harrier – dropping on my head, or my neighbour’s head, or even your head (I quite like Lightnings and wouldn’t want to lose another) – and the CAA are 100% right to want to see absolute proof that such a type could be operated safely in civilian hands. When it couldn’t be operated safely in RAF hands, that is naturally going to be nearly impossible. Thankfully.
Sign In
