While we’re on the subject of education, plural forms of words do not take an apostrophe (ie, GCSEs, not CGSE’s).

I agree that it isn’t all that important on an Internet forum, but some of you may find that any worthwhile employer will take a rather more robust view of the important of correct English.

Like it or not, lads – based on what I saw at first hand as my own three daughters passed through the school and exam system – overall standards in education in the UK have fallen over the past few decades. 🙁

I totally agree Grey. I have a son who is just about to start a Mech Eng degree at University next month, and my daughter has just collected her GCSE results – so I too have an interest in the current UK education system. It is difficult to prove whether it is the exams becoming easier, or the current trend to “teach to pass” rather than “teach to educate” that is at fault, but I too believe that too many students leaving school today lack a grasp of basic maths or English language skills. Sad, but true.

Old story.

Quite an old story – AAIB Special report is available to read in full on the AAIB website.

Paul F

XM697 in Woking

I too was a member of the Woking air cadets, from 1973 through to 1979, and ‘697 was sold shortly thereafter IIRC. She was, of course one of the pre-production examples, and her rear cockpit was pretty empty, having been used for test equipment, which was removed (I presume) before the airframe ever came to Woking. She was also engine-less.

Whilst at Woking some of her systems were re-activated – the simple electrics such as nav lights, cockpit lights etc were powered up via a suitable mains/transformer connection, and a few months work by officers and willing cadets got her undercarriage working again – we put her up on jacks and lo and behold we succesfully cycled the gear a few times.

I seem to remember we also used to remove, and refit, the wing ferry tanks occasionally.

In terms of restoration to flight, I seem to remember the story went that her back had been broken at some point – possibly over stressed in service, possibly due to inappropriate jacking or storage during her time in Woking – I am sure one of the ATC officers (who worked for BAC at Brooklands(as was in those days) fabricated an extra spine panel to fit the “gap” that developed?

Anyway, good to see her looking neat ‘n tidy again, I spent many happy hours sitting in that cockpit dreaming I was flying alongside Dicky Duckett et al… happy days.

Paul F

P.S. In those days the squadron also had an unused Gnat canopy stored in the HQ building rafters – wonder if that was also sold with ‘697 or whether it’s still sitting there gathering dust….

So little forms the “soul” of a Spitfire then?

Spitfire ID provenance is focused directly on the fuselage from the frame 5 firewall to the frame 19 tail brake. All other items were designed from the start to be subject to change in service and and invariable were.

Mark

So, in order to claim the original provenence, I presume this section of the airframe would have to be remain built up from a majority of restored “original” components – yet everything else could be changed. It seems a fairly small proportion of what most people would see as “a Spitfire”, but if that’s the way they were designed, and those are the agreed “boundaries” of the “soul” of the original build, then at least people know where they stand.

So if a original BofB fuselage section (frames 5 to 19) is correctly described is restored, but has been fitted with new build wings (built using fresh materials to oroginal spec, using methods and designs true to the original), and with new build tail feathers built to the original design, but with Rudder and elevators covered in a modern fabric rather than Irish Linen, but fitted with an inappropriate mark of Merlin engine would the result be a restoration, a recreation or a replica – or a bit of all three?

I recently attended a talk given by John Romain of ARCo (given to the Gatwick RAeS branch) and the question of the degree of “orginality” in their restorations was raised – I will try and dig out my notes, and see how he answered the question.

Paul F

Tight and agreed definitions needed as a first step?

In my opinion and it is only an opinion, to be classed as a restoration over 50% of the airframe would need to be used. Once you start using more new metal than old it can only be classed as a re-creation. I think when someone pulls a few dozen fragments out of the ground and then say they have restored the aircraft to flight i think that is pushing it a bit.

As I have asked before on similar threads – how would ‘50%’ be defined? By weight/mass or by number of components?

And where does ‘airframe’ stop, and ‘other components’ start? Engines are clearly not part of the airframe, as they are ‘consumables’, as are undercarriages or weapons systems (inc gunsights, weapons computers etc), but does an ‘engine’ include all the coolant plumbing and radiator, or does it stop at the point where the engine connects to the rest of the coolant system ? Are cockpit instruments/seats/control column/radar/radio/oxygen systems etc part of the airframe, or are they too considered to be consumables. What about ‘skins’ – maybe the fabric on a Hurricane is considered a consumable (as it bears no load), but surley the metal skins in a monocoque design (such as a Spitfire) are an integral part of the airframe?

Is there an agreed definition of exactly what constitutes an “airframe”?

What about control surfaces? – an aileron can be changed, but so too can a whole wing on some types, so perhaps we would then be looking at a “recreation of a heavily repaired example of the original type”? Or if the original wing was built into the restoration, but then replaced as a result of a post-restoration accident we might be looking at a “repaired restoration”?

And let’s not forget that a serial number (or registration) may well be a secondary identity, the constructors number is probably a better identifier – back to the dreaded arguments surrounding the manufacturer’s data plate…

From memory very few of the BBMF fighters have original spec engines, propellors or exhaust stacks, (that was the case say fifteen years ago- maybe they are closer to original spec these days?) but to me they are far more relevant and interesting than the recent rash of ‘recreated ‘Yaks, FW190s, Me 262 replicas where they use incorrect engines. I would still appreciate seeing one of those recreations in the air at a display – so long as the programme, and commentary, made it very clear that what people were looking at was a recreation, and not a “genuine” 262, and I would not want to hera them decsribed as a ‘replica’, as for me an incorrect engine type would not be permitted in a ‘replica’ (but I might accept an incorrect mark/model of the correct engine).

So, perhaps the industry needs to define and agree the following terms more fully, and in very fine detail:

1. Airframe

2. Restoration – My view would be “a rebuild using a minimum defined percentage (by mass or by number of parts) of restored (original) parts in the airframe, with an agreed definition of what ‘tolerance’ is permitted in terms of engine substiution and consumable substitution before the provenance of the original airframe identity is considered ‘lost'”.

A restoration would also have to be explicitly linked to a well defined point in the life of that airframe (e.g. date of first flight, date of entry into service, a point in the airframe’s service with a certain operator, date of retirement from regular service/use etc.

A well defined set of rules would need to be established as to permitted adoption/substitution of modern materials/techniques, both in terms of reasons for the change, and the actual nature of permitted changes (e.g. justifiable reason: to improve safety, detailled nature of change: addition of modern radio/nav gear etc) might be useful?

A restoration could (if rules so dictated) be allowed to include any additional modern equipment (e.g. data recorder, video camera system), so long as it did not replace any original equipment fitted to that airframe at the point of time the restoration relates to.

Perhaps a minimium period of airframe “dormancy”, “non use” (5yrs, 10yrs etc) could be set so as to help establish where “ongoing servicing and upgrades” in normal use end, and a true restoration project starts. This might avoid arguments over airframes such as the BBMFs ex-THUM Spitfire PR XIXs, which might then be able to claim they are unrestored airframes (by virtue of continuous service use), regardless of their state of modification. Thus a gap of the predefined number of years after last flight, or after last servicing renders an airframe suitable for “restoration”.

3. Replica – Essentially a new build airframe, built to original blueprints, using original spec materials and original construction techniques.

All other areas of “vagueness” would be controlled by same/similar rules as for restorations in (2) above, though perhaps with a little more, but still tightly defined, flexibility?

4. Recreation – Pretty much anything else! So this would cover new builds to original blueprints, but with non-original engine types, and it would cover outwardly identical “copies” that use different construction techniques or materials outsid eteh rules set in 2. or 3. above.

N.B. All the above rules would apply to both flying and non-flying examples, and there would need to be some form of hard documentary evidence to support any claim to the title “restoration”.

As for colour schemes – if the above definitions were properly defined used, then the colourscheme issue largely goes away, as many current flying exmaples might well be defined as “recreations”, so any colour scheme would be okay.

Or, colour schemes could be covered by a seperate set of rules, so that a true restoration could perhaps be flown in a clearly defined “non authentic” colour scheme should an owner wish to modify the scheme to suit their own tastes.

I know the above rules might cause mayhem in terms of absolute descriptions of many current airworthy “restorations” (think of the following UK examples alone, let alone any Stateside examples: ML407, LF363, G-ACSS(?), PV202, XH558, PA474, The ex-Henshaw Mew Gull, Cosmic Wind G-ARUL etc) but, like anything, there would have to be a cut-off date or moratorium point after which the definitions woudl be applied, and anythign built before that can be described however it’s supporting documentation allows.

By the time the rules are agreed, the oil will have run out anyway?

Maybe we need a global, or European “Aircraft Restoration Standards” body of some sort to define/police the whole matter? Elected members from recognised museum/collections, commercial restoration workshops, and aviation historians perhaps. I seem to remember we have something along those lines in the UK already – BARC perhaps?

There sure are a lot of worms in this can, maybe that’s why it keeps being opened?

Paul F

P.S. As Bruce has said, in 200yrs time, will anyone looking at a grounded “Spitfire” in a museum (or an airworthy replica flying on some synthetic “petroleum fluid” ) be able to tell whether the component on the airframe is 1940’s original, 2008 rebuild to original 1940’s spec using original 1940’s components, 2008 rebuilt to 1940’s original spec using all new(2008) components, or essentially just a 2108 “facsimile” of the original component, that is externally similar, but otherwise totally inaccurate?

“Restoration police” needed – apply within….

And for anyone rich enough to want to buy a “genuine restored WW2 Spitfire” out of the small ads columns, or off a certain website – Caveat Emptor!

Can anyone enlighten me….?

Can anyone explain to me what purpose this trial will serve – other than providing an income for any number of lawyers/legal experts etc?

And why not prosecute someone at the airport for not running more frequent runway debris checks on the day of the accident- surely the airport was responsible for provision of a “safe” (including debris-free) runway? Had the metal strip not been there then the accident might not have happened as the tyre might not have failed. Surely it all boils down to the assessment of risk. The frequency of runway FOD/debris checks was presumably deemed “adequate” at the time, based on the number of incidents attributed to FOD damage on takeoff from that airport/runway – a “risk-based judgement”.

A strip made of aluminium may have been “less likely” to cause a similar puncture/deflation/burst, but there is no certainty it would have prevented the same outcome. Another “risk-based” judgement/decision. The engineer might have been expected to notice the strip was made of an inappropriate material and query the matter – or he might not, another “judgement” decision with associated “risk”.

Following similar logic, given that no previous fatalities had ocurred on any previous flight by a Concorde as a result of tyre burst on takeoff, then the surely risks of the accident happening must have been deemed “acceptable”? There was (IIRC) at least one earlier case of a Concorde wing having been punctured by tyre debris, but no fatalities had resulted. I assume the design had been assessed a number of times before and after that earlier incident and deemed safe on the basis of acceptable “risk”. So, is there really a case for the design authority holder to answer – statistically the data seems to suggest that the design was not fatally defective under “most” circumstances, including one earlier tyre burst that punctured the wing?

I would have no issue with the outcome of the accident being a review of procedures (in areas of aviation maintenance and aviation design development), but does it really take a risk of prosecution to achieve that sort of review? If things have not changed since the accident, then yes, there probably is a case to answer, but how can anyone be prosecuted on the basis of hindsight so long after the event?

Every time I fly in any type of commercial airliner I know I am taking a risk – hopefully it’s a very very small risk, but it’s still a risk. Yes I rely on the expertise of the crew, the engineers, the aircraft designers, and the licensing authorities, but ultimately I choose/agree to take that risk, no-one forces me to do so. If I cannot accept that risk then I should not fly.

It seems that people are no longer willing to accept any responsibility for their own risk-taking these days, so someone has to be seen to take the blame if that million-to-one chain of events happens and thinsg go wrong. I accept there is no excuse for negligence – but probability- and risk- based judgements will rarely be “black and white”, so in the absence of any irrefutable evidence of gross negligence what purpose does a trial serve?

How long before we see disclaimers on airline tickets….”In the event of an accident we accept no responsibility….”?
Paul F

Don’t remember the “Wrangler” name but I do remember seeing a Tradewinds CL44 freighter leave Heathrow occasionally back in the early seventies… I didn’t realise they were still going.

Would be nice to see them pull through 🙁

Paul F