Choxwe should say that DVLA should not have the authority to lay down the rules for vehicles just because some drivers don’t like them
Ahh, finally, we return to the point which was made pages back! Exactly, that’s what we were talking about! Rules and regulations are fine, but if they are perceived as being wrong, grossly over-cautious, or even just rather questionable, it’s entirely reasonable to scoff at them. As we were saying, in the US, there’s a mind-set which allows and encourages people to question such matters. In this country, the prevailing attitude is more like yours. I know which I prefer.
Now, sorry to disappoint you Webpilot, but I disagree with your comments entirely. You can rant as much as you like, repeat yourself as much as you like, and accuse me of talking complete claptrap, but that isn’t going to change my view. Doubtless you will see this as some failure to understand your wisdom. It isn’t. It’s just that some of us do see things differently. Perhaps you could accept that?
ChoxGood grief, what bit of the previous posts don’t you understand? You’re not stating facts at all. You’re simply explaining the rules and regulations as they stand. My point (heaven-knows I’ve tried to impress this upon you) is that all of the rules and regulations are created by the CAA, based on their own data, which supports what is ultimately a subjective viewpoint. It has to be subjective because there are no criteria from which to make a non-subjective decision. They set the criteria themselves so that it is in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can you grasp this now, or do you prefer to simply spew-out more repetition?!:p
ChoxVery sad news. No possibility of acquiring one of the remaining aircraft after retirement next year I presume? They surely can’t need to recover any spares after that?! I guess the transportation matter would still be a problem though.
ChoxYep, as Page says, I don’t mean the ECM plates, I mean the small square-ish plates around the circumference of the actual jet pipe. A minor matter I know, but it’s annoying not to recall what they were actually for.
Rob, yes, I mean the 200-series jet pipes. The plates are not attached to 300- series jet pipes. The above photo is of XH560 being converted to tanker status. It’s one of the earliest production Vulcans in fact – as you say, the later aircraft had the more powerful engines.
Page, it is indeed an interesting picture. Both XH560 and XH558 flew for quite some time in tanker configuration but with sampling pods still fitted. The above photos suggests that they were both converted with the pods still fitted. They lurked around Waddington as tankers for some time with the pods attached, initially with no unit markings (the 27 sqn markings were painted over) but 50 Squadron markings were later applied, and then the pods were finally removed shortly afterwards. One assumes that at the time when the tankers were converted, there was a requirement for some atmospheric “sniffing” somewhere…
ChoxOkay WebPilot have it your way if it makes you happy. You’re simply repeating yourself, and you can read my view by looking back through previous posts. I should add though that you’re being incredibly naive if you think a published interview represents an honest account of the CAA’s view!
ChoxEr, this one might help:-
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/tankers/560_hdu.jpg
You can just about see the fairings around the exhaust can. Any ideas? I’m sure somebody told me they were something to do with smoke suppression but fading memory and all that… Matters not but it’s annoying me now!:p
ChoxLike I said, we go round in circles. I accept your points but you evidently don’t accept mine. I’ve read nothing valid here to contradict my view that the CAA’s decisions are based on their subjective opinions. As I said before, you can use whatever data you like to support a view in favour of keeping more complex jets on the ground but likewise you can use other data to demonstrate that under the right circumstances, such aircraft present no more danger than any other. If you read back through all the comments you can see that. But you all seem to be wilfully ignoring the direct quote from a former CAA man which illustrated precisely what I was getting-at. Their decisions are ultimately motivated by their own views, and then backed-up by data to suit the purpose. So, you either agree with their view or you don’t. I certainly don’t. Simples!
ChoxNope, I got it, I just don’t agree!:D
Chox…and so we go round in ever decreasing circles! I know what you’re saying but I’m striving to explain that there’s a fairly fundamental point here that is being overlooked. Fine to say:-
there are hard and fast rules which are adhered to
We know that. Point is, what if the rules are flawed?
Then, to compare losses due to engine failure gets one nowhere. Of course the Vulcan suffered engine failures. But it has four engines. The Lighting didn’t suffer from an undue number of engine failures, it suffered from engine fires. Even so, the chances of a civilian-operated Lightning suffering an engine fire, a subsequent abandonment, and a crash which causes injury or death (when compared to a whole fleet operated exhaustively for decades), is pretty-much zero.
As for the Harrier, the situation is obviously more critical. Lose one engine and the aircraft is lost, but again it begs the question of whether it is therefore more likely to crash on someone’s house than a Hunter or a Jet Provost? It would seem that the greatest risk would be in a flight regime where jet thrust was required to keep the aircraft in the air. That would be over an airfield in a sterile show area, presumably? One assumes that a civilian operator wouldn’t be proposing to hover the aircraft over a city centre. Like I keep saying, you can shift statistics to reach any conclusion and the final decisions are subjective.
The CAA operates within the framework and ambit of national and international regulation
Again, that’s fine, but it sounds rather like the afore-mentioned CAA interview article. The “we adhere to the rules and we are helpless” angle sounds plausible but it’s misleading. Surely, if that is the “excuse” then the framework could (or should) be changed. That statement implies that there are far too many externally-imposed regulations which the poor CAA would love to overlook, but they can’t. That’s not true. They could take whatever view they liked, if they wanted to. Which they don’t.
Then there’s WebPilot‘s explanation of the different categories. We know that too, but the point is, the CAA created these categories. It’s bonkers for them to simply say that an aircraft has to fit a category and if it doesn’t then there’s nothing the CAA can do about it. Of course they can. They just have no interest in doing so.
Think TwinOtter nails the point precisely. It’s all about Regulations. But as was mentioned much earlier in this thread, regulations are a British disease. They are held aloft as immovable and tiresome facts of life which we are obliged to adhere to. The reality is that they are not. They are rules imposed by people who invent them and we choose to accept them because nobody has the will or inclination to question or change them. How the rules get created is wrapped-up in the smoke and mirrors of statistics, and data which suits the intended outcome. But the rules are ultimately laid-down by people who make entirely subjective decisions. You really can’t claim that the decision-making process is anything other than subjective because there is no criteria from which a decision can be made – other than the criteria chosen by the CAA. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The quote from Tony Blackman says this more clearly than I can.
Okay, we could argue forever but I hope you see what I’m getting-at, whether you agree or not. If you prefer to simply accept that the CAA knows best and rules are rules then fine. Personally, I share the view that, as in the States, rules are fine if they make sense. But if they are founded on emotion rather than logic, I think anyone should be entitled to scoff at them.
ChoxWell yes, it is, at least on the face of it. But it’s a bit like laying-down membership criteria for a sports club, specifying admissible height, weight, shoe size and eye colour, and then when a club manager complains that somebody doesn’t meet the criteria, they say “we’d love to allow you to join, but it’s out of our hands”… Point is, they set-out the criteria in the first place!
Obviously we know why they do this (he refers to safety issues in the article) but this is smoke and mirrors stuff. It’s easy to wrap everything up in claims of safety considerations but what I’m getting-at is that their safety considerations often seem to be based on very subjective issues. Hence the quote from Tony Blackman, which (I suspect) is a far more honest account of how the CAA really operates than the interview mentioned above.
ChoxYou’re quote is entirely worthless
That’s your opinion Bruce but I beg to differ. The quote is from Tony Blackman, a former test pilot, and (Sky High) it has everything to do with Harriers if you care to read the posts.
Anyway, let’s not get nasty about this. I have an opinion just like anyone else’s but if you disagree that’s fine. If this is just going to degenerate into insults I’ll leave you guys to it. I thought we were having a discussion.
ChoxGuess we have to agree to disagree. You evidently believe that the Lightning is somehow technologically different to the Canberra whereas my view is that the two aircraft are much the same in terms of engineering and design processes. The Lighting might have a hydraulic system which is arguably “complex” (or at least unreliable) but my point was that it is the aircraft’s reheat system which seems to have set the CAA’s collective minds against it.
Just as an example of what I was getting- at, I can offer you a quote:-
“I was a technical member on the Board of the CAA and we were getting frequent requests to give a Permit to Fly to a rebuilt Lightning fighter. Our Safety regulation group refused to grant a permit since the last thing they wanted was a retired fighter aircraft with a rather dubious safety record flying around the UK giving air displays”.
Think that gives you a better idea of the CAA’s attitude. As I said, it’s about subjective viewpoints. One could take this quote and ask who the hell the CAA are to “want” or not “want” something in the first place. It should be about clear and objective safety criteria, not whether a bunch of people happen to like the sound of an application or not.
ChoxIt’s a charity, it’s what they do, they are disadvanteged in not being one involved in fluffy kittens etc
Valid point I guess, but maybe a specious one. Surely, a hugely popular and “iconic” aircraft should have as much “pulling power” as a fluffy kitten?
The problem (at least as I see it) is that Pleming and his cronies have been incredibly inept when it comes to publicising the aircraft and the project. They have occasionally managed to scrape a few minutes of television but when they have, it’s usually been Pleming who has wasted the time to talk rather self-consciously and actually say nothing, and inevitably look like a bit of an eccentric who doesn’t have a grasp of reality. Even I would accept that he’s far brighter than that but he always comes-across like that on TV. So why the hell didn’t he get someone who has all the facts at his fingertips and can string a sentence together when a camera is pointed at him?
Likewise I know from personal experience that they have actively ignored potential sources of good publicity. In one case they could have had the backing of a very well known former RAF pilot who could have done a great deal to gather support (moral and financial) through his contacts, but they simply didn’t want to know. They were offered publishing ideas too which they weren’t interested in, and loftily claimed that they had their own plans in the pipeline – which never went anywhere of course.
It’s true that the media always needs a “hook” for such subjects but anyone with a bit of PR savvy knows how to put the right “spin” on a subject. Clearly, Pleming doesn’t know how to. That’s fine (we’re not all Max Hastings clones) but if only he’d have the good grace to step aside and let others do the job. Trouble is, I get the impression he doesn’t want to step aside. He wants to carry-on spending money needlessly on junkets at Farnborough and adding more “expenses” claims to his ever-growing list. I think it stinks, as do many others.
No point even saying this though really, as the Good Doctor “never reads forums” so I’m told. Why doesn’t that surprise me…
ChoxGuess 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.
The same presumably would apply with the Harrier although I have to admit that I’d be more inclined to support the CAA’s position on that particular machine. It is a very complicated aeroplane which relies on just one engine and requires better-than-average piloting skills. When the RAF are reluctant to even fly their operational aircraft over London, one has to assume that confidence in the Harrier’s reliability is fairly low!
But I see no evidence to suggest that the CAA’s attitude is based on anything other than their own perceptions. Obviously, they make decisions based on facts but of course one can adopt or exclude technical data to suit one’s viewpoint. I’m sure the CAA do precisely that. Without any experience of operating “complex” jets in civilian hands, I fail to see how the CAA can claim that the practise is in any way dangerous. But that’s the “Catch 22” situation I mentioned before, and I’m quite sure that there will never be any opportunity to put any theory of safe operation into practise. Britain just isn’t that kind of country. The CAA is the regulatory body and their view cannot be contradicted or overturned by anyone. Wouldn’t even be worth trying. It’s rather sad, but that’s how things are here. As has been said, things are rather different in the US and personally I rather admire that country’s “can do” spirit which contrasts with Britain’s “Is That Wise” attitude!
Yes, of course the prospect of a Lightning or a Harrier dropping onto someone’s house is not a pleasant one, but is it really any more likely than a train running off a track or a truck skidding off a motorway? Nope, it’s very, very unlikely and if we were talking about amateur groups of Barnstormers running fast jets from a barn, then I might sympathise with the CAA. But to discount the very idea of flying some aircraft on the grounds of their complexity just seems crazy. In the right hands and under proper controls there is no reason to suppose that it couldn’t be done safely. We live in a society which is increasingly suffocated by regulations and dogma, all supposedly designed to make our lives better but actually making us all the poorer.
ChoxHere in the U.S. if people don’t like the “Official” answer, they work at changing the rules instead of just griping about it
I couldn’t agree more!
When you look at the CAA’s pronouncements you have to conclude that no matter how they might dress-up their decision-making process, the end result is entirely subjective. It has to be by definition. In the case of the Lightning, one could argue that the aircraft is no more “complex” than a Canberra, being powered by two Avons in much the same way. The glaring difference is the use of reheat and this seems to the be issue which renders the Lightning “too risky” as far as the CAA is concerned. It’s utterly bonkers.
It seems certain that the Harrier’s complex engine-powered control system would be enough to convince the CAA that the type is far too risky to contemplate. Ultimately, they make a judgement that the risk of accident is too great. That’s their job, and all we can do is (if we so decide) disagree strongly. I think we’re entitled to disagree, given that there is no evidence to actually indicate that such aircraft do present a danger. But then we’re in a “Catch 22” situation in that the CAA could rightly claim that no such evidence exists because they have prohibited such aircraft from flying. I guess we’re simply trapped at the mercy of an overly-cautious, monolithic CAA which is answerable to nobody but itself.
As has been said, things are refreshingly more flexible in the US where the suffocating effects of red tape and dogma haven’t spread quite as far as they have in this country… yet!
Sign In
