As I work for another of Britains most critised institutions (it’s fairly obvious which!!), your point about criticism is well taken.
BAE Systems (BAe) operation of the Mosquito and their continuing restoration work, have done much for historic aircraft preservation and operation in this country.
The odd question here is that if they are prepared to carry out such expensive and complex activities, why are they so reluctant to agree the ‘paper’ issue of the Shackleton paperwork. I can understand the Lightning and Buccaneer situation, as these are high performance aircraft with, in the case of the Lightning, a none too perfect saftey record while in service.
The Shackleton is a different case. It could hardly be called high performance (except for the noise!) and as a four engined aircraft, is likely to be much more reliable and safe.
It’s not hugely different from a Lancaster. Ignoring the BBMF aeroplane (not easy to do!) which is military operated, who is currently holding the design authority for the CWH Lancaster?
Unless, of course, the Canadian authorities don’t need a DA for the aeroplane.
If it is BAE, then I don’t really see the difference between the two aeroplanes.
As for the reputation, BAE Systems don’t do themselves much good by making very public mistakes, such as the Nimrod wing fiasco, and the Typhoon delays (although the Typhoon situation is not entirely BAEs fault, it is generally percieved as being so).
As I said at the top, I’m quite aware of how the press blows everything out of proportion, and yes, they have built some damn fine aeroplanes (check out my defence of the Hawk earlier) but I still don’t understand the Shackleton issue.
Willow
Sign In
