Flying Sea harrier in the UK?, sign up to possibly make it happen

[Vickers McFunbus]

Maybe if a more compelling argument was presented, other than

Art would really like to bring 'the old girl' back to the UK but is being denied by our Civil Aviation Authority who say it is too dangerous to display in the UK at airshows. This is far from the truth as Art and his team have successfully completed over 100 flights in the US without any problems

then things would be taken more seriously.

That nasty CAA. Aren't they evil?

Or maybe, on a serious note, the CAA have noted that the military loss rate and decided it is too much of a risk, particular in the VSTOL regime, which of course would be a major part of any Harrier show.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Vickers McFunbus

[hythe]

Even if he had to do rolling take-off and landing, it'd be great to see a Harrier flying in the UK again. Must admit, when an RAF Harrier last flew at Biggin Hill a couple of summers ago, I was surprised (but mostly pleased) how close to the public it was allowed to hover.

[melvyn hiscock]

Firstly there is no manufacturer support and that is enough to get it stopped at the first hurdle. Secondly, The CAA would most probably want it registered here and so it would have to go though a full certification process and you could probably use up a couple of lottery wins on that. It is also not on a standard c of a as it is an FAA experimental and the FAA have stated they are not prepared to support experimental category aeroplanes in the UK. This is all before we get to the crash record which is similar to the Lightning in service and so it would not even get considered by the CAA.

Will not happen, that is a shame, but it will not happen.

[Iain Ogilvie]

Nice idea - but please stop bashing the CAA - they have a job to do and, IMHO, are pretty good at it.

Flight safety is no simple matter and, personally, I'd be extremely worried if they allowed such a complex type to operate in UK airspace purely because a load of misty-eyed enthusiasts signed a petition.

Someone's already mentioned the SA Lightnings.

If, on the other hand, they were happy that all the necessary Is had been dotted, and Ts crossed then - well that would be great news. But the chances of that happening...

Others' mileage obviously varies...

Iain

[dambuster]

Nice idea - but please stop bashing the CAA - they have a job to do and, IMHO, are pretty good at it.

Flight safety is no simple matter and, personally, I'd be extremely worried if they allowed such a complex type to operate in UK airspace purely because a load of misty-eyed enthusiasts signed a petition.

Iain

So what is the chance of you being in the wrong place if the Shar has a problem during a display and how does that compare against your exposure to risk given that 1900 people were killed in road traffic related accidents in 2011? At least with the Shar you are able to make a reasonable judgement to avoid any locations where it might display; unfortunately you don't have any choice in knowing if the next driver you pass is drunk or has poor driving skills. This is not so much about protecting the public, it is more about the bad publicity for the CAA if something were to happen and the media feeding frenzy that would follow.

Peter

[ants models]

should be allowed as bae created it im sure if it had any faults they could repair it..

[Vickers McFunbus]

should be allowed as bae created it im sure if it had any faults they could repair it..

Yeah, I think BAES would probably pay for it to stay in the USA.

Dambuster, sadly RTIs and aviation safety are not comparable topics. Numerous example have shown that problems at airshows can lead to casualties thankfully almost unheard of on the road. Why? Decent regulation and a good culture of safety. How bad could the mid-air at Duxford have been a couple of years ago had circumstances been slightly different? Airshows could have been a thing of history. Hence the risk is mitigated as much as possible, and we don't see Lightnings, Phantoms, Jaguars & Harriers at our airshows.

[dambuster]

Yeah, I think BAES would probably pay for it to stay in the USA.

Dambuster, sadly RTIs and aviation safety are not comparable topics. Numerous example have shown that problems at airshows can lead to casualties thankfully almost unheard of on the road. Why? Decent regulation and a good culture of safety. How bad could the mid-air at Duxford have been a couple of years ago had circumstances been slightly different? Airshows could have been a thing of history. Hence the risk is mitigated as much as possible, and we don't see Lightnings, Phantoms, Jaguars & Harriers at our airshows.

Understood but I was alluding to Iain showing a personal concern and suggesting that in other areas of life there is also a risk but we tend to take it for granted.

You suggest that there are numerous examples of airshow problems . UK airshow regulation is very rigorous so just how many instances have there been in the UK of single display aircraft accidents resulting in casualties and how many are attributed to technical failure or maintenance error? After all It is the 'complex aircraft' aspect that seems to be the underlying reason for the CAA position so let's compare like with like. They could restrict any display to non-formation flying, and pilot error or Natural Operating Hazards can apply equally to any display aircraft. And I'm not convinced that the outcome of a Harrier accident would be much different to something like a privately owned warbird like a Hunter, Meteor, Gnat or F-86. (And wasn't there a privately owned Canberra on the display circuit?)

Peter

[Phartycr0c]

Signed. I wholeheartedly agree that flight safety is all important but the stance of a blanket ban on complicated airframes is possibly outmoded.

Surely there is some mileage in individual certification of airframes be it Harrier, Lightning, Jaguar or the like.

Example, two identical p51's sat side by side are just that, one however could be maintained by a group with no aviation or mechanical experience and send the aircraft to a service centre with no p51 experience, the equivalent of sending a Ferrari to a back street garage if you will. The second P51 is sent to the correct and proper maintainace facilities, is maintained by experienced mechanics and flown by ex operational pilots. Which is more likely to get certified?

Why then cant the same rules be applied to Afterburning aircraft with the obvious ban on supersonic flight which applies the the military over land in peacetime any way?

A little simplistic a view but hopefully you get my point. Lets face it accidents happen with even the best maintained / flown aircraft.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Phartycr0c

[pigsty]

UK airshow regulation is very rigorous so just how many instances have there been in the UK of single display aircraft accidents resulting in casualties and how many are attributed to technical failure or maintenance error?

This is surely putting the argument bottom about face. The reason there have been so few such accidents is that standards are so high and cowboy outfits aren't allowed to operate. The lack of accidents absolutely does not prove that these aircraft are inherently safe or that the CAA is protecting itself in preference to protecting the public from risk.

As for the risks that we accept ... Yes, on the road the other bloke may be a dipstick and we can't stop him hitting us. But driving is hardly the same as going to an air show. It's a necessity of life, whereas shows are entirely voluntary and unnecessary, so the risk/benefit calculation is entirely different. Personally, if I'm paying to get in, I expect the other fella to take a lot more care not to drop something heavy on my head. Plus, of course, military aircraft are a mite more complicated than cars, and under a great deal more stress, so there's more to go wrong. And CAA certification isn't just about protecting spectators at a show, it's about protecting everyone over whom the aircraft flies to get to a show, none of whom has any say in it at all if the rundulating grundlepin hasn't been fitted properly and falls off.

[Doug Rogers]

I would have thought they could come up with a flight display that would be acceptable to both parties perhaps.

Like with a lot of older warbirds, as nice as it is, we don't need to see these aircraft pulling hard G's in a turn or doing barrel rolls etc, it's just nice to see them in their natural environment, in the air.

If the SVTOL part of the envelope is what concerns them, have him start with a rolling take-off and just demonstrate the vertical landing as he's finishing the routine for example.

If it were the only way to be able to see it, so be it.

I agree with Iain, the CAA are only doing their job, but I have signed the petition.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Doug Rogers

[bentwaters81tfw]

So what is the chance of you being in the wrong place if the Shar has a problem during a display and how does that compare against your exposure to risk given that 1900 people were killed in road traffic related accidents in 2011? At least with the Shar you are able to make a reasonable judgement to avoid any locations where it might display;

So where do you sit/stand to watch the display and stay safe from harm's way? Once an aircraft departs from controlled flight, your options are limited, and there is at least one example on record of a Harrier flying happily for many miles after the pilot elected for a Martin-Baker letdown. Open countryside is slowly disappearing, and airshow crowds tend to number in the Tens of Thousands. I have witnessed three seperate fatals at Mildenhall, Duxford has had at least two.

A Hunter or it's ilk tends to travel in one direction at a rate of knots, and the jockey can usually point it towards a safer area with some certainty . A Shar could potentially depart in any direction, irrespective of which way it's pointing. I don't doubt the abilities of the pilot or his maintenance crew, but the FAA allow it to fly as an experimental, as they did the Shack. The Shack was flying well beyond it's airframe design hours and Avro washed their hands of it. It flew here under the RAF ticket; outside of that, it was deemed unsafe to fly. Same rules, different airframe.

I flew in a 737 that was banned from European skies because the maintenance was not to standard. It ended up in the Red Sea with the loss of 137 souls. Safe aircraft? you decide.

Edited March 15, 2013 by bentwaters81tfw

[Vickers McFunbus]

You suggest that there are numerous examples of airshow problems . UK airshow regulation is very rigorous so just how many instances have there been in the UK of single display aircraft accidents resulting in casualties and how many are attributed to technical failure or maintenance error? After all It is the 'complex aircraft' aspect that seems to be the underlying reason for the CAA position so let's compare like with like. They could restrict any display to non-formation flying, and pilot error or Natural Operating Hazards can apply equally to any display aircraft. And I'm not convinced that the outcome of a Harrier accident would be much different to something like a privately owned warbird like a Hunter, Meteor, Gnat or F-86. (And wasn't there a privately owned Canberra on the display circuit?)

They were examples purely that in the world of display flying, not everything goes to plan.

The Harrier is a very different beast compared to anything privately operated and displayed at a UK airshow. And much as you are not convinced that any accident would be worse than a Hunter/Meteor/Gnat etc, there's always an element of luck and circumstance involved, which cannot be predicted.

[Riggers]

Signed............

[dambuster]

They were examples purely that in the world of display flying, not everything goes to plan.

The Harrier is a very different beast compared to anything privately operated and displayed at a UK airshow. And much as you are not convinced that any accident would be worse than a Hunter/Meteor/Gnat etc, there's always an element of luck and circumstance involved, which cannot be predicted.

Agreed. So the job is to reduce the risk to ALARP and then mitigate. Has the CAA actually done the analysis? Has anyone asked for the hazard analysis and safety case figures? It seems to me that the easy way out is to have a policy of 'if its a complex aircraft, don't bother'.

Peter

[Enzo the Magnificent]

I have witnessed three seperate fatals at Mildenhall, Duxford has had at least two.

I've given up counting the number of airshow fatalities I have witnessed.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Agreed. So the job is to reduce the risk to ALARP and then mitigate.

Whoa! ALARP is ALARP! ALARP does not do mitigation, because then it would not be ALARP.

[SkippyBing]

To be fair to the CAA, the risk is ALARP, you can't get safer than not flying.

[melvyn hiscock]

You are all missing one point. It is an FAA experimental aeroplane and the FAA will not allow it to fly in this country as they will not support it. It has nothing to do with the CAA as they would not be involved unless the FAA changed their stance. If it was on the full FAA register and maintained according to the ICAO standards then there may be a chance but it is not, it is experimental. It could fly here if it was on the UK civil register but that would mean certifying the aeroplane from scratch and that is not going to happen as the cost would be astronomical and the aeroplane may need to be rebuilt to bring it up to standard.

FAA experimental, nothing to do with the CAA, is not going to happen. End of story

[mrvr6]

why is it classed as experimental?

[melvyn hiscock]

It is unique to the US and is reserved for homebuilt aircraft and those that are not supported by a manufacturer. It is a little like a Light Aircraft Association Permit to Fly over here except that the LAA ones have limits on horsepower, weight and no of seats. You could not operate a Sea Harrier on an LAA permit. The Experimental category means that the aircraft does not have to be certified to the levels you would expect for any other aircraft, light or heavy. The owners of the Experimental aircraft would be able to work on their own aircraft and the checks and sign offs are not as rigourous. There are limits to how the aeroplane can be flown and for an Experimental to be operated out of the United States, the local FAA office, in this case that would be London, has to be prepared to oversee the operation and the office in London is simply not staffed to that level. If the permission was granted to operate it would be for a minimum time and it is then that the CAA would get involved. Historically they are not keen on any Experimental being operated in the UK.

So, will not happen.

[SkippyBing]

why is it classed as experimental?

What else could you class it as? No variant of Harrier has ever been certified by a civil aviation authority and to be honest I doubt you could fulfil all the requirements of any of the available certification standards. So from a civilian perspective it's an untested design.

However, as detailed above, it can fly in the US under the experimental category, but as that's not recognised by anyone else it can't leave US airspace.

Edited March 16, 2013 by SkippyBing

[mrvr6]

What else could you class it as? No variant of Harrier has ever been certified by a civil aviation authority and to be honest I doubt you could fulfil all the requirements of any of the available certification standards. So from a civilian perspective it's an untested design.

However, as detailed above, it can fly in the US under the experimental category, but as that's not recognised by anyone else it can't leave US airspace.

does that apply to every military type?

Edited March 16, 2013 by mrvr6

[NDarby]

Sorry, do these petitions ever mean anything (or even change anything).

Neil

[Vickers McFunbus]

Agreed. So the job is to reduce the risk to ALARP and then mitigate. Has the CAA actually done the analysis? Has anyone asked for the hazard analysis and safety case figures? It seems to me that the easy way out is to have a policy of 'if its a complex aircraft, don't bother'.

I suspect it has, as it probably also has for the Lightning, Buccaneer, Mig-19, Phantom, Jaguar or any other ex-military fast jet that any operator has considered operating in civilian hands.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Vickers McFunbus