UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Brevet Cable on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 7:13 pm

http://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Airworthiness/Certificates-and-permits/Permits-to-fly/Ferry,-test-and-positioning-flights/
Ferry flight to or from the UK

A UK Regulated aircraft to be exported can use a valid Permit to Fly for flight to the place of delivery provided that:
•the aircraft has appropriate transfer documents. Acceptance must be sought from the importing state before a Permit to Fly or Ferry Permit is used for importation.
•all relevant overflight permissions have been obtained from the concerned National Aviation Authorities.
•import requirements specified by the importing state must be determined and complied with.

If a UK Mode S has been allocated, it will need to be removed and replaced with one issued by the importing authority to coincide with registration in that state.

To import an aircraft for the purpose of obtaining a UK Permit to Fly, the simplest method is to do so under the registration mark and valid C of A or Permit to Fly issued by the exporting state. Alternatively, the aircraft could be shipped in a container.

It may be possible for the aircraft to be issued with a UK Permit to Fly while still in the exporting country. A CAA Surveyor will travel to the aircraft to perform the necessary inspections and assessments. This will incur additional costs above the application fee.

Positioning flights

A UK Permit to Fly for Ferry may be required for the transport of an aircraft without a valid Permit to Fly. This is usually granted when the aircraft must travel for maintenance and repair or for the aircraft to be placed into long term storage.

If a Ferry Permit is required as part of the application for a Permit to Fly issue or revalidation, no extra charges will be made.

If the issue of a Ferry Permit is required outside of the Permit to Fly process additional costs will incur.

Permit to Fly for test

A Permit to Fly for Test will be granted for flight testing intended for the issue of a Permit to Fly renewal or Certificate of Validity. This will incur no extra costs unless overseas travel or accommodation is required.

If a Permit to Fly for Test is required to test a newly installed modification or repair, a charge will be made.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby richw_82 on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 7:24 pm

Timc wrote:"But hey, why spoil a good internet myth...?"

That was 25 years ago!
What relevance that has in the here and now is beyond me? Sorry to say! :smile:


The relevance being it was/is allowed, yet people say it never happened and can never happen. It did - so therefore its a myth.

The fact it was 25 years ago has little to do with anything - by that measure you might as well say it was the mid-1960's a Lancaster last held a permit, so that won't be allowed either. Aircraft aren't banned or prohibited based on how long it was since the last one held a valid permit!

Its not forbidden to fly one - the conditions set for flying a complex category aircraft remain broadly the same now, as evidenced by the Vulcan and what levels of documentation, organisation and OEM support it required; and what brought about and end to its flying.
User avatar
richw_82

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Rebecca_1984 on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 7:58 pm

Can anyone honestly see UKHAT getting hold of an airworthy or even potentially airworthy Lightning in the first place I think we are all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, picking a type at random trying to drum up support on social media, then picking another aircraft type five days latter and starting over seems to be the way the "trust" operates. Sorry I really wanted to see this run on a solid professional basis with a clear plan to acquire a specific airframe and plans in place to operate said airframe. All we have at the current time are wishy washy ideas and pipe dreams, I wish UKHAT well but a rethink and some clear focus and direction is needed and fast.
Rebecca_1984

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 8:10 pm

I'd quite like to get a Harrier flying in the UK again. Anyone wanna give me the money? I'm talking to all sorts of people about it, so it's all proper and everything.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 8:10 pm

Sorry, Jaguar not Harrier.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 8:11 pm

Jaguar? No, don't be silly, I meant Buccaneer.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 8:12 pm

Whatever, some old plane, just give me some money...
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby richw_82 on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 8:37 pm

Rebecca_1984 wrote:Can anyone honestly see UKHAT getting hold of an airworthy or even potentially airworthy Lightning in the first place I think we are all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, picking a type at random trying to drum up support on social media, then picking another aircraft type five days latter and starting over seems to be the way the "trust" operates. Sorry I really wanted to see this run on a solid professional basis with a clear plan to acquire a specific airframe and plans in place to operate said airframe. All we have at the current time are wishy washy ideas and pipe dreams, I wish UKHAT well but a rethink and some clear focus and direction is needed and fast.


As it stands, no. They're obviously struggling to get themselves going, and in danger of falling into the trap of thinking too big too quickly. They're not helped by the fact that there's a mass exodus of the flying classic jets starting which is removing suitable candidates for them to operate even as they negotiate for them.

Having spoke to a couple of the people involved and seen some of those providing advice, I think they'll get it together eventually. At the end of the day I'd rather people try to get projects like this going and risk failure than not try at all.
User avatar
richw_82

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby wv383 on Sun 23 Apr 2017, 9:54 pm

richw_82 wrote:
Rebecca_1984 wrote:Having spoke to a couple of the people involved and seen some of those providing advice, I think they'll get it together eventually. At the end of the day I'd rather people try to get projects like this going and risk failure than not try at all.


However, is it really a good idea to do so all over social media and in the full glare of the publicity that that brings? Surely it is better to have real plans in place before fully publicising it. It seems to be that, because they have done exactly that, this is the reason that they are getting all the flack. The problem now is of course, if they go quiet until they do have things in place, there will be constant questions of "Anyone know what's happened to UKAHT?" etc.
wv383

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby capercaillie on Mon 24 Apr 2017, 12:53 pm

richw_82 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a Lightning had flown in the UK on a Ferry Permit?

According to various accounts, XR724 (G-BTSY) flew on the UK civilian register after the team got the support of BAE and got everything in order to satisfy all the OEMs and the CAA. While its highly unlikely it will ever happen again; it has proved that not only is it allowed, its not impossible. But hey, why spoil a good internet myth...?

As you say, Google is your friend. Or not.

http://www.lightning.org.uk/story.html
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... y&id=16529

Regards,
Rich


Its true, but it also has to be pointed out that when it made the relocation from Shawbury to Binbrook, it flew under the control of a BAe test pilot who at the time was still flying Lightnings from Warton so was current on type. I think if someone attempted to stage a ferry flight of say the Cranfield machine to Bruntingthorpe this year it may be looked at very differently... :whistle:
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Thumper on Mon 24 Apr 2017, 5:13 pm

As Capercaillie says that ferry flight was under VERY different circumstances. It was 25 years ago, the aircraft was stored in a temperature and humidity controlled hangar, the aircraft had FI left over, the pilot was current and a BAe test pilot and probably various other things which make this very different to what is being suggested and/or proposed.
User avatar
Thumper
UKAR Supporter

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Vampire 1973 on Mon 24 Apr 2017, 5:43 pm

Thumper wrote:As Capercaillie says that ferry flight was under VERY different circumstances. It was 25 years ago, the aircraft was stored in a temperature and humidity controlled hangar, the aircraft had FI left over, the pilot was current and a BAe test pilot and probably various other things which make this very different to what is being suggested and/or proposed.


To be fair to them. They never actually suggested putting a lightning back into the sky. Someone else posted on their Facebook page about it.

Above the video of the ME 262 they put on the page (a great clip btw) this what they said

"Here is a video of a Me262 replica in flight. This is of course not a British aircarft, but we were wondering what early British aircraft you would like to see flying that currently is not? Leave your ideas in the comments below!"

Unfortunately they then got the usual stuff about lightnings Buccaneer's etc
Vampire 1973

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby richw_82 on Mon 24 Apr 2017, 9:18 pm

Thumper wrote:As Capercaillie says that ferry flight was under VERY different circumstances. It was 25 years ago, the aircraft was stored in a temperature and humidity controlled hangar, the aircraft had FI left over, the pilot was current and a BAe test pilot and probably various other things which make this very different to what is being suggested and/or proposed.


I'm aware circumstances are probably different today, but do you know how much? Has anybody even tried applying for a ferry permit since the South African exports? Although the general gist of things can be found in CAP 733, if we've not made an application ourselves, then neither you nor I can say what has changed to make things different from back then as we don't have enough information to work to. Usually the answer you get from the CAA is that should every demand and requirement be met and every condition satisfied, there's no reason why it can't happen and a permit be issued. Certainly, thats the answer I got when I started asking questions about another 'banned' type.

So whichever way you look at it, and whatever the conditions are that exist now - this statement - "one of the staff from UKHAT is informing people on social media the English Electric Lightning is allowed to fly in the UK on a ferry permit (no it most certainly is not)" is wrong. There is no ban, no prohibition. Only a set of conditions that must be met before it can happen. An inability to meet them doesn't mean its not allowed, its just highly unlikely.

wv383 wrote:
richw_82 wrote:
Rebecca_1984 wrote:Having spoke to a couple of the people involved and seen some of those providing advice, I think they'll get it together eventually. At the end of the day I'd rather people try to get projects like this going and risk failure than not try at all.


However, is it really a good idea to do so all over social media and in the full glare of the publicity that that brings? Surely it is better to have real plans in place before fully publicising it. It seems to be that, because they have done exactly that, this is the reason that they are getting all the flack. The problem now is of course, if they go quiet until they do have things in place, there will be constant questions of "Anyone know what's happened to UKAHT?" etc.


Its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. A Trust has been set up, with a high goal set. To get going on fundraising people want to know what exactly they are fundraising for, so they open up a bit. Then they get shot down for changing plans after having the aircraft bought out from under them during negotiations, or get flak for it not being somebody's favourite type, or because somebody starts talking about flying Lightnings. Or best of all, for not having loads of money at their disposal to buy an aircraft and set up a maintenance facility before starting fundraising... :dizzy: :dunno:

I've spoke to a couple of these guys in person, and seen some of the effort they've been putting in, and some of the background work. They deserve a break. They are trying to do something good, and they wouldn't be the first team out there to learn to tone down the social media a touch until you get going properly.
User avatar
richw_82

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 6:00 am

You raise some good points rich. Your last one being particularly telling - if (which they're not) they're not the first of these groups to have to tone down (others would use u turn or backtrack) on their social media then surely to goodness they should have been more aware of those possible pitfalls and avoided them happening in the first place. It's such a basic thing these days to get your social media outlets spot on.

One other thing - their (now I believe deleted) Facebook post stated that the Lightning was allowed to fly on a ferry permit. However you dress it up, it is not allowed to do this. It might be in the future, it most categorically is not right now, which was clearly the meaning intended.

If they're as passionate and dedicated as you and someone else have hinted at then I'm sure they'll sort their poopoo (there you go mods I did it for you) out and get back on track.

And hopefully the *next* group to try learns from others' mistakes early on.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby richw_82 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 6:33 am

I still believe you're wrong. Until there's a rejected application, or a letter from the CAA grounding the Lightning as a type (both of which would be available through the CAA to view, its as eligible as any other type for a ferry permit. As I said in my last post - just because an operator is unable to satisfy all the requirements doesn't mean its been banned or can't be done.
User avatar
richw_82

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Vampire 1973 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 7:24 am

richw_82 wrote:I still believe you're wrong. Until there's a rejected application, or a letter from the CAA grounding the Lightning as a type (both of which would be available through the CAA to view, its as eligible as any other type for a ferry permit. As I said in my last post - just because an operator is unable to satisfy all the requirements doesn't mean its been banned or can't be done.


As far as I'm aware the only type actually banned from flying at the moment is the Hunter? And hopefully that won't be indefiantly
Vampire 1973

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby john001 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 8:10 am

CJS wrote: However you dress it up, it is not allowed to do this. It might be in the future, it most categorically is not right now, which was clearly the meaning intended.



Can you point me to where the CAA says this please.
john001

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby speedbird2639 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 8:26 am

I think spending loads of time arguing whether or not a particular type is banned or not from being flown won't achieve anything as its basically just arguing about semantics.

One thing that is obvious is that the VTTS was able to succeed because it appealed to a large number of people who ordinarily had little or no interest in aviation so the potential to raise huge amounts of money was vastly increased (and even then they were often dependant on last minute massive donations from from rich elderly benefactors).

I'm sure if you went to an airshow (where typically 90% of the attendees are just families having a nice day out) and asked them if they would rather a Lightning or a Jaguar or an F4 Phantom or a Vampire (etc) was restored they would have no clue as to what you were talking about. And if you asked them if they would like to contribute they would politely decline. So that's your problem how will you raise enough money to restore it when 90% of people who would see it fly would have no interest in contributing to it? The other issue post Shoreham is the image that the mention of vintage jets will conjure up in the public's mind.

Going back to the original premise of this part of the thread I agree with the earlier posters; regardless of whether or not a permit for a flight of a Lightning has been/ will be applied for I think we can agree there isn't a hope in hell that the CAA are ever going to let a Frightning fly into UK airspace - that you can be completely sure of.
User avatar
speedbird2639

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 10:15 am

speedbird2639 wrote:The other issue post Shoreham is the image that the mention of vintage jets will conjure up in the public's mind.

I think this is an overstated and questionable point. Are the public now living in fear of police helicopters and bin lorries too?

Airshows were still well attended last year and nobody I saw was cowering when the Sea Vixen, Gnats, MiG, Vampire etc flew.

As far as the public are concerned, the report is old news and the headlines all pointed the blame in one direction. There are many things to have come out of Shoreham that present challenges to operating vintage jets but I think public perception is probably quite a long way down that list, behind more immediate changes and cost increases.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 11:26 am

john001 wrote:
CJS wrote: However you dress it up, it is not allowed to do this. It might be in the future, it most categorically is not right now, which was clearly the meaning intended.



Can you point me to where the CAA says this please.


Is there a permit for any Lightning to make a ferry flight in the UK at the current time?

No.

Therefore it is not, at the current time, allowed.

What's so difficult to understand?
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby john001 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 11:51 am

I see you are sinking to the depths of sarcasm as well as many others.

You seem to know there is no permit - I am simply asking where you got the information that there is no permit to make a ferry flight for the aircraft or any other aircraft come to that?
john001

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby john001 on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 11:54 am

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
speedbird2639 wrote:The other issue post Shoreham is the image that the mention of vintage jets will conjure up in the public's mind.

I think this is an overstated and questionable point.
Airshows were still well attended last year and nobody I saw was cowering when the Sea Vixen, Gnats, MiG, Vampire etc flew.

As far as the public are concerned, the report is old news and the headlines all pointed the blame in one direction. There are many things to have come out of Shoreham that present challenges to operating vintage jets but I think public perception is probably quite a long way down that list, behind more immediate changes and cost increases.


Apart from those in the local area (as for most accidents) I would think that's about right.
john001

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Timc on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 12:04 pm

Just wondering if the fact that a Lightning being an afterburning jet would make it pretty much null and void with regards to displaying one in private hands in the UK?

Can't think of any similar jet, Jaguar/Phantom being approved on the circuit, past, or likely to be in the future irrespective of permits not having being rejected?

As always, stand corrected on that one!
Timc

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby Seahornet on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 12:56 pm

Timc wrote:Just wondering if the fact that a Lightning being an afterburning jet would make it pretty much null and void with regards to displaying one in private hands in the UK?

Can't think of any similar jet, Jaguar/Phantom being approved on the circuit, past, or likely to be in the future irrespective of permits not having being rejected?

As always, stand corrected on that one!


The Draken, Viggen and Tunnen are all afterburning jets that have flown in private hands in the UK, in recent years....

With regard to the Lightning though, it isn't just about the afterburner. For it to be allowed to fly in the UK (regardless of whether it's on a UK or foreign Certificate of Airworthiness, on a Permit to Fly, Permit to Test, Permit to Ferry, or any other licence), the CAA would have to be satisfied that a robust safety case was in place. One essential part of this would be the type's in-service safety record, and another would be the intrinsic safety of the aircraft's design standard. The Lightning is simply not capable of meeting either of these requirements, regardless of how many hoops the operator might jump through.
And as the smart ship grew,
In stature, grace and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....
User avatar
Seahornet

Re: UK Heritage Aviation Trust

Postby CJS on Tue 25 Apr 2017, 1:11 pm

john001 wrote:I see you are sinking to the depths of sarcasm as well as many others.

You seem to know there is no permit - I am simply asking where you got the information that there is no permit to make a ferry flight for the aircraft or any other aircraft come to that?


I'm not being sarcastic. Are you aware of any permit that does exist that would allow a Lightning or any other jet to make said ferry flight?

No, because you apply for them on a case by case basis. Therefore, there is nothing in place which would currently allow a Lightning or other jet to make any kind of flight in the UK. I've never said (sarcastically or otherwise) that it couldn't happen (in theory; I think we're all agreed it's extremely unlikely for a Lightning) in the future.

It's a point of semantics perhaps, but it seems pretty obvious to me, or am I missing something? :dunno:
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChrisGilligan, CLPSLFBT, HeyfordDave111, MicrolightDriver, neilatter, Pringles, smokey and 25 guests