Goodbye Harrier old friend

ubersonic said:
I don't know, one would assume you cant just walk out the airforce and demand a pilots licence you have to do the training/tests like everybody else. RAF pilots are great at what they do however its different to civilian aviation, im not going to say easier because the is nothing easy about a harrier but the radiowork/etc is less complicated. Ive heard my father and other pilots joking about ex-military pilots who think their ace because they have X hours of flight time but it counts for almost nothing in the real world and their still basically novices in many aspects.
Click to expand...

They get quite a bit and can complete ratings etc when they leave but the biggest problem for an ex fast jet pilot is not many civvy Airlines will employ them. A lot find it hard to get flying jobs once leaving the forces.

One of my mates left a while back he was a Tornado pilot and could not get a job flying, all the Airlines were not interested. He,s now a butcher.??
 
platypus said:
This simply isn't the case though is it it? The VTOL capabilities of the Harrier make it significantly more appropriate for the terrain in Afghanistan. Whereas the Tornadoes, whilst being more expensive to run, required extending the airstrip at Kandahar, and has result in accidents because it's still not quite long enough for the plan to take off/land properly.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite - Rubbish, utter UTTER Rubbish!

1. The GR9 ONLY uses conventional take-off in Afghanistan. The GR9 can get off the ground quicker but the GR4 get's to the target area quicker.

2. The runway hasn't been extended for GR4's and it's easily long enough for GR4's to land/take off properly. The only accidents have been with GR4's around take-off speed (170mph+) having an engine fail and having to slam the breaks on or risk crashing.

Please join the RAF as an Liney, go on Ops and get a clue 1st rather than talking rubbish.

I'm an ex Harrier liney from '95-'99 on 20(R) Sqn so I'm incredibily sad to see it go but without us having Carriers there's other aircraft that'll do a better job and something had to go to help save money.
 
ubersonic said:
I don't know, one would assume you cant just walk out the airforce and demand a pilots licence you have to do the training/tests like everybody else. RAF pilots are great at what they do however its different to civilian aviation, im not going to say easier because the is nothing easy about a harrier but the radiowork/etc is less complicated. Ive heard my father and other pilots joking about ex-military pilots who think their ace because they have X hours of flight time but it counts for almost nothing in the real world and their still basically novices in many aspects.
Click to expand...

I assume they can take a PPL test straight away, without doing all the training beforehand. They will be trained to Private Pilot level before they even start doing military stuff (they spend tens/hundreds of hours in prop trainers before even going into Hawks let alone fast jets. As for radio as they fly in civilian airspace they will need to talk to civilian ATC and as such will need at least the PPL basics. Those flying transport will probably be able to convert to commercial jet quite easily.

As for whether you could just buy and fly a Harrier, not a chance. It's a military plane and as such is/will not be certified by the CAA, therefore no fly in UK airspace (just have a look at the hassle the Vulcan got before it started flying). That's why there are no ex military jets flying in UK airspace (excluding the Vulcan). So unless that changes whether you could VTOL or not would be a moot point... :p
 
My Grandfather worked for BAe in Kingston and he headed up the team who designed the cockpit electronics of this wonderful, versatile aircraft. Or at least the first versions of it.

He shed a tear yesterday when he was their to see it's very last flights
 
Jimmeh said:
My Grandfather worked for BAe in Kingston and he headed up the team who designed the cockpit electronics of this wonderful, versatile aircraft. Or at least the first versions of it.

He shed a tear yesterday when he was their to see it's very last flights
Click to expand...

My dad worked for BAe in Kingston on Harriers I've got vague memories of it closing down, think I was about 8 at the time.
 
Wait...I think I missed something here. You mean they are scrapping ALL the Harriers? I only though it was the Navy ones. They are takin out the GR8s and GR9s too?!! :(
 
Will be a shame to see them go, they were awesome! I grew up near RNAS Yeovilton who had a load of Harriers down there so would always see them flying about. They phased them out in place of the Lynx helicopters I think.

I did my work experience at school on the air base when I was 15, got to spend a day up in the control tower watching all the Harriers and Hawks taxiing around and taking off, got to spend a day in Fighter Control watching them on the radars then on the last day got taken up in a Sea King! Best work experience ever! :)
 
Last edited:
Broken landing gear + mattresses =

harry.jpg
 
Amp34 said:
As for whether you could just buy and fly a Harrier, not a chance. It's a military plane and as such is/will not be certified by the CAA, therefore no fly in UK airspace (just have a look at the hassle the Vulcan got before it started flying). That's why there are no ex military jets flying in UK airspace (excluding the Vulcan). So unless that changes whether you could VTOL or not would be a moot point... :p
Click to expand...
Spoof - If the military could get around rules like that just because 'it's military' then UAVs would be all over the place in the UK and the Chinook Mk3 procurement fiasco wouldn't have happened. The vulcan didn't get airborne for ages because it hadn't been serviceable/flown for ages and had to be shown to be properly airworthy. As for other ex-military jets just ask any techy, they are ridiculously difficult to maintain and keep legally airworthy, it's a bit more complicated than a prop cessna - that's the main reason people don't just by them for bombing around on a summer's day.
 
Last edited:
Military jets do not need to be CAA complient to be flying. The RAF has its own servicing and maintenance procedures that are followed. The only CAA certified RAF Jets/Aircraft are the ones that carry civilian passengers.
 
MOOGLEYS said:
Military jets do not need to be CAA complient to be flying. The RAF has its own servicing and maintenance procedures that are followed. The only CAA certified RAF Jets/Aircraft are the ones that carry civilian passengers.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to think of an RAF aircraft that has more than one seat that hasn't at some stage carried non-aircrew qualified civilians as passengers.
 
Stringy said:
I'm struggling to think of an RAF aircraft that has more than one seat that hasn't at some stage carried non-aircrew qualified civilians as passengers.
Click to expand...

VC-10 lost its CAA license to carry civilian and for a while military passengers. It is now allowed to fly Military passengers and passengers on military buisness but is not used as a passenger plane.

It was due to it not meeting CAA standards. The main reason was for escape routing and lack of emergency lighting (Electro illuminesent) and quite a few other things. The RAF was going to make modifications to overcome this but decided with its life coming to an end it would not be cost effective.

Its very rare now for the RAF to fly passengers in fast jet Aircraft and if they do it requires authority and a lot of bending of rules, the best one being media or publicity related.
 
Last edited:
Sad to see it go :( My dad worked in the RAF on the harriers of many years, he rebuilt the engines and tested them. I live within about half a mile of Cottesmore too, lots of people I know losing jobs due to cuts :(
 
MOOGLEYS said:
VC-10 lost its CAA license to carry civilian and for a while military passengers. It is now allowed to fly Military passengers and passengers on military buisness but is not used as a passenger plane.

It was due to it not meeting CAA standards. The main reason was for escape routing and lack of emergency lighting (Electro illuminesent) and quite a few other things. The RAF was going to make modifications to overcome this but decide with its life coming to an end it would not be cost effective.
Click to expand...
I think the confusion we've come across is that while they are not allowed to carry commercial passengers the CAA do not consider them unsafe aircraft to fly - if they thought that they wouldn't be going anywhere in the UK's airspace operated by Civvy or military. There is ample provision for civilians to procure ex-military aircraft for private use, the main reason people don't is because it's too difficult to keep them working properly within the letter of the law.
 
Stringy said:
I think the confusion we've come across is that while they are not allowed to carry commercial passengers the CAA do not consider them unsafe aircraft to fly - if they thought that they wouldn't be going anywhere in the UK's airspace operated by Civvy or military. There is ample provision for civilians to procure ex-military aircraft for private use, the main reason they don't is because it's too difficult to keep them working properly within the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is do-able, not too expensively. There are groups who share aircraft between them. Lots of privatly run Jet provost are run this way for example.

Fuel is the big killer :D
 
Stringy said:
I think the confusion we've come across is that while they are not allowed to carry commercial passengers the CAA do not consider them unsafe aircraft to fly - if they thought that they wouldn't be going anywhere in the UK's airspace operated by Civvy or military. There is ample provision for civilians to procure ex-military aircraft for private use, the main reason people don't is because it's too difficult to keep them working properly within the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Malt_Vinegar said:
Exactly. It is do-able, not too expensively. There are groups who share aircraft between them. Lots of privatly run Jet provost are run this way for example.

Fuel is the big killer :D
Click to expand...

Yet there are lightnings flying perfectly well and legally in SA (for example). The Provost isn't in the same rating AFAIK which is why it will be able to fly.

EDIT: Just a random quote from google...

The UK's Civil Aviation Authority classes the Vulcan as a complex type, which immediately places the restoration and operation of the aircraft into a very deep and dark pit to climb out of. Regulatory and financial problems abound, but two very important factors enabled the TVOC team to climb out where so many others have failed - first of all, the Vulcan had a superb safety record while in RAF service. Had this not been the case, there would have been no way the CAA would have permitted it to fly. Secondly, it has unrivalled support from the public - not just aircraft enthusiasts, but hundreds of thousands of 'Joe Public'. This meant the donations flowed in at a rate sufficient - if only just so - to keep the project going.
Click to expand...

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/tothesky.php

The provost isn't classed as a complex jet aircraft
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom