Vulcan To The Sky - Forums

XH558 Operations => Engineering => Topic started by: Sarah Abbott on February 18, 2016, 03:27:26 PM

Title: CAA Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive
Post by: Sarah Abbott on February 18, 2016, 03:27:26 PM
As those of you who know me will know I am useless with technical detail. I would be grateful for comments on the above document from CAA.

What impact will it have if adopted? Are these checks that VTS carried out during flying time?

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ProposedMPD1601R1.pdf (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ProposedMPD1601R1.pdf)
Title: Re: CAA Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive
Post by: Sad Sam on February 18, 2016, 04:04:58 PM
This will affect operators of Avon Engines (Hunters, Canberras, Sea Vixen) Viper engines (Jet Provost, Domine) Orpheus (Gnat) Derwent (Meteor) Nene (Sea Hawk) Goblin and Ghost (Vampire and Venom) That just about covers everyone...

So the only engines it would not affect would be the Olympus fitted to Vulcan (and you can bet if we were still flying they would have added us to the list as well)

What the instruction is saying:- within one month or ten flying hours record evidence of regular running of the engine, shown to be at intervals and to methods in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.  Inhibition of the engine fuel system in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions after any period of inactivity specified in the relevant operating manuals.

If the engine can not be shown to have been run in accordance with the manufacturers instructions replace it with a serviceable engine....
Title: Re: CAA Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive
Post by: PhillyJ on February 19, 2016, 09:06:55 AM
Thanks Sam, and does this only impact Civilian registered and flying jets?
Title: Re: CAA Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive
Post by: PaulH2015 on February 19, 2016, 10:53:27 AM
There is a similar situation (deterioration, not regulatory controls) with classic cars.  Most people put it down to different fuel formulations today, but having been in a position to compare 40 year-old rubber with recent replacements it's all down to the quality of the rubber.  Once you start changing those parts, you have to keep changing them.  I hope the operators of these aircraft are able to get original quality rubber etc.

But perhaps it is a not so subtle way of clearing these aircraft from our skies.
Title: Re: CAA Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive
Post by: PhillyJ on February 19, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
There is a similar situation (deterioration, not regulatory controls) with classic cars.  Most people put it down to different fuel formulations today, but having been in a position to compare 40 year-old rubber with recent replacements it's all down to the quality of the rubber.  Once you start changing those parts, you have to keep changing them.  I hope the operators of these aircraft are able to get original quality rubber etc.

But perhaps it is a not so subtle way of clearing these aircraft from our skies.
Don't say that, I'm supposed to get my 47 yr old motor on the road this year!