Gate Guardians
At least one squadron 'acquired' theirs. A jet diverted into the new base with some spurious problem in the week the fleet retired . It was 'officially' scrapped in situ, and has graced the Squadron ever since. We even got the apprentice painters to do up the 'scrapped' jet. I don't think this was an original idea. There will be assorted nefarious owners I should think.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was never a problem when we wanted a jet outside the squadron. Its becoming difficult if we want to keep them "taxiable". It'd be sad if we miss the chance to save some of the old jets. XV409 for example just joined Faith, Hope, Charity and Desparation.
Geehovah
If you're after one, then DCAE Cosford have some for disposal - mostly JPs but they have others looking for homes. It has to go on an inventory, so normally the Stn Cdr needs to bite off on the plan.
If its for civvy purposes, then the Disposal Services Agency (DSA) can sell a bunch of different aircraft in stock Ministry of Defence | Defence For... | Business | DSA | Disposals Services Authority (DSA)
Finally, for plastic gateguards then there is company called "Gateguards" - Replica Aircraft for museums, collectors and the film
Good luck me old
LJ
If you're after one, then DCAE Cosford have some for disposal - mostly JPs but they have others looking for homes. It has to go on an inventory, so normally the Stn Cdr needs to bite off on the plan.
If its for civvy purposes, then the Disposal Services Agency (DSA) can sell a bunch of different aircraft in stock Ministry of Defence | Defence For... | Business | DSA | Disposals Services Authority (DSA)
Finally, for plastic gateguards then there is company called "Gateguards" - Replica Aircraft for museums, collectors and the film
Good luck me old
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Civ/HAL/SHY/FYY/PWK/AAS/WAD/AVI/GPT/BZN/BSN/WAD/BAS/FLK/WIT/MND/WAD/WIT/WAD/Civ
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geehovah
XV409 nose section still survives in a hangar on tech site. (Before i sighted it I was told it all (but I suppose the rest) was buried in the fisheries)
However the tripod plinth outside the terminal does look pretty vacant.
XV409 nose section still survives in a hangar on tech site. (Before i sighted it I was told it all (but I suppose the rest) was buried in the fisheries)
However the tripod plinth outside the terminal does look pretty vacant.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: bath/bristol
Age: 68
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geehovah, Ask your finance people. It is likely to be a finance person either at ABW or in Main Building. My recollection is that the relevant IPTL gets consulted and if they have no use for it and the finance guys can agree to waive the few pence in disposals income then it gets signed off. No doubt someone has written a whole JSP on the criteria to be met now though.
They used to be issued a serial number (four numbers ending in an M) by the now defunct Support Command to replace the original ser number although quite a few kept their original designation on the fuselage. There was also AP instructions on visual inspection and anti det servicing that should have been recorded in a basic F700. In cases in the past this was not done and some very dodgy undercarriages minus ground locks were found................. Check yours today
Service Authority for Gate Guardians.
Used to be an AP on it, will check tomorrow when I get back into the office. Thing to bear in mind is that the receiving station must have a budget set aside for the maintenance of said a/c and have an agreed maintenance/inspection policy in place. Too many aircraft have been put on display without a maintenance budget or when economies are made that is the first financial cut made. AHB or the Heritage Branch spring to mind as good sources of info, they certainly had an input into the relocation of a Phantom earlier this year.
Not sure if I recall a single Service Authority but I know that in the FAA it was common practice to bury maintenance costs in the 1st year apprentice training budget. "Bury" is perhaps the wrong word - it was a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do and if an apprentice put a size 10 boot through a window then wasn't a big deal.
Again, in the FAA, if equipment or spares were needed, these aircraft fell into the same category as the Historical Flight and the likes of Manadon. That is, they did not appear in the HQ "books" and one was not allowed to make materiel or financial provision to support them, but in practice they got first refusal on BER kit, which they could take an "uneconomic" time to repair if they so wished, with HQ's assistance to access workshops. The RAF were different, as the BBMF was funded from core MoD funds, so they may have approached Gate Guardians differently.
What I describe is probably long forgotten now as the HQ section that supported these requirements was disbanded in 1987 and with it their entire role (ensuring funding was there for availability, reliability, maintainability, airworthiness etc, scrutiny to avoid waste and acting as MoD(PE)'s "customer"). Resurrecting it would solve many of the in-service problems you see mentioned here! Bloody good question as it raises very serious issues!
Again, in the FAA, if equipment or spares were needed, these aircraft fell into the same category as the Historical Flight and the likes of Manadon. That is, they did not appear in the HQ "books" and one was not allowed to make materiel or financial provision to support them, but in practice they got first refusal on BER kit, which they could take an "uneconomic" time to repair if they so wished, with HQ's assistance to access workshops. The RAF were different, as the BBMF was funded from core MoD funds, so they may have approached Gate Guardians differently.
What I describe is probably long forgotten now as the HQ section that supported these requirements was disbanded in 1987 and with it their entire role (ensuring funding was there for availability, reliability, maintainability, airworthiness etc, scrutiny to avoid waste and acting as MoD(PE)'s "customer"). Resurrecting it would solve many of the in-service problems you see mentioned here! Bloody good question as it raises very serious issues!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the inputs and grateful for the advice so far. Air Command have been helpful but is constrained by policy.
The reason for the question is that the remaining F4s are rapidly approaching a critical point. Many are being sold off commercially and most museums can't afford the high cost. Bruntingthorpe would like to keep one going in a taxiable condition to preserve the old girl in a vaguely airworthy form. We're rapidly approaching a watershead.
I know keeping the Vulcan airborne was a massive project but the aims at Brunty are a tad more modest. I for one would like to see an F4 alongside the Lightnings and Buccs .
Maybe there's a csae for keeping the last few airframes with engines (Leuchars FG1s) in a vaguely airworthy condition?
Votes of confidence happily accepted!
The reason for the question is that the remaining F4s are rapidly approaching a critical point. Many are being sold off commercially and most museums can't afford the high cost. Bruntingthorpe would like to keep one going in a taxiable condition to preserve the old girl in a vaguely airworthy form. We're rapidly approaching a watershead.
I know keeping the Vulcan airborne was a massive project but the aims at Brunty are a tad more modest. I for one would like to see an F4 alongside the Lightnings and Buccs .
Maybe there's a csae for keeping the last few airframes with engines (Leuchars FG1s) in a vaguely airworthy condition?
Votes of confidence happily accepted!
Last edited by Geehovah; 24th Sep 2012 at 17:41.
