152 airframes lost due to accidents around the world. Not all mechanical or pilot error but it is a very unforgiving aircraft. I do understand the CAA's reluctance, look what happened to the Lightning.
Thing is, the CAA is the official aviation safety regulator for the UK. If it doesn't conform to UK regulations wouldn't it be more sensible to address their concerns and adapt it to meet them if it can? It shouldn't be allowed to fly here just because it meets regulations in another part of the World, should it?
I wouldn't be very happy if a bit fell off on top of my head at a UK airshow, even if Americans didn't mind so much
I mean, what's the point of having a safety regulator if laymen can challenge it's decisions?
Thing is, the CAA is the official aviation safety regulator for the UK. If it doesn't conform to UK regulations wouldn't it be more sensible to address their concerns and adapt it to meet them if it can? It shouldn't be allowed to fly here just because it meets regulations in another part of the World, should it?
I wouldn't be very happy if a bit fell off on top of my head at a UK airshow, even if Americans didn't mind so much
I mean, what's the point of having a safety regulator if laymen can challenge it's decisions?
Ian
Pretty much spot on, the Shar flies in the US in the 'Experimental' class, there's no CAA/JAA or even ICAO equivalent. There's no realistic way they could accommodate it flying in the UK without welcoming in anyone else with an N reg aircraft in that category, which is a whole world of crazy.
I vaguely recall talking to a Shar pilot at the time they left service and he said the only way the CAA would consider letting one fly on the G-Reg is if the nozzles were fixed aft, which although making it mechanically safer would make the take-off and landing phase 'sporty'...