Taxiable vs static

[bomberflight]

I thought we ought to have a picture of the Shackleton at Coventry Airport from 2011 to complement Richards insight into it's operation

[FG1D Pilot]

Static run vs taxi-able is a little different when insurance is concerned. Aircraft insurance has two categories: "in motion" and "not in motion". Taxiing is in the same category as flying. The other concerns about corrosion are very valid also.

[Ploesti]

As far as the lanc. and shac. being static run / taxiable, what may I ask does one pay to experience these events? And what would you be willing to pay to experience the same event if offered on a wabird of your interest?

[rcaf_100]

Isn't there a P-40 in Western Canada (silver finish I believe) that is only run up at times and possibly taxied as well, but does not fly.

I think you're referring to the Kittyhawk in Victoria BC.
http://www.rcafkittyhawk.com/home.htm
It was run up on occasion until a few years back but the engine has now been pickled.

[Richard Woods]

At the moment we don't charge anything!

There's the entrance fee to get into AIRBASE, which is the museum in which the Shackleton is housed. We also ask a voluntary contribution of £1 on the door of the aircraft. We never turn anyone away if they don't want to pay the £1 or can't. There's nothing more disheartening than seeing a youngster run towards the aircraft only to realise he has to pay to get in and can't afford it.

Its access all areas without ropes or barriers when the aircraft isn't running, so we have to keep a close eye on visitors, and make sure the batteries are disconnected so if something is inadvertantly switched nothing happens. If there is a lot of people we'll dress the propellers with blades high to avoid the temptation for some of trying to move one. We want to make the experience of the aircraft as tactile as we can, within reason - things like we have an unserviceable flying helmet that we offer to kids (and some big kids..) for photos.

When we're ground running there's usually a few spare seats, so we ask any visitors if they want to experience it. Usually we try to get veterans and children in first where possible. Again, no charge other than asking for a voluntary £1 on the door. When we start taxying the aircraft we will have to look at charging for the experience, its the only way we can make it viable. To have a taxi ride in the Lancaster is around £230, and I believe a Catalina was doing similar rides for £150 recently. AIRBASE was offering taxi ride experiences in a DC6 (more recently a DC3), and that brought the price down due to sheer numbers carried.

Regards insurance, it may be different in the USA. As I mentioned... legally we're not using an aircraft, so don't need aircraft insurance. The CAA don't want to know about our Shackleton unless the wheels leave the runway; which they won't. If our insurers want to change things we'll address the issue in due course, but as far as I'm aware nothing has changed since the Shackleton was fast taxied in 2007.

Bomberflight - thanks for posting the picture. If thats when I think it was (April 2011) that was my first time starting the aircraft.

Kind regards,

Rich

[B-25 MM Jim]

As far as licensing and legalities, if you have a museum exhibit that is never going to fly, is not registered with the govt aviation authorities etc, why would you call it an aircraft in the legal sense of the term? You could call it a "go-cart" or tractor or interactive museum exhibit or whatever. That should simplify the licensing requirements, the process of giving/selling rides, etc.

Besides not being the best thing for the preservation of the engine, programs like this require the museum to have on hand a lot of the expertise, equipment, insurance, risks, liabilities and headaches associated with operating airworthy aircraft but without most of the thrills. Yet there may be enough thrills to make it worth the while. It certainly livens up the place and differentiates it in a way that could often drive attendance if properly promoted.

August

Go-garts and tractors don't have massive props on them, that when dealing with the general public can be a major safety problem. If you move, it's an aircraft, by terms of the insurance companies. You need to be licensed as a pilot or technician for this reason. You're also on taxi-ways and ramps with aircraft that do fly, and in many cases need to communicate with them. If it moves under it's own power, it follows all the rules that a flying aircraft follows on the ground. As far as rides... anyone who is operating any sort of ride, on the ground or in the air, without insurance is a fool. All it takes is one person hitting their head, someone burning their hand on a cylinder that's not cool enough yet, or god forbid someone walking into a running prop, and you have a lawsuit. I don't like it, but it is reality. Cover the dangers to keep a museum open!

Last edited by B-25 MM Jim on Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[bombadier29]

You do not need to be a pilot of technichan to taxi or run an aircraft. The FAA doesn't care what you do unless you fly the airplane. Many people have owned flyable airplanes over the years, done fast taxis in them and such with no input from the FAA. Provided you know the procedures for communication and ground movements, nobody else cares either. Of course I'm assuming you aren't talking about an airport such Houston Intercontinental.

Insurance and who can start a plane may be a totally seperate issue and I'm not familiar with that. But I do know the FAA doesn't care who does what until you try to get in the air.

[B-25 MM Jim]

Okay, fair enough, I can't find anything stating that someone who is familiar with comm and ground procedures can't taxi. When you are operating your own aircraft, this may not be as bad of an idea. But, when you are operating the aircraft of a company, in this case a museum, that company will be responsible for you. If you're going to let someone who does not have a formal rating taxi, the museum better have a formal training program. Doesn't matter how many times it went okay, if someone taxis over an aircraft, a fuel pump or a person, there will be a LOT of explaining to do, especially if there are paying passengers in the back of the aircraft.

[Mike]

There are three separate conditions of aircraft here as far as I'm concerned.

Firstly, ground-runnable aircraft. These require the least work as systems such as brakes do not need to be operational. Examples include the Me410 and Fw190 held at the RAF St Athan Collection and run up on occasion in the early-1980s. Engines do not need to be restored to airworthy standards.

Secondly, taxable aircraft, such as the Lancaster 'Just Jane' referred to earlier. Brakes and other systems need to be in working order, but they do not need to be to airworthy standards. Not to say that there is anything wrong with the standard of work carried out, just that it does not need to have airworthy, certificated parts used, or the work signed off by a licensed engineer. Having been to a couple of these events at East Kirkby, I can attest to the huge popularity of such taxy runs, even with an airworthy Lanc just 15 minutes down the road at Coningsby. A great way to keep an aircraft 'live' without the attendant costs and risks of flying it.

Finally, there are the 'fast taxy' airframes such as the Victor which inadvertently became airborne a couple of years back. Each to their own, but IMHO the practice of roaring along the runway with a Lightning in reheat is nothing short of barking mad, and it is only a matter of time before it all ends up with a smoking hole at the end of a runway somewhere. (Can you tell I'm not a huge fan of kerosene-burning blowtorches at the best of times? )

Interesting that all 3 are much more common in the supposedly risk-averse, Health & Safely ruled environment of the UK than here in the US.

[Richard Woods]

No, the Avro Shackleton missed WW2 by a few years, though its design is derivative from the Avro Lancaster. The first of the breed flew in 1949, ours was built in early 1954.

Regards,

Rich