RAF Rivet Joint
Hammer, Nail, Head, dervish! The RAF has two choices, to protect its aircrew and pax, or to protect retired and serving Air Officers and their Staffs. So far it has chosen the latter option for the past 26 years, at the cost of many Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents.
It shows no sign of changing, hence the compromised Haddon-Cave report, hence the compromised MAA, hence the absence of effective UK Military Airworthiness Regulation, hence unairworthy military airfleets. That has nothing to do with the Regulations, but everything to do with those who cannot or will not enforce them.
Rebadging and rewriting is simply rearranging the deck chairs as the water rises ever higher. The RAF, as the major military air operator, has to bite the bullet and realise that self regulation doesn't work and in aviation it kills!
It shows no sign of changing, hence the compromised Haddon-Cave report, hence the compromised MAA, hence the absence of effective UK Military Airworthiness Regulation, hence unairworthy military airfleets. That has nothing to do with the Regulations, but everything to do with those who cannot or will not enforce them.
Rebadging and rewriting is simply rearranging the deck chairs as the water rises ever higher. The RAF, as the major military air operator, has to bite the bullet and realise that self regulation doesn't work and in aviation it kills!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug states
"They are incapable of ensuring the airworthiness of such fleets, or indeed of any fleets because the system was effectively sabotaged in the late 80's by the malevolent actions of Air Officers, mainly by replacing highly skilled, properly trained, and experienced engineers with unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced equippers who were ordered to suborn the Regulations, and did so".
As a current PT Engineer Officer I often find myself wondering about what existed before and the real reason we find ourselves in the apparently crazy position we are today. Please forgive the thread drift but perhaps some one could elaborate on the pre "late 80's" airworthiness system and explain exactly what it was that was done to that system.
"They are incapable of ensuring the airworthiness of such fleets, or indeed of any fleets because the system was effectively sabotaged in the late 80's by the malevolent actions of Air Officers, mainly by replacing highly skilled, properly trained, and experienced engineers with unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced equippers who were ordered to suborn the Regulations, and did so".
As a current PT Engineer Officer I often find myself wondering about what existed before and the real reason we find ourselves in the apparently crazy position we are today. Please forgive the thread drift but perhaps some one could elaborate on the pre "late 80's" airworthiness system and explain exactly what it was that was done to that system.
Corrona:-
Someone already has:-
https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-authority-maa
dervish had already posted the link above my post. With the nights drawing in I commend it to anyone who wants, like you, to understand
It was nothing less than deliberate sabotage of UK Military Airworthiness, perpetrated at the highest levels of the Royal Air Force in order to achieve a short term financial solution to fiscal incompetence... also perpetrated at the highest levels. Its long term consequences have been tragic and profound, witness as you say the chaotic situation that pertains today.
What's to be done? First, the RAF has to face up to and own up to what was done, the cover up has to end now, and the MAA and MAAIB have to be made independent of the MOD and of each other. Then, and only then, can the work of airworthiness reform begin. It will take a long time to do that, which is ironic given that the damage was done by just a few men issuing a few illegal orders over 25 years ago.
perhaps some one could elaborate on the pre "late 80's" airworthiness system and explain exactly what it was that was done to that system.
https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-authority-maa
dervish had already posted the link above my post. With the nights drawing in I commend it to anyone who wants, like you, to understand
about what existed before and the real reason we find ourselves in the apparently crazy position we are today.
What's to be done? First, the RAF has to face up to and own up to what was done, the cover up has to end now, and the MAA and MAAIB have to be made independent of the MOD and of each other. Then, and only then, can the work of airworthiness reform begin. It will take a long time to do that, which is ironic given that the damage was done by just a few men issuing a few illegal orders over 25 years ago.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Nov 2013 at 08:05.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Organizational Self-Justification
Bravo Sierra! Once again a newly established governmental organization must justify itself by harassment, micromanagement, delay and "officiousness". Only then will everyone take them 'seriously'. "We must correct the errors of the past by being a**h**** today, no matter that we are attacking the wrong issue."
It is the same on the US side of the Atlantic wrt "new" offices.
Review: KC/RC-135s are scheduled to operate through 2042; E-Systems/Raytheon/L-3 Com facility at Greenville have maintained and modified the RC-135 fleet for over 40 years. The Big Safari Project Office has managed this program and others (U-2s, RPV, all other "special" USAF aircraft programs). Specific RC-135s have flown over 40000+ hours without any major problems. (I don't remember any airframe problems with any -135. Most accidents are due to mistakes by the aircrew.)
I can understand the USAF telling the MAA offices to stuff it. Perhaps the MoD can do a quick overpaint of the RAF markings, slap on stars and bars, fly the Airseeker to Mildenhall and begin ops training under a "false flag", or with a token USAF body on-board. After all, at present the RAF long-range SIGINT capability is zip, zero, nada (as we say over here).
(4000 hours in KC/RC-135s; survivor of KC-135 - F-4C Phantom mid-air collision; RC-135U Air Staff program manager)
It is the same on the US side of the Atlantic wrt "new" offices.
Review: KC/RC-135s are scheduled to operate through 2042; E-Systems/Raytheon/L-3 Com facility at Greenville have maintained and modified the RC-135 fleet for over 40 years. The Big Safari Project Office has managed this program and others (U-2s, RPV, all other "special" USAF aircraft programs). Specific RC-135s have flown over 40000+ hours without any major problems. (I don't remember any airframe problems with any -135. Most accidents are due to mistakes by the aircrew.)
I can understand the USAF telling the MAA offices to stuff it. Perhaps the MoD can do a quick overpaint of the RAF markings, slap on stars and bars, fly the Airseeker to Mildenhall and begin ops training under a "false flag", or with a token USAF body on-board. After all, at present the RAF long-range SIGINT capability is zip, zero, nada (as we say over here).
(4000 hours in KC/RC-135s; survivor of KC-135 - F-4C Phantom mid-air collision; RC-135U Air Staff program manager)
Last edited by NoVANav; 1st Nov 2013 at 12:22.
Back to the C-17 question, why wouldn't aircrew want to wear flight suits, as its operational and combat flying and landing near the front line. Were the Lyneham WIng, and Brize squadrons all wearing no.2 during operations from Corporate to Granby and Deny Flight to Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom?
I'm guessing that the then Lyneham lot wore flight helmets for the likes of delivering aid to Sarajevo etc etc like our American cousins did. If you look at Tim Laming's publication on the Bosnia Air War, a good photobook (done with help from an ex gf's brother whose a professional photographer) , there's a nice photo of a Ramstein Fat Albert pilot with CS vest, nice little automatic and HGU-55P. The same b/w photo was used in the USAF Yearbook 1993 published by the RAFBF.
Unless one is 007 and arrive in a penguin suit into a firefight
In a Hollywood type National Lampoons or Hotshots production one could imagine a crew of Air Seeker / Rivet Joint, decked out in penguin suits and a red rose in the lapel
Cheers
I'm guessing that the then Lyneham lot wore flight helmets for the likes of delivering aid to Sarajevo etc etc like our American cousins did. If you look at Tim Laming's publication on the Bosnia Air War, a good photobook (done with help from an ex gf's brother whose a professional photographer) , there's a nice photo of a Ramstein Fat Albert pilot with CS vest, nice little automatic and HGU-55P. The same b/w photo was used in the USAF Yearbook 1993 published by the RAFBF.
Unless one is 007 and arrive in a penguin suit into a firefight
In a Hollywood type National Lampoons or Hotshots production one could imagine a crew of Air Seeker / Rivet Joint, decked out in penguin suits and a red rose in the lapel
Cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 1st Nov 2013 at 12:47.
The reason for the US flight (should that be flight?) suits was because we were renting the aircraft. Under the contract they had to be operated in the same way as any USAF ac and that included flying suits and head sets. Not sure what the excuse is now though - maybe we really don't want to lift that stone!!
If US flight suits have been fully assessed for compatibility with the C-17, what would be gained by spending a lot of time and effort, not to mention money, on re-assessing UK flying suits / AEA for use in the aircraft?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
If US flight suits have been fully assessed for compatibility with the C-17, what would be gained by spending a lot of time and effort, not to mention money, on re-assessing UK flying suits / AEA for use in the aircraft?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
It was not the CS 95 but the garment he had on top that caused the problem.
It is true that CS 95 was included in the back of the MAR before it became the RTS. but this was highly caveated "at the discretion of the CO or simmilar" It might even have been a Service Deviation. The main issue with CS95 was fire retardance (or lack of).
The choice was: you might fry in a crash or look like the blokes in the back during any escape and evasion. The CO had to decide which scenario was most likely.
Not seen any 1 piece DPM flying kit but a FR two piece that looked like CS95 was introduced for the RW boys. Not sure if any of the FW crews were scalled for this.
I am guessing but was the US grow bag more comfortable to wear for a long duration on a C17. Do they offer the same level of protection in a fire?
I think what is important to note about this so far as Clearances/Airworthiness/Flight Safety matters are concerned all these things should be considerd in the round. I believe the main thing folks on here are worried about with this 135 is will the wings fall off? It will not matter if the crew are equipped with UK or US Growbags.
One of my ILAFFT moments concerns gloves. Down the back of our R you can imagine gloves did not help the knob twiddleing and button pressing. We had an emergency evacuation on landing at Wyton once and my mate burned his hands baddly comming down the rope. He fell off and would have been flattened by the rest of the formation eating team following (OK I embelished that last bit). After that I always wore my gloves during take off and landing. Having worked along side some of the AEA team and seen the RAFCAM films all I can say is the flying kit our guys are issued with is far beter now than it was 10 years ago.
It was not the CS 95 but the garment he had on top that caused the problem.
It is true that CS 95 was included in the back of the MAR before it became the RTS. but this was highly caveated "at the discretion of the CO or simmilar" It might even have been a Service Deviation. The main issue with CS95 was fire retardance (or lack of).
The choice was: you might fry in a crash or look like the blokes in the back during any escape and evasion. The CO had to decide which scenario was most likely.
Not seen any 1 piece DPM flying kit but a FR two piece that looked like CS95 was introduced for the RW boys. Not sure if any of the FW crews were scalled for this.
I am guessing but was the US grow bag more comfortable to wear for a long duration on a C17. Do they offer the same level of protection in a fire?
I think what is important to note about this so far as Clearances/Airworthiness/Flight Safety matters are concerned all these things should be considerd in the round. I believe the main thing folks on here are worried about with this 135 is will the wings fall off? It will not matter if the crew are equipped with UK or US Growbags.
One of my ILAFFT moments concerns gloves. Down the back of our R you can imagine gloves did not help the knob twiddleing and button pressing. We had an emergency evacuation on landing at Wyton once and my mate burned his hands baddly comming down the rope. He fell off and would have been flattened by the rest of the formation eating team following (OK I embelished that last bit). After that I always wore my gloves during take off and landing. Having worked along side some of the AEA team and seen the RAFCAM films all I can say is the flying kit our guys are issued with is far beter now than it was 10 years ago.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks JIV, If that is the case who signs the AECs to say the UK ones are ALARP?
Sorry, I know this does not answer the question about the wings falling off the RJ.
I am tending towards the view of NoVANav.
I did have to laugh about the Pocock article and the mention of QQ being referred elsewhere by the USAF. I wondered why our MoD are sub contracting their responsibilities again. Lend me your watch and I will tell you the time. What happened to the Structural Integrity Group we had in the Royal Air Force?
Sorry, I know this does not answer the question about the wings falling off the RJ.
I am tending towards the view of NoVANav.
I did have to laugh about the Pocock article and the mention of QQ being referred elsewhere by the USAF. I wondered why our MoD are sub contracting their responsibilities again. Lend me your watch and I will tell you the time. What happened to the Structural Integrity Group we had in the Royal Air Force?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoVANav said:
Completely agree that the UK should read it the USAF RTS across, but weren't there some problems with the tails (hence the use of ex-airline 707 tails)? And on a pedantic point, wasn't RIVET AMBER assessed to be an airframe problem leading to its loss?
S41
The Big Safari Project Office has managed this program and others (U-2s, RPV, all other "special" USAF aircraft programs). Specific RC-135s have flown over 40000+ hours without any major problems. (I don't remember any airframe problems with any -135. Most accidents are due to mistakes by the aircrew.)
S41
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | Project AirSeeker (Rivet Joint)
Is this the start of the shaping exercise.
Get your excuses in early.
Is this the start of the shaping exercise.
Get your excuses in early.
NoVANav:-
Yes, BoIs find the same thing on this side of the pond. Mind you, witnesses with evidence of serious airworthiness shortcomings tend not to be called before the board despite volunteering themselves to do so. Tends to skew the outcome somewhat!
Corrona, I should have added in my reply to you that many of the facts stated in the link that dervish and I posted were included by Haddon Cave in his report, yet strangely he attributed the start date to 1998 even though the evidence was dated between 1987-96, which he bizarrely characterised as a Golden Era of Airworthiness! Now why should he do that, and why should the very foundation of the MAA be based on such contradictions?
Most accidents are due to mistakes by the aircrew.
Corrona, I should have added in my reply to you that many of the facts stated in the link that dervish and I posted were included by Haddon Cave in his report, yet strangely he attributed the start date to 1998 even though the evidence was dated between 1987-96, which he bizarrely characterised as a Golden Era of Airworthiness! Now why should he do that, and why should the very foundation of the MAA be based on such contradictions?
wasn't RIVET AMBER assessed to be an airframe problem leading to its loss?
One trusts that all 707 derivatives had the fin attachment mod some decades ago?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Squirrel41 and Torque...
The AMBER loss is still open to question but, according to one of the crew who was not on the flight (if I remember the last presentation I saw), discussed the lack of completion of a TCTO which might have caused a problem. Not related to anything about current RIVET JOINTS or the -135 airframe in general.
With regards to the 707 tail sections being used on the -135: When the decision to re-engine some KC-135As with TF33-PW-102 turbo-fan engines from retired 707 airliners the increased thrust also required the use of the larger, broader span, horizontal stabilizers and elevators. ALL RC-135s with turbofan engines (original build and mods) had the larger horizontals as original build. A much earlier ('50s) Boeing modification increased the original -135 "short tail" to the standard 707 height.
The AMBER loss is still open to question but, according to one of the crew who was not on the flight (if I remember the last presentation I saw), discussed the lack of completion of a TCTO which might have caused a problem. Not related to anything about current RIVET JOINTS or the -135 airframe in general.
With regards to the 707 tail sections being used on the -135: When the decision to re-engine some KC-135As with TF33-PW-102 turbo-fan engines from retired 707 airliners the increased thrust also required the use of the larger, broader span, horizontal stabilizers and elevators. ALL RC-135s with turbofan engines (original build and mods) had the larger horizontals as original build. A much earlier ('50s) Boeing modification increased the original -135 "short tail" to the standard 707 height.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A piece in the Sunday Times today under the headline ...
"Safety fears ground spy plane"
The article mentions "concern" over the RAF RC-135's having single-skinned fuel pipes ... where a connection is then made in the same paragraph with the AFG 2006 Nimrod loss.
Humm ...
"Safety fears ground spy plane"
The article mentions "concern" over the RAF RC-135's having single-skinned fuel pipes ... where a connection is then made in the same paragraph with the AFG 2006 Nimrod loss.
Humm ...
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 3rd Nov 2013 at 13:18.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoVANav,
Many thanks for that - helpful. RIP RIVET AMBER.
But I'm still at a loss why the RAF can't / won't read across the USAF's RC-135 clearance. Given the insanity of things over here at the moment, we could be offering the USAF a deal of three new RC-135s.... our munificence doesn't just extend to the USMC and cheap Harriers, you know....! (Ok, I don't actually think that we'll bin the RJs - not even we're that stupid.)
S41
Many thanks for that - helpful. RIP RIVET AMBER.
But I'm still at a loss why the RAF can't / won't read across the USAF's RC-135 clearance. Given the insanity of things over here at the moment, we could be offering the USAF a deal of three new RC-135s.... our munificence doesn't just extend to the USMC and cheap Harriers, you know....!
(Ok, I don't actually think that we'll bin the RJs - not even we're that stupid.)S41
Bit off topic but as USAF flight suits were mentioned above, the RAFs own flying suit will soon look like the American one, yes, someone has finally noticed you don't wear flying scalves/cravats anymore and realised a high neckline provides better protection from flash fires..nice one CAM 