The future of warfare... (Sunday Telegraph)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future of warfare... (Sunday Telegraph)
Video: The future of warfare: self-healing aircraft and 'transformer' plane that can split into three jets mid-air - Telegraph
Interesting stuff. Bound to be pricey though...
Interesting stuff. Bound to be pricey though...
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Fantastic stuff. How many years before BAE come up with the science to deliver something on budget, on time and within the spec? There's a miracle right there.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Along the A43
Age: 58
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choosing a spec and sticking to it
I'd be happy if ALL contractors could push out stuff that complied with Def Stan 00-970. No, really comply, even if it was to the predecessor (Av P 970?). Make a good aircraft that crews would be happy to fly, engineers could be proud to have worked on and everyone who actually knew anything about aircraft in general and that one in particular would look at and say "Now THERE's an aircraft they got right..." I challenge anybody to name one. Great to fly/operate but a sod to maintain, or vice versa, doesn't count.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be happy if ALL contractors could push out stuff that complied with Def Stan 00-970.
Good luck
S-D
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course when the customer learns to write requirements that are a) achievable, b)clear and c)correct they whole process would be off to a better start. The current "that wasn't what I meant..." means yet another change which of course costs money!
.... Def Stan 00-970? It's out of date and maintained by people who wouldn't recognise airworthiness if it walked up and slapped them in the face!
00-970 used to mandated in every aircraft related contract. In 1997 I had my first experience of a new boss who'd been on the half day seminar that told him it WASN'T mandated and he, a physiologist (someone who makes lemonade), could make up or waive design and airworthiness requirements as he saw fit. RIP those who died as a result. After that, who would want to work in the section charged with maintaining it? A crap job.
00-970 is the REQUIREMENTS, but MoD has a -05 series of PROCEDURAL Def Stans telling you how to implement the regs. They too used to be mandated in every aircraft / equipment contract. The most important one, 05-125/2, has been cancelled without replacement. (It covers the procedures that result in a valid Safety Case. Only an idiot doesn't retain and secretly use the two books, especially Book 2). The other main one, 05-123, is fine as far as it goes, but like most such publications assumes a degree of training and proven competence in the target audience. However, this hasn't been policy since 1990. Today, so few have any practical experience, whereas 30 years ago a third year apprentice was expected to understand every word and could relate it to work he'd performed.
Remember "ARM"? Availability, Reliability and Maintainability. We no longer have named individuals responsible for this.
All of which makes bridgets boy's challenge an interesting one! I'd narrow it down to UK-built but with no French Connection (which excludes Lynx, Puma - the French simply don't "do" configuration control) and introduced and matured before the above policy changed aircraft design, ARM and safety for ever. Sea King anyone? She doesn't necessarily comply with 00-970, but in important areas Westland's own procedures are more robust (with the company content to ignore idiotic instructions from MoD!) and, ultimately, their Safety Case procedures document has stood the test of time. (The MAA would do well to get a copy and read it).
