US Military Helicopter Operations Suffer Due To Budget Cuts
Thread Starter
US Military Helicopter Operations Suffer Due To Budget Cuts
This article discusses problems with the Navy and Marine Corps CH-53 Fleet but applies to all sectors of US Military Aviation due to the Sequester mandated Budget Cuts to the US DOD Budget.
The U.S. Military?s Most Powerful Helicopters Keep Killing Troops in Fiery Crashes
The U.S. Military?s Most Powerful Helicopters Keep Killing Troops in Fiery Crashes
Perhaps this would get more comment on the military thread, but I found the linked article a good read. Reminded me of Hadden-Cave's 'savings at the expense of safety'.
It always concerns me when I see a manufacturer settle 'confidentially out of court' rather than admit liability.
It is a clear admission of guilt for a poorly designed product that allows them to avoid further costly litigation but continues to expose other operators of the product to the same risks.
Haddon-Cave noted the collusion between the military, the manufacturers and the sub-contractors to keep milking the government cash-cow without actually addressing the airworthiness issues.
Is this what SAC has been doing to the US military?
It is a clear admission of guilt for a poorly designed product that allows them to avoid further costly litigation but continues to expose other operators of the product to the same risks.
Haddon-Cave noted the collusion between the military, the manufacturers and the sub-contractors to keep milking the government cash-cow without actually addressing the airworthiness issues.
Is this what SAC has been doing to the US military?
Thread Starter
If you build to the Mil Spec and use Industry Best Practices and approved techniques and materials....who should bear the liability years later after the aircraft is in service and has been operated and maintained by the buyer?
In the Navy crash...who was the most at fault?
In the Navy crash...who was the most at fault?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
It always concerns me when I see a manufacturer settle 'confidentially out of court' rather than admit liability.
It is a clear admission of guilt for a poorly designed product that allows them to avoid further costly litigation but continues to expose other operators of the product to the same risks.
Haddon-Cave noted the collusion between the military, the manufacturers and the sub-contractors to keep milking the government cash-cow without actually addressing the airworthiness issues.
Is this what SAC has been doing to the US military?
It is a clear admission of guilt for a poorly designed product that allows them to avoid further costly litigation but continues to expose other operators of the product to the same risks.
Haddon-Cave noted the collusion between the military, the manufacturers and the sub-contractors to keep milking the government cash-cow without actually addressing the airworthiness issues.
Is this what SAC has been doing to the US military?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you build to the Mil Spec and use Industry Best Practices and approved techniques and materials....who should bear the liability years later after the aircraft is in service and has been operated and maintained by the buyer?
but if you are a European OEM they deserve to be flambed don't they SAS
Thread Starter
Care to explain your post.....seems something is lost in the translation somehow?
Good article actually, and the point of the thread is the Millitary aspect of readiness, and how an old fleet is neglected. This should not be vaulted into an east versus west manufacturing debate, especially since the production line was closed in the 1990's.
Millitary customers do not always follow manufacturer recommendations now do they. Usually comes down to budget, driving parts and manpower, hidden by politics.
What is missing from the article, is that the DOD is funding a replacement, the CH-53K.
Settling confidentially or fighting in court changes nothing about the inherent safety of either the design or the overall operational safety. For a mature design by any manufacturer, this rests primarily on the operator.
Millitary customers do not always follow manufacturer recommendations now do they. Usually comes down to budget, driving parts and manpower, hidden by politics.
What is missing from the article, is that the DOD is funding a replacement, the CH-53K.
Settling confidentially or fighting in court changes nothing about the inherent safety of either the design or the overall operational safety. For a mature design by any manufacturer, this rests primarily on the operator.
If the problem is similar to the UKs (or is it vice versa?) then the military have purchased the design rights of their aircraft thus taking the responsibility away from the OEM (in the main). So, if inclined to do so, the military can approve themselves to drill a hole in the windscreen and blu-tack a pistol onto it.
In most cases "The Military" are decidedly in charge of the maintenance they feel the need to do and of the maintenance standards they're willing to accept too.
IMHO they also deeply encourage (and then often turn a blind eye to) the variety of cultures they need in particular places.
You reap that which you sow.
In most cases "The Military" are decidedly in charge of the maintenance they feel the need to do and of the maintenance standards they're willing to accept too.
IMHO they also deeply encourage (and then often turn a blind eye to) the variety of cultures they need in particular places.
You reap that which you sow.
