QinetiQ report
I have not commented on this topic before and must first say that the efforts made by the vast majority of the Staff at the VGSs are commendable. However, (there is always a however) as an ex RAF engineer, ex VGS CI, BGA inspector and actively involved in the continuing airworthiness of military aircraft (I may have identified myself to some) I FULLY concur with the QinetiQreport. When I joined the VGS and reviewed the F700 verses the training through put stats I suspected the integrity of aircraft flight time recording may be a bit wayward. How on one Sunday they managed to carry out 12 GIC (4:00), finish 4 GS students (8:00) and do four SCT trips (4:00) with 3 Vigilant with less than two hours remaining on each before their servicing extensions ended; the F700 recorded two hours and 6 landings on each Vigilant. The CO and Tech Officer said ‘it’s OK everyone does this’. Additionally, an aircraft departed the runway; traveling across rough ground, was ‘brushed off, no incident report was raised and flown later that week-end. A quiet word to the ‘senior staff’ and it was made abundantly clear this would stop; it never again happen on days I was there but I did suspect some creative accounting continued to occur. Equally, aircraft almost inevitable flew on extensions indicating that the maintenance support provided from Syerston was undermanned or underfunded (probably both). The lifing of the aircraft is predicated on the operations carried out in accordance with the Statement of Operational Intent and Usage (SOI&U), should aircraft flight time and landing recording be creatively managed the basis for the Airworthiness Safety Case is undermined. As the SOI&U parameter cannot be confirmed thus the aircraft cannot be declared airworthy I am not saying they are unsafe I am saying that their safety cannot be guaranteed.I sit back and await the backlash and cries of that never happened on my squadron.