1.3VStall
The question taxpayers should be asking is this - "If the RAF is incapable of assuring the airworthiness of simple gliders and motor gliders, of which hundreds of examples of the same types continue to be operated safely worldwide, how can we be sure much more advanced platforms, such as Typhoon and Lightning II, are airworthy?"
(A supplementary question might be - "Who is being held accountable for this gross waste of taxpayers' money?").
In this case, one must also look at what other aircraft the Type Airworthiness Authority is responsible for. I've said before, you could merge this thread with the Red Arrows XX177 one, because the same people are involved. Neither aircraft had a valid safety case.
RRNemesis
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.
Precisely. Remember, in 1992 the Director of Flight Safety reported that Chinook didn't have a SOIU, never mind one with parameters that could be verified. Why has nothing changed in 26 years? Or are we to be grateful that there's actually an SOIU, albeit one that is ignored. Please also remember, that all aircrew are required to be familiar with the SOIU, so that they may report violations. I'm not sure how that works with Air Cadets.
Which brings us back to 1.3's question;
"Who is being held accountable?"