Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
Well yes, FL, it does matter, it matters a lot. Airworthiness Related Fatal Accident threads litter this Forum, Red5 included, like a spreading canker. It is more a question now of which fleets are airworthy, and how is that to be determined? No such reassurance comes from the MAA, in fact nothing comes from the MAA. Hardly surprising of course as it is merely a department of the operator, the MOD. Until it is fully independent of the MOD it remains its puppet and ditto all that as regards Military Air Accident Investigation too. Any Air Force that seeks Command of the Air must have airworthy aircraft at the very least. It is the foundation upon which its aircraft, systems, and aircrew training are built. Without airworthiness an Air Force cannot prevail against an equivalent one that understands and values the need to ensure and maintain airworthiness. The system that ensured UK Military Airworthiness was deliberately and malevolently subverted by RAF VSOs to raid Air Safety ring fenced monies for short term financial gain. That illegal act has been the subject of cover up ever since. A cover up that means reform of UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation is obstructed. Hence avoidable Airworthiness Related Air Accidents continue to cost lives and treasure, and all to protect the reputations of some old men!
You'd think someone would write a book about it, wouldn't you?. Oh, wait! They already have, several in fact.
So yes FL, it does matter, it matters a lot.
I see it’s quite an emotive subject for you and some others. I agree that in some respects the MAA not being independent of the operator could be an issue. Your grievance by the looks of things pertains to RAF VSOs meddling. I still take it back to my original point. On this particular issue, does it really matter as the Hawk T1 is going out of service. Case solved for this airframe.