Originally Posted by
Brain Potter
I’ve yet to see such a badly-written SI report.
This is apparent from the very first sentence written by the board which says that the aircraft ‘ditched’. The MRP doesn't appear to have a definition of ditching... .
dribbled, drooled, plummeted... plonked.... something with a bit of onomatopoeic poetry would have worked.
I am still non plussed by the redactions... there be redactin' happenin', and then the data that indicates what was central to the block o' black shows up in a photo or a graph, like the thrust output from the engine. Was there a time limit on this going out the door for the powers that be? It is a most peculiar report, written by they/those riters.
FYI, I feel for the troops involved, the whole effort seemed a circus, a sit down and briefing upwards from the troops to their bosses might have gone a long way to avoiding the expensive lesson that was learnt herein, and yet, I fear that the systemic issues that arise in this case are not taken on board by the powers that be. Within a system that is a goal oriented focus, where it is not acceptable to say no, devolution is the most probable outcome. Yes, there are reporting systems, but at what point do they result in interdicting a process that is throwing out flags with abandon?
The safety equipment issues raise further concern IMHO, half a life jacket even when not required should raise eyebrows, and that is following other recent matters of the same flavour on the Hawk. The RH arm restraint failing, this is stuff that there needs to be a fair level of confidence in, and while credit is given for identifying the failures, how about working on why there are failures in systems that should not fail.
There are smart people in the mob, reasonable solutions can be made to protect the machine, RAM finishes, pilot, and the engineers if there is a will to do so.