Originally Posted by
albatross
Bit of a rant. It is early and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please cite examples.
Aside from the airframe itself, every gearbox, engine, gearbox, avionics and wiring has been changed and / or upgraded multiple times.
Oil Company: “We mandate that you buy a new 20+ million dollar aircraft to service this 2 year contract and we want to pay the same rate as for the legacy aircraft.”
My favourite at renewal time: “ We don’t take your on time reliability, serviceability, safety or crew performance into consideration, we just take the lowest bidder!” This usually from someone who works in a tall office somewhere far from the field who has difficulty even identifying a helicopter.
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
I think it was “Safety and Quality” trying to justify their existence (and expense)
The rational, probably included, the fact that newer airframes were likely to be newer tech/spec.
It’s great in theory:All things equal, the newer machine should be as safe, and usually potentially safer. (Mtce aside, less corroded/fatigued, and as mentioned, newer spec)
But tired old machines are cheaper.
Similar to the statement made at CHC after one of the many “Changes at the top”; “Our employees are our most important asset, we will only buy ANCAP 6 (?) cars, as they are the safest.”
Turns out 20yo Toyotas, and Chinese MG’s are cheaper…..So:Safe enough.