Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
As a non-technical poster on this forum I sure as shucks won't comment on the ADS-B content of the proposed legislation. But point 4 of the summary:
"Directs the Army OIG to initiate a safety coordination audit. The Army Inspector General has declined to voluntarily review the Army's aviation safety practices. The Inspector General would conduct an independent review of the Army's approach to safety." Why does this not make real sense? .................... On these facts, why is it not sensible to require the Army to undergo an IG review? .....................
Hi
WR 6-3, of course, as you say, the safety of Mil operations is as important a topic as for Civvies, especially when operating in such close proximity. OK, some other strange Mil risks appear such as when someone is deliberately firing rounds or missiles at you to shoot you out the sky or you are conducting refueling between aircraft at FL170 or whatever. Safety should all be part of Mil business - it certainly was when I was Serving.
Here, assuming the original quote is accurate (and nothing suggests it's not!), I suspect my bold highlighting above is key. Given the IG decided not to conduct a review of safety practices himself it looks like someone has just told the IG in no uncertain terms "So you don't want to voluntarily review things? Fine - so now we're ordering you to! Run along now like a good little chap and, by the way, when you report back, we'll be paying very close attention to your conclusions - so don't even think of a white-wash!".
I suspect that this is the unwritten message to the IG given they are even highlighting why they are having to order him to do it!