Sorry Dude. I did not attack you personally, I just get very frustrated when so many people will CLEARLY tell you that more than half the contracts are obtained "illegally" by means of back hands and pay-offs.
Another thing that surprises me is that all the western equipment must have TCAS and the east block aircraft just continue to operate as they are because they are Cheaper. What SHOCKS me is how many aircraft there are with TCAS but the crew conveniently leaves it off so that they can cut corners over borders. One must just look back to a few years ago when a Learjet was shot down over Egypt when the crew decided to cut a corner.
It would seem that although the XX tries to uphold a good safety record on paper, it does not happen on the ground floor.
For the sake of this argument I will give you this example but I will leave out company names. Company A holds a contract with the XX. The XX then instructs them: "Design a pallet less system for air drops or lose your contact" The reason, it costs the XX Z amount for the pallets and they want to save the money. So Company A does exactly that. They design a system that works and their reward? Company A gets moved away from their operation and company B who uses a normal system and does not hold a contract with the XX, not only still continue to fly, but their aircraft numbers increases so that they now drop even more pallets than before. Favoritism, call it what you want, but to me that is a perfect example of the difference between what the XX says must be done and what actually happens on the ground
I just feel that if the XX is run according to what is said on paper, we all will have a safer organization to work for. The chief in charge seems to know what is safe and not. Just look at his speech a while back when he stated that the XX needs C-130's urgently in Darfour. He did not say Aircraft, Antanov's or anything else. Yet what is flying relief to Darfour? Maybe the XX must start to listen to their chief in charge.
