Walter
Walter
Well done, your persistence on PRC112 has;
a. Finally received acknowledgement from the thread that the system exists.
b. Has highlighted that systems thinking is important to achieving understanding (in simple terms, because you have forced people to realise that there exist complementary ground and air components)
c. You have re-iterated the different methods by which these systems can be fitted/used by aircrew (DA Mod, SEM, Carry-on kit, unofficially, etc). And in doing so, reinforced the need to carefully phrase questions.
The above, especially b. and c., are well known weaknesses in the MoD. They simply do not want engineering issues, such as configuration control, safety and maintaining build standards, aired. They have proven time and again a willingness to lie through their back teeth on these matters, mainly because they cannot withstand scrutiny. Others, far more experienced that I on this subject (ZD576) have long sought to bring these engineering issues to the fore; without success. I sincerely hope they support this aspect of what you say. I certainly do.
But, my friend, I think that the other issues, such as references to sabotage, do little to further the aims of this thread. If it is merely theory, then it offers your detractors an excuse for not addressing the factual elements of what you say. For example, in engineering terms I can believe your hypothesis on the PRC112 issue, but unless there is proof it does not further the aims of this thread. If it was fitted to, or used by, ZD576, then in all probability there will be no safety audit trail, because of the above MoD deficiencies. But, it cannot be proven one way or another, so focus is lost.
However, you are right to inquire about engineering matters. The simple, easily proven fact, is that the MoD have serious weaknesses in the way they apply the processes and procedures which are designed to ensure the whole aircraft is safe. (And I know you understand that, just because an aircraft can take off and fly, does not mean it is safe or serviceable – which seems to be the thrust of the MoD’s latest argument. That they are resorting to such arrant nonsense indicates nervousness). You are 100% correct on other engineering matters. DECU. Inherent Nav errors after flying over water. Weighted algorithms. TANS. Bonding. It is a fact that the MoD acknowledge design defects in the Nav system (which cause faults and can give erroneous Nav information), but will not say what they did about them, or when they became apparent. A lawyer would call this weight of evidence, leading to reasonable doubt. Which is far more than the MoD rules require to overturn this verdict.
I am not a pilot so refrain from commenting on flying issues. I leave that to the experts. But, I implore you flyers, please listen to the experts when they say that there are serious engineering issues here which, unlike what happened in the final moments of ZD576, can be proven beyond any doubt; and collectively may serve to undermine the MoD’s position. I believe Walter is entitled to his view. If you don’t agree with it (or me) then fine; but go past the more sinister theories and you will find some very unpalatable facts beneath. The MoD’s failure to discuss or address them is far more sinister.
Oh, and Walter, thank you for not divulging the content of private corrspondence.