John P
“So you too think that the government/MOD have something to hide”.
One example;
Airworthiness
The DECU. My opinion, as an aircraft engineer and latterly MoD project manager having airworthiness delegation, is that only a complete fool would accept an aircraft in which the crew were under pressure to frequently check such an important component. I never dealt with Boeing directly, but I am absolutely certain of one thing. Westland would NEVER knowingly present such a design to the 555 (Installation Design) Conference. Regardless of when such a problem was discovered, both myself and Westland would (and frequently did) take the hit in time and cost terms, to protect the safety element of performance. No arguments. The aircraft would not even be presented for MAR trials. No fix, no MAR, no pay. The DECU and/or its installation design were patently NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. To subsequently “pass” it is the clearest evidence imaginable of a breakdown in the airworthiness process. What were the verification and acceptance criteria? MoD won’t discuss the matter. Why? I’d like to say I’ve never seen the like before, but I have, and it’s condoned at the highest level in order to protect the time and cost elements.
This issue alone raises what I would call reasonable doubt, which far exceeds the criteria required to clear the pilots. If MoD cannot be honest about this, then they have something to hide. I suspect they are fearful of systematic failures of process being exposed, which would diminish their case.
Best Wishes