Thanks Squirrel. The AOC kindly showed me a set of probabilities concerning the safety of various ac. It is a completely new area for me. I did not realise it was quantified in such a definite way. I realise how difficult it is to be making these kinds of decisions. I assume from the way you are talking that you are responsible for people. In the situation of XV179, when a weakness or vulnerability is identified in such an obvious way, is it morally correct to continue to ask the crews to risk their necks until the safety protection can be fitted? In the case of the Afg deployment, this is a new deployment seemingly at the request of the FO. Should crews be sent on a new deployment, with no obvious security threat to UK, without such a safety feature? Are we asking too much of our military leaders to say no in these circumstances? I know that many service personnel wouldn't think twice about going, believing it to be their duty and they might be offended by merely suggesting this. The thing that really troubles me is the threat assessment. Without hostile fire indicators I do not see how an accurate type specific assessment can be made. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I would rather we erred on the side of caution just now.
I understand your point about mini-fleets. However, after my own experience I simply do not trust the military commanders to make the correct safety calls. In Afg in 2001, dumb Hercs were sent in because they were the only ones available. The temptation to send crews to war without adequate protection will surely happen again. The Hercules fleet needs a common standard of protection, so the guys/girls are given some protection from those in charge of managing their own risk.
PS I believe Foam has been a standard fit since 1973/74 when USAF were purchasing C130 E Model. The K Model at Lyneham dates from around 1967. If we decide to buy some new wings for the venerable beast foam is standard.
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th May 2006 at 19:31.