safety
What Eng® says is absolutely spot on (as usual). To reinforce this, I’m sure a certain Aircraft Design Authority won’t mind me quoting direct from their Safety Case Policy (as hopefully it will deflect any criticism from ADAs)…
“The UK Ministry of Defence … requires to be satisfied that an aircraft or item of aircraft equipment is adequately safe for peacetime operation. MAR recommendations are made by Boscombe Down based on information prepared by the Design Authority in the form of a Safety Case”.
The requirement to provide Safety Cases only arose during 1992, and then only in the context of modifications to existing in-service aircraft. That is why any relevant contract is prefaced with something like “The MoD acknowledges the aircraft was built to standards prevailing at the time”. That is, the MoD underwrites the safety of the aircraft at its induction build standard, and the DA undertakes not to degrade it.
It follows that a good question to ask of any aircraft delivered (contracted?) before 1992 is “Does it have a Whole Aircraft Safety Case?” not just one whose baseline is an assumption of safety + mods. I’m not familiar with Hercules, but this may be a good question on Chinook Mk2!
Another, relating to new models of existing types (e.g. J/K or Mk1/2) would be “How much read across was permitted from old type to new, how was this validated and verified, and was a Whole Aircraft Safety Case retrospectively prepared for the older type?”
It also begs the question, alluded to by Eng, that if the a/c is “safe” for peacetime ops, what are the rules relating to assessing safety for non-peacetime, or if the boundary set by the Use Study moves? Lesser mortals like me never get to see these.
I’m sure there’s more, but footie calls.