“Are you taking credit for shaming the politicians into fixing this, then, Nige?”
The “fix-to-field” initiative has been known for some time, at least since the demise of SABR. The recruiting is probably due to a combination of people coming to an end of their tours and in anticipation of approvals.
“The difference between the C-130 fuel tanks and the HC3 software is surely that:
The C-130 risk was obvious and demonstrable”
From previous posts I understood this also applied to Chinook and advance warning was given to the project office. The recent File On 4 programme included an interview on the subject. A retired Sqn Ldr. Also that the problem was more than just software. I concede I know little about helicopters, but Racal made it known around 1995 that some of their kit had been selected “off-the-shelf” for new Chinooks when in fact it was widely known to be so immature that years of development were still required. If the kit was immature, then the risk would be obvious and demonstrable surely?