Nige, I'm not talking about vague concepts as "Airworthiness", or even specific deficiencies such as lack of ESF, which I flew without for my entire career, civil and military! I was discussing with AC the pre flight problems that present themselves on a daily basis to captains. Drips of fuel from wings, damage to tyres, cracks in windscreens, u/s systems etc, all offered as "fit to fly". Nothing philosophical, just plain acceptable or not. If not don't take it. If it then gets very "messy", one should ask oneself if this is a good environment in which to be a captain. To be fair I had nothing but support from my bosses, in the mob and outside. But that was a long time ago, and I'd better stop there before this post is diverted to the "Generic" thread!
PS On consideration, the above may seem a rather flippant response. It was not meant to, but I should have addressed the larger point you made Nige, sorry! I think the dividing line here is between the airworthiness of different aircraft types and marks and of individual airframes. The former is the province of the appropriate authorities the latter of, in respect of this discussion, the authorised captain. Of course if the former have messed up then all the airframes offered to our captain are compromised. His difficulty, unlike theirs, is that he has little or no way of assessing that degree of compromise. None the less the inevitable constraints placed on the operation of such a fleet surely gives room to dissent. "The mission threatened to fall outside the cleared operating envelope" or such like. Again the decision to abort may well be condemned. Tough, you're back to wearing out carpet again. Just as managers have to be prepared to withstand outrageous demands from above, so in the end do captains. For with them the buck finally stops.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 7th July 2007 at 14:14.
Reason: Added PS