OK AC, a little bit of role play. You can be handsome, tanned, lean (sorry bad connotations how about lithe?) Eng WO, and for our purposes AGE. Scene F700 office (or whatever), enter left sallow pale self, authorised for circuits and bumps MCT (whatever). Have just looked at cut in left main tyre, having been alerted by my Flt Eng. Don't like what I see. You tell me in a polite measured way that its dimensions in length, depth, width etc all well within book figure. I say that I had a tyre lose its tread/ blew out/ deflated to rim (whatever), and had a cut smaller than this one. You repeat same mantra, even more measured, but somewhat louder, and start calling me captain. This gets everyone's attention, and I am aware that all eyes are now on me. I mutter something about still not being happy with it, you reply "Well, will you accept the aircraft or not, Captain?" Faced with this ultimatum I have to make a decision. "No", I say, hoping to sound convincing and determined, but knowing I appear neither. Suddenly you are all bustle and action. "Just fill this out then please captain, and this, and sign here", and receive the evidence back in triumph. Crew and self re-board bus and go back to squadron. Crew subdued having witnessed scene in Eng Ops. Back at Squadron have to immediately report to boss (you didn't hang about did you AC?). Get bollocking and final warning. You go home to adoring wife and amuse her with tale of numpty pilot, adding that aircraft still flying with same tyre, same cut, same dimensions. I go home to mess and get pissed, receive final warning from PMC. You've done your job and I've done mine as far as I can tell, how about you?
JB, I added a PS to my previous post before reading yours, but in part dealing with some of your points. I do not say that Airworthiness is a vague concept per se, but merely that it is one level above my preceeding thrilling scene , ie the cut tyre IMHO affects the airworthiness of that aircraft, and in AC's opinion it does not, so that really doesn't help us. We deal with the tangible components of airworthiness, and let those more worthy (sorry!) deal with the larger picture, which is Nigegilb's point, I think.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 7th July 2007 at 15:54.