Hi Safety_Helmut, thanks for your reply. I was taught about contigency servicing and the reasoning behind it many moons ago, I have only once been in a position to see it put into action and that was GW1 on the Chinook detachment, again I assumed that it would be standard practice on other platforms and war zones as they are certainly in the 5A1 for all aircraft platforms, including, if memory serves me correctly the Typhoon.
I have certainly never believed any seriously tall stories in the old folks home (mess), unless I had actually been there, done that and got the t-shirt (or know a man who has), by the way I did know where you were referring to.
Have I read the threads on Nimrod Yes, ESf yes, and if as you say that it is my believing tall stories, then the contingency servicings are not relevant to these problems, as no-one does them, but if they are being carried out, then it still would not be relevant as issues/parts of the 5A1 that are of safety/airworthiness would continue to be carried out.
Do you seriously think that the present conflicts warrant their use, do you seriously believe that we should be reducing safety and airworthiness standards
Contingency servicings/maintenance were never designed to reduce the airworthiness or safety standards and what makes these conflicts any different to the ones envisaged by the 'experts' who worked out the reduced requirements, taking count of safety/airworthiness all those years ago and still do on current aircraft.
Of course I realise that as I am out now and obviously out of touch on what appears to be an emotive subject, that I seem to be defending something, when I only tried to put forward a suggestion as to a possible reason why the papers had got hold of the story of reduced maintenance bought about by reduced manpower.