I would happily start a thread about the implementation of civil airwirthiness standards to military aviation (something which is currenty happening to the RAF), but you seem to be missing the point.
The future of the RAF lies in accepting the change, dare I say embracing the change.
The Mil Part M and Mil Part 145 could easily be rolled out in a way that industry is a provider of such services and the military component is aircrew, ala Hertz or Avis etc (other good rental companies are out there too).
The perceived reluctance in the RAF to accept change of this nature cannot be overlooked. Lets face it why did the Nimrod crash? Becuase the safety interlocks in the process were overlooked for operational reasons. Had this been highlighted, yes. Therefore the aircraft nor the crew should have been put in that situation.
Is the individual who approved that decision going to face the consequences?
Is the purpose of ending the thread so that we will not have to see the obvious changes needed, is that not the same as ignoring the QQ or BAES report?
The only reason that the MoD was forced to think about these events was due to the efforts of TD and others, maybe it is time to see this through to the end state.
In my eyes that is military aircraft that are safe for those who fly in them and those that have to live with them flying overhead (but not the talitubbies).
Last edited by DEL Mode; 8th December 2007 at 17:40.
Reason: Incorrect reference to other post