From Chug's Post no. 10...
"Quote:
Military airworthiness is different to civilian airworthiness, as there are situations where we need to be able to accept risk - such as for tasks that save life, or are vital to the national interest. The problem comes when these risks are taken under pressure to produce and by people who are not qualified/authorised to assess or take the risks.
Good post OA, if I may say so. I'm not trying to inflict Civil Airworthiness on the military, but airworthiness in accordance with Military Airworthiness Regulations, which patently cannot be relied on now. That has to change and independence of the MOD is the key. You can call the resulting setup what you wish. No doubt it would be an anagram of those listed in your later post!"
...My earlier point being that, to maintain a 'real' airworthiness status of operational aircraft, the current practices of ignoring or refitting U/S parts, or conducting unauthorised repairs, will be deemed illegal EXCEPT for genuine operational reasons - not just for the sake of training timetables or "Excercise" sorties.
The military exceptions to standards of airworthiness should ONLY be for the need for military support during hostile actions, not for peacetime actions.
Whatever your reasons for rushing into meeting the needs of Excercise and Training Sorties - the airworthiness of the aircraft YOU FLY should not be jeopardised for "practice" reasons.
By using proper airworthiness criteria the supply chain could be made to move at the right speed to meet new logistical demands (you'll get the spares held forward - where they are supposed to be, instead of being just too late.)
Yes, initially this will mean sorties will be cancelled due to engineering shortages - but you can't have it both ways - you either fly 'airworthy' aircraft, or wartime military aircraft.
...Incoming!!!