Powerful post Chug, I am afraid the evidence keeps rolling in. I am trying to check out reports of cracks on VC10 and TriStar fleet. Massive pressure to keep the Afg airlift in motion. Things are getting grim in Bastion, nuff said in open forum, but no matter the pressure, safety has to come first.
Take a look at the Puma BoIs. Question marks remain over the training and experience of crews carrying out SF Missions at a time when pressure is on to REDUCE training costs. I have been told that the loss rate acceptance for Puma has gone from 3 years to 18 months. Haven't substantiated this yet, but where are the anticipators? Is it really cheaper not to fit them. One definite fatality and loss of puma as described here.
Coroner: Training was 'insufficient'
"Equally interesting, from a safety viewpoint (which affects, for example, the competence and experience component of airworthiness), is the fact that while MoD can make a case to lower safety requirements due to exceptional circumstances (the ALARP argument) this specifically DOES NOT apply to training. I'm actually told that this has been re-iterated recently by various top level MoD safety committees.
I'd say they are standing into danger on this one. It seems fatuous to claim its ok as they can do more time in a simulator. If the simulator is sufficient, then why not buy/use more? This is why sim time is always balanced with real flying. I wonder if a risk assessment has been done? Same old issues. Safety decisions made for financial reasons. Who will be brave enough to wave the red card?"
I'd say MELTDOWN is an accurate way to describe the situation. And at the top of the list, concerning airworthiness issues is Nimrod, even though it has been described as "safe to fly".