JP
Tucumseh. Your repeated assertion about the alleged unairworthiness of this Chinook, invites a repeat of earlier questions, ie, if it was not airworthy then just what changes were made to correct that failing? And if no corrections were made, then why are these machines still authorised to operate? Regards JP
You indeed asked this question before, and I replied. I assume therefore you did not take my advice, or MoD did not offer an answer – both equally likely.
Maintaining the Build Standard consists of 17 core components, as stated by the only Def Stan dedicated to the subject. (And the Build Standard is but one small component, albeit a crucially important one, of airworthiness). Designing and proving modifications to correct faults or defects is one part of one component. The suggestion that a modification would make the aircraft airworthy would mean the other components are implemented properly. They are not.
Again, you will have to ask MoD what changed, but first I recommend you bone up on what constitutes airworthiness. It helps if the question makes sense, as they take great delight in being pedantic when replying. As I said at #4511;
…..the cardinal error so common on this thread (and, notably, by the Reviewing Officers) – it confused Serviceability with Airworthiness.
For what its worth, I think that, having introduced a policy in 1991 deliberately compromising airworthiness, MoD decided to take a calculated risk and continue to carry on lacking the “defences in depth” the regulations mandate. In modern parlance, many slices of cheese disappeared and the holes in the rest got bigger. The probability of occurrence increased.
If MoD had been honest and said “We are taking this calculated risk, as we can’t afford the current cost” then everyone concerned could make an informed decision as to their role.
But they weren’t honest. Every time the policy was challenged you got a different reply, until (in our case) the 2 Star cracked and threatened dismissal if we insisted on implementing the regulations. (December 1992). The single most appalling excuse for telling me to ignore an aircraft being unsafe, was when I was told “He’s the 2 Star’s mate and earmarked for promotion, so don’t rock the boat”. I ignored this and notified two 2 Stars, recommending specific corrective action. Unfortunately, while the subsequent BoI repeated my recommendation word for word, they had come to it independently, as they hadn’t been told it had been made previously. Nor was the Coroner. So the lessons couldn’t be learned as crucial evidence was withheld. Same as Chinook really. Same 2 Star post.