JP
I did ask Tuc some weeks ago to give us the definitions of 'airworthy' and 'serviceable' as they were 14 or 15 years back, but I cannot trace his reply.
This has been debated before.
The definitions are known to you. If you need reminding, read the MoD’s own literature, as you don’t seem to believe anything I say. (Which is your right).
You insist on muddying waters and avoiding the real issues. You do not give others the courtesy of response. Just like MoD.
As Pulse1 says, the anti-airworthiness brigade is again adopting the MoD’s tactic of deliberately confusing serviceability, airworthiness and fitness for purpose. The only possible reason for doing so is to protect the tarnished name of those mindless sycophants who, for 20 years, have deliberately compromised all 3 for their own ends.
May I suggest you read JSP553 and Def Stan 00-970; and then the CA Release and Release to Service. Then tell us how you can reconcile the requirements of the first two with the last. It’s impossible. If you refuse to do this, and make no attempt to understand the issues, then with respect any post you make on the subject is meaningless.
Do you not see how ridiculous it looks for ANYONE on this forum to be arguing against someone whose main concern is that their aircraft are safe? You are openly aligning yourself with people who have contributed to the deaths of so many of your fellow Servicemen.
But, one by one their crimes are being exposed. Nimrod. Hercules. They’re all the same – just different paragraphs of the same regs that were ignored. But if Mr Haddon-Cave’s forthcoming report on the subject contradicts anything I say, I’ll profusely apologise to you.