Tourist
but I do know about the Seaking crash, and the same people who are spouting on here about both are utterly clueless as to causes and constant harking on about HISLs as if they caused a crash in the Seakings, which doesnt give me any confidence in their conclusions.
I'm sure you know far more about the aircraft and the way it is operated than I do, but it is you who are harking on about HISL while declining to discuss the broader failings listed in the BoI report (except to call the author an imbecile).
I've read the report and it also mentions NVG not being fitted and ship operating procedures, which were based on the older AEW Mk2 which had a radar on all the time. Whereas, the Mk7 was not "radar equipped" because it had to be switched off close to the ship. There are a host of other issues raised.
Someone made the point before that this
combination rendered the pilots "blind". HISL was the last line of defence and it was switched off.
I know little else except what was discussed in MoD at the time but it is fairly well known that a contract was let to assess the interoperability problems caused by the differences between Mk2 and Mk7, but was canceled. Someone would have to confirm that one but I know for a fact DOR(Sea) were offered an NVG'd Mk7 at minimal cost (a much larger concurrent programme the SK7 could have piggy backed) but turned it down.
You are probably correct if you mean HISL alone did not cause the crash, but the Board said it was a factor. Would you offer an opinion (or if you are allowed to say, facts) on what the cause was.
What if I asked the question the other way round. If the aircraft had HISLs on, or NVG fitted, would the probability of collision have been reduced? What if the ship had revised deconfliction procedures (right term?) to allow for the aircraft not having radar?
Thank you.