I don’t think Chug was calling into question the US system or the 135. I certainly wasn’t, although you are right, Lonewolf, to mention that certain companies are less than helpful. From our (UK) perspective, the problem is the toothless system and spineless leadership that allows them to do this and protects them at every turn. Chinook ZA721, Mt Pleasant Feb 1987 is a good example. Essential safety modifications arising from our AAIB investigators’ report remained unschemed, never mind embodied, when ZD576 crashed in June 1994. What Chug is referring to, in part, is this rendered the aircraft unairworthy, compounded by the RAF completely omitting the requirement from certification. We don't trust a system which allows, in fact encourages, this behaviour.
We share a concern that our Military Aviation Authority (MAA) is equally spineless and ineffective, continuing in the same vein as their predecessors to whom, in many cases, the hierarchy owe their elevated rank. They have existed for 3 years now and, very recently (last month), were party to Ministerial briefings and correspondence openly criticising anyone connected with MoD who advocates airworthiness and adherence to mandated regulations. With leadership like that, even a perfectly airworthy RC-135 Rivet Joint soon won’t be!
Last edited by tucumseh; 21st May 2013 at 09:20.