dervish
Correct. And each directly related to a casual factor noted by the BoI, yet they missed the fact the implementation broke the regulations. The detail I mentioned earlier. And in each case the Safety Case was not updated when the SI(T) or SEM was issued, which breached ..........
If you've never done it, you'd never notice. But it was spotted and included in evidence to Lord Philip, seen by the MAA. Yet, the same happens again on Hawk.
Edited to add that my comment obviously applies less so to the Chinook, because the fact the aircraft was not permitted to fly was withheld from the BoI by Bagnall and Spiers, so they totally ignored airworthiness issues!!
Last edited by tucumseh; 28th February 2014 at 18:18.