PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - RAF Rivet Joint
Thread: RAF Rivet Joint
View Single Post
Old 29th Apr 2014, 20:08
  #591 (permalink)  
Chugalug2
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,765
Received 236 Likes on 72 Posts
Tourist, what you did or didn't do with or without the 'previous flashing lights' (Anti-Collision ones?), which I have no reason to believe were not airworthy, is between you and your SOPs. I'm talking about the 'later Flashing Lights' (High Intensity Strobe Lights) which are far more intense, as their name implies. You can't simply swap them over like changing a light bulb, the new fit requires trials not only because of the potential for blinding the crew, which is obviously greatly enhanced, but also because of the internal potential to induce unwanted radiation interference with the electronics fit. That's not my idea, that is the mandated requirement of the Regulations, in order that the modification works safely. As this was a UK Military mod the Regulations were ignored of course and the aircraft was made unairworthy. That's not my idea, it is a direct result of the Regulations being thus suborned.

The problem is not with the Regulations, which as engines says are perfectly adequate for the job. The problem is people. People who give illegal orders to suborn the Regulations. People who discard the Regulations, lest they be quoted. People who cover up the suborning. People who subvert Accident Investigations so that the suborning remains covered up. People who hound qualified and experienced engineers out of the airworthiness posts and replace them with unqualified and inexperienced non-engineers so that the suborning continues. Those people shared one thing in common, they were all VSOs. They have now reduced UK Military Aviation to the point where it cannot go out and order a new aircraft without getting it spectacularly wrong, hence this thread.

As to not calling the Sea Kings mid-air Airworthiness Related, I'm afraid it was and I'll go on calling it that unless and until the BoI is recalled to consider new evidence (ie new evidence, not new evidence that the MOD says is not new). That BoI/SI should be convened by a truly independent MAAIB. Unacceptable? Then I go on calling it airworthiness related (not 'caused' though, until so found by the SI).

Ridiculing airworthiness says more about your mindset than mine, you can't pick and choose which Regs you will comply with and which not. Anyway, are aircrew sweaters subject to an airworthiness process? They may well be approved aircrew wear rather than non-approved t-shirts, but airworthy?

Cgb likewise, why is a Red Cross painted on the side of a helicopter a cause of unairworthiness? I'm afraid that playing the 'HSE' card, or having it played upon you, isn't what this is about. I'm not a jobsworth, I simply want UK Military Aircraft to be airworthy so that they can serve our purpose and not that of our enemies. That requires an independent military airworthiness authority, something that the Military Aviation Authority is not.
Chugalug2 is offline