1.3VStall, So should the MAA airworthiness book be thrown out the window?
From talking to someone who was in the MOD(PE) at the time and worked on the Vigilant purchase, they were faced with a rushed job to buy the aircraft on a 'use it or lose it' budget, whilst also faced with purchasing a new aircraft type which contravened the MOD's own airworthiness rulebook at the time. A prime example was the inability to inspect the elevator bellcrank at the bottom of the fin as part of a daily inspection. In this case, (the Grob 109/Vigilant) the aircraft is used in a manner quite different (circuits and bumps) to its civil counterpart which is a touring motor glider, so the forces seen could soon put it ahead of the civil fleet in terms of takeoff/landing cycles.
The rush to buy within the lifespan of the particular budget precluded taking the route used with the Venture (Motor Falke) and getting it licence built by a company familiar with MOD requirements, and capable of producing all the supporting documentation and repair schemes.
One could easily take out 'Viking' or 'Vigilant' and replace it with 'Rivet Joint' as the same story is being repeated three decades later.
Last edited by Mechta; 27th Jul 2014 at 11:26.
Reason: Spelling