PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Fatal Accident Inquiries and Inquest
View Single Post
Old 20th Jul 2015, 11:34
  #23 (permalink)  
Chugalug2
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,764
Received 228 Likes on 71 Posts
Well, that's a lot of what didn't happens for sure.

As to wasn't offered that is contrary to my understanding. We purchased the K's via the USAF who were already fitting ESF from new as standard (and no doubt retro fitting their existing fleet). The account that I recall was that it was not only offered but recommended (given USAF experience in Vietnam), but if my impression is wrong then of course I withdraw that claim. Not only did we not get ESF, we didn't even get FSII, a pennies per gallon fuel additive, that led to the first of many Herc related windfalls for Marshalls by replanking the entire fleet. The same desire not to spend more dollars than the $60,000 that the fleet cost us led to MOD raising its own spec for ESF. They didn't spend the £'s that would have cost either, of course.

As to wasn't called for from the sharp end, that I do dispute. Some posters on nigegilb's "Parliamentary Questions" thread testified to exactly that, notably including flipster. The thread is long buried but can be exhumed here:-

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...es-safety.html

there is more likely evidence towards the end of the thread I suspect.

As to MOD witnesses, a coroner may call for them, but that doesn't mean that anything of consequence will result. Famously at this inquest, the officer responsible then for RAF C-130 airworthiness claimed that fitness for purpose was not his concern. It is of course a major component of military airworthiness and XV179 was both not fit for purpose but also unairworthy as a result.

Last edited by Chugalug2; 20th Jul 2015 at 12:57. Reason: Right letters, though not necessarily in the right order...
Chugalug2 is offline