Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
Tourist no-one is challenging the right of VSO's to take risky decisions in time of war, as I have repeatedly said. This risky decision (to subvert Air Safety) was simply to cover the predictable and predicted effects of AMSO's incompetence.
So what?
There were effects that needed covering, predictable and predicted or not.
I am not defending any individual decisions made anywhere, merely that VSOs have to make decisions based on risk assessments.
The simple nature of statistics mean that even very low risks happen occasionally and then bad things happen.
Second guessing with hindsight later is just idiocy.
Chug.
I think you have bigger picture issues.
Nimrod was saving lives and doing good work.
Getting it to meet airworthiness regs cost money we didn't have or was judged to be better spent elsewhere, so we flew it hoping we would get by with the bodge as we have many times with many aircraft over the years.
There was no golden option where we had the aircraft airborne
and airworthy.
It was have the bodge or lose the capability.
Personally I would not have grounded them
after the event, let alone before.
So what if we lost one occasionally?
We lost ground troops daily yet we kept them there.
That is the job.
By flying Nimrod we reduced their very high risk a little by accepting some.
I personally believe that it is ok to trade a little extra risk upward from ground troops to flyers.
There is no "soldierworthiness" dept looking after the guys on the ground and this has skewed things in modern militaries. For some reason aircrew are protected at the expense of soldiers and sailors.
How many aircrew died in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It has come to be accepted that any loss of life airborne is a symptom of a mistake.
This is madness.
Lives are lost even in brilliant victories.
The negligible loss rate of aircrew compared to the ground troops suggests that contrary to your complaints we were unwilling to shoulder our fair burden of risk.
Those who mention the high unit cost of Nimrod thus the need to protect it are missing the point. If it can't get airborne and do the job then it is worthless.
Chug, I accept that you and Tuc worship at the feet of the god Airworthiness, and that's great. We need people like you to fight it's corner. The debate is good.
We also need VSO's that will put you back in your box when required.
When I fly an aircraft, occasionally I might have to break a rule. When I come back, that will be dissected by my superiors and I will be judged on the result and the intention.
The VSO's have been through a very similar system, and they seem to have had their actions blessed.
Let it go, and in particular let go the accusations about deliberately sabotaging our capability. That just makes you look mental.
TOFO
I'll read it if I can find it.