The airworthiness system in the RAF is what it is. The VGS fleets were not compliant; they stopped flying. Brave and respectable decision. They are trying to recover the aircraft to an acceptable standard to start flying again and this effort needs full support now. If you want to continue your vendetta against overall MOD airworthiness policy don't try and drag the VGS recovery into it unless you've anything constructive to offer.
The casual acceptance in the first sentence is what was wrong all along. To use the vitriol of the last sentence against anyone advocating safety of minors is
. Chug has for many years offered constructive suggestions involving heeding and implementing sensible, mandated regulations. If you or MoD/MAA don't agree that's hardly his fault. And it doesn't mean the regulations they're spending millions on replacing are wrong. In fact, what Engines suggests is, under those regulations, called a minor PDS Task.
But no longer, as the mandated Standard has been cancelled, without replacement, and MoD do not have a copy of either volume. I know Engines of old (operative word) and his suggested approach is absolutely right. The only thing I'd add is that, under the regulations, the Design Authority would have the necessary contractual authority to self task and approve expenditure (within limits) to kick off a safety related task. The onus is then on MoD to use this time to formalise the task and approve further expenditure. This process was finally abandoned in January 1993 when the RAF Chief Engineer ordered "no more safety tasks". That some aircraft remained reasonably airworthy was simply down to some of us ignoring the dolt. But the likes of Chinook and Nimrod? - they slavishly followed the order. A&C's reassurance is pleasing, but those of us who've done this many times know it has taken far too long. The process is now outlandishly prolonged and bogged down by the failure to recognise there even is a mandated solution, never mind having sufficient trained staffs to implement it.
No reply from John Purdey? When you remind yourself of the correspondence Chug mentioned, please say if, in hindsight, you think the policy unwise. I can't recall if, in 1987, AMSO himself (an ACM) would be required to approve a major amendment to AP830 which involved deliberate destruction of hundreds of millions worth of brand new spares, then immediately committing 10 years budget replacing them. But surely someone told him "Boss......this is insane". It's also fraud.