Flugplatz
I agree with you about the need for the RAF to have a more robust oversight of the contractors product delivery, In the case of the gliding contract the RAF unit responsible was woefully understaffed and stretched to breaking point with front line work, this is an example of short term cost cutting that costs more in the long run.
The lack of knowlage of glider technology and industry cuts both ways, while the RAF might get shortchanged by some contractors other contractors yet have gliding industry best practice questioned and hindered by those who have yet to grasp that the technology is totally different from a pressurised metal airframe.
The very close investigation of the gliders has also uncovered holes in the technical data that had not been questioned since the aircraft was built, twenty years back these small items would have been ignored or fixed by using common sence and industry coustom and practice, these days the lawyers will take to task anyone who fails to comply with the official technical data.
EASA 145 approval is overseen by EASA who audit the company on a regular basis, normally this is by a formal annual inspection ( in the UK by the CAA) however due to the nature of the business CAA surveyors will visit these company's on other business ( inspections of individual aircraft, MOR investigation, approval upgrade or change etc) and these visits often paint a picture for the formal annual inspection.
Last edited by A and C; 29th Nov 2015 at 11:57.