£260m Chinooks are grounded turkeys, say MPs
Skylark 4 - you can fly down to one molecule in the civil world if you want to, so long as that isn't within 500' of people, vehicles, vessels and structures, of course. Your 500' blanket rule in Das Teutor is something the RAF decided, not the CAA! We often went down to 100' msd practising forced landings in the Bulldog - surely aren't saying that you can't even do that in the Grob?
No doubt these limitations were known about when Oi/c HMFC decided that it couldn't even afford to buy a few tupperware trainers, let alone pay the going rate for Chinooks....
No doubt these limitations were known about when Oi/c HMFC decided that it couldn't even afford to buy a few tupperware trainers, let alone pay the going rate for Chinooks....
Gentleman Aviator
MReyn24050
Or you just read this morning's Torygraph and saw the Matt cartoon on the front page.......
[see it here and click on the Matt link]
Or you just read this morning's Torygraph and saw the Matt cartoon on the front page.......
[see it here and click on the Matt link]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No good blaming the politicians for this one. Apparently it was the fault of some old buffer probably living high on the hog in the south of France by now (and, I imagine, some of our own military types are responsible too):
Ministers kept in dark over £259m Chinooks
Ministers kept in dark over £259m Chinooks
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Yet another pathetically incompetent moment in MOD's procurement history.
I helped pay for these and I want my money back. Does the Sale of Goods Act apply to helicopters?
I suppose they could always go on Ebay....
As for "Britain's Defence Flying Standards"? Another new journo-phrase for me to learn.
I helped pay for these and I want my money back. Does the Sale of Goods Act apply to helicopters?
I suppose they could always go on Ebay....
As for "Britain's Defence Flying Standards"? Another new journo-phrase for me to learn.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South - ish
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90:
"Is there a real problem?"
- Surely one of the main issues with software is that it is almost impossible to know whether there is a problem until the instant all the input conditions combine to cause a software failure.
There are a couple of ways round this:-
a) write the code as safety critical software (which cannot be done retrosepectively)
b) conduct a full static code analysis of the software (which may or may not be possible due to the way it was originally written, implemented and documented)
The first wasn't done. It may not be possible to do the second.
Since an individual is now both responsible for, and liable for, the content of the release to service I can understand a reluctance to append one's name to something that may, or may not, be safe.
I think we have made that mistake before with tragic consequences and any pressure to release an aircraft to service before its safety case has been satisfied is BAD. Remember, it is pink little bodies that matter.
"Is there a real problem?"
- Surely one of the main issues with software is that it is almost impossible to know whether there is a problem until the instant all the input conditions combine to cause a software failure.
There are a couple of ways round this:-
a) write the code as safety critical software (which cannot be done retrosepectively)
b) conduct a full static code analysis of the software (which may or may not be possible due to the way it was originally written, implemented and documented)
The first wasn't done. It may not be possible to do the second.
Since an individual is now both responsible for, and liable for, the content of the release to service I can understand a reluctance to append one's name to something that may, or may not, be safe.
I think we have made that mistake before with tragic consequences and any pressure to release an aircraft to service before its safety case has been satisfied is BAD. Remember, it is pink little bodies that matter.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
250/500. I'm talking low level nav here. I know the 500' rule almost as well as you do, it was in the test for my PPL.
LLN could be done in the Bulldog at 250 ft, military aircraft,different rules. Probably called 'Operational Necessity' or similar
Mike W
250/500. I'm talking low level nav here. I know the 500' rule almost as well as you do, it was in the test for my PPL.
LLN could be done in the Bulldog at 250 ft, military aircraft,different rules. Probably called 'Operational Necessity' or similar
Mike W
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Skylark,
The Bulldog is also constrained by the 500 ft rule....
The Bulldog is also constrained by the 500 ft rule....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a debacle over the Nimrod and it is "clearly" the fault of the prime contractor - BAE.
We have a debacle over the HC3 and it is "clearly" the fault of procurement.
Do Boeing have no responsability in the HC3 affair? A responsable contractor should surely advise his client if a spec is deficient- oh, I forgot, Boeing and the USA can do nothing wrong.
Does the PE have no responsability in the Nimrod Nonsense?
Methinks this is not all black and white.
We have a debacle over the HC3 and it is "clearly" the fault of procurement.
Do Boeing have no responsability in the HC3 affair? A responsable contractor should surely advise his client if a spec is deficient- oh, I forgot, Boeing and the USA can do nothing wrong.
Does the PE have no responsability in the Nimrod Nonsense?
Methinks this is not all black and white.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Soon to be somewhere else...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For accuracy's sake, you will all wish to be aware that there are 2 types of IPT: those in the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and those in the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO). Those in the DPA acquire the equipment and initial support package and those in the DLO look after in-service support. The Chinook IPT at Yeovilton is not the organisation that bought this particular twin-rotored elephantus albus.
Yes, you should have ILS under the Def Stan, but this is what you get when there are no acquisition specialists within the DPA IPT. You need aircrew to give the operational perspective, engineers to cover the spanner-monkeying and civilians to count the beans, but why no acquisition specialists?
Just a thought.........
Yes, you should have ILS under the Def Stan, but this is what you get when there are no acquisition specialists within the DPA IPT. You need aircrew to give the operational perspective, engineers to cover the spanner-monkeying and civilians to count the beans, but why no acquisition specialists?
Just a thought.........
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South - ish
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key area where the ABS brakes arguement falls down is that if your ABS doesn't work you can still stop the car - using the mechanical/hydraulic linkages that the ABS acts upon. In a software only environment you may have no mechanical fall-back option.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ,
the previous mistakes Rotary Bloke presumably refers to surround the accident involving Chinook HC2 ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre 2 June 1994.
Check out the sticky thread at the top of the Mil forum for more.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
the previous mistakes Rotary Bloke presumably refers to surround the accident involving Chinook HC2 ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre 2 June 1994.
Check out the sticky thread at the top of the Mil forum for more.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of poor procurement, an article from todays Sunday Times:
" The chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, last week described the £260 million purchase of 8 Chinook helicopters that cannot operate effectively " as one of the most incompetent procurements of all time". He had better be able to stand that allegation up: The MoD has an entire department dedicated to protecting its heroic traditions of ineptititude. By such lofty standards, the chinook affair might well be able to all that was expected of them only in 2007( 12 yrs after they were ordered), and after another £127 million has been spent on them.
After all, these Chinooks can fly, if, that is, you have asked them nicely, the weather's good, theres a following wind, and you have kept them warm. But the Nimrod AEW project cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, absorbing thermonuclear amounts of intellectual energy from some of the finest avionic minds in Britain for more than a decade, and in the end produced absolutely nothing.
Billions were squandered on Great British Weapons Projects that came to Nothing such as Blue Water, Blue Steel and Blue Streak missiles. Even those projects that were 'successful' were sinfully wasteful and going back decades. After the Second World War, America built just one medium-range strategic bomber the B47. The British produced 3, the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan, without a single part- not even the cockpit clocks, never mind the engines- in common. Three different flight crews, three different armies of mechanics, three different kinds of logistical nightmare.
And the V-bombers, mind, counted as a success, and so didn't make it into the MoD/Dept of Blunders/Pride of Place, where each day civil servants lovingly polish models of the numerous a/c that cost the taxpayer a Niagara of gold and got nowhere before cancellation, such as the TSR-2, the P1154 the HS-1167 and Fairey Rotodyne.
The MoD/DoB/PoP did not confine its energies to the RAF ( TALKS THEN ABOUT SA80 and TRIGAT)
Even Multi-nation projects that "worked" have resulted in compromises that really suited no-one- such as the Jaguar or the Tornado.
THe Eurofighter, the Typhoon, which was intended to defend western Europe against the Soviet Hordes, is the latest example of MoD Eurolunacy. No one knows what to do with it, but equally, no one has the the nerve to cancel it after some £20 billion has been spent. An ocean of tears awaits this project, and the MoD/DoB/PoP is proudly readying a plinth for it, once- that is- it has cost a sea of gold.
Why does this kind of thing happen? Well in the case of the Chinook, a single Grade 3 civil servant unilaterally took a decision to save money by not digitalising the cockpit entirely. Thus the a/c cannot fly in cloud, and the Mull of Kintyre disaster showed what happens to Chinooks that try to. But cloud should be the ideal environment for what this brand of Chinook was intended to do- the deep insertion of the SAS. To have an SF helicopter that can't fly in cloud is like having a watch that only tells the time when you are not looking at it.
The MoD provides a world without consequence in which someone can make lunatic decisions with no adverse effect on his career. The Chinook man, who should now be hanging by his thumbs in the Tower of London, is instead happily retired. His successor is probably preparing a specification for a nuclear submarine that can troop the colour, extract Boy Scouts from horses hooves and engage in jungle warfare, but won't actually be able to go to sea.
Yet because defence projects take so long to execute, by the time they have proved to be lamentable failures, their political and civil service begetters will have moved on to untouchable heights. Indeed, merely to have initiated a major defence programme, no matter how worthless and ruinously expensive, is probably the basis for a knighthood. But a fully deserved one? Yes minister."
Hmmmmm, where to from here?
" The chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, last week described the £260 million purchase of 8 Chinook helicopters that cannot operate effectively " as one of the most incompetent procurements of all time". He had better be able to stand that allegation up: The MoD has an entire department dedicated to protecting its heroic traditions of ineptititude. By such lofty standards, the chinook affair might well be able to all that was expected of them only in 2007( 12 yrs after they were ordered), and after another £127 million has been spent on them.
After all, these Chinooks can fly, if, that is, you have asked them nicely, the weather's good, theres a following wind, and you have kept them warm. But the Nimrod AEW project cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, absorbing thermonuclear amounts of intellectual energy from some of the finest avionic minds in Britain for more than a decade, and in the end produced absolutely nothing.
Billions were squandered on Great British Weapons Projects that came to Nothing such as Blue Water, Blue Steel and Blue Streak missiles. Even those projects that were 'successful' were sinfully wasteful and going back decades. After the Second World War, America built just one medium-range strategic bomber the B47. The British produced 3, the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan, without a single part- not even the cockpit clocks, never mind the engines- in common. Three different flight crews, three different armies of mechanics, three different kinds of logistical nightmare.
And the V-bombers, mind, counted as a success, and so didn't make it into the MoD/Dept of Blunders/Pride of Place, where each day civil servants lovingly polish models of the numerous a/c that cost the taxpayer a Niagara of gold and got nowhere before cancellation, such as the TSR-2, the P1154 the HS-1167 and Fairey Rotodyne.
The MoD/DoB/PoP did not confine its energies to the RAF ( TALKS THEN ABOUT SA80 and TRIGAT)
Even Multi-nation projects that "worked" have resulted in compromises that really suited no-one- such as the Jaguar or the Tornado.
THe Eurofighter, the Typhoon, which was intended to defend western Europe against the Soviet Hordes, is the latest example of MoD Eurolunacy. No one knows what to do with it, but equally, no one has the the nerve to cancel it after some £20 billion has been spent. An ocean of tears awaits this project, and the MoD/DoB/PoP is proudly readying a plinth for it, once- that is- it has cost a sea of gold.
Why does this kind of thing happen? Well in the case of the Chinook, a single Grade 3 civil servant unilaterally took a decision to save money by not digitalising the cockpit entirely. Thus the a/c cannot fly in cloud, and the Mull of Kintyre disaster showed what happens to Chinooks that try to. But cloud should be the ideal environment for what this brand of Chinook was intended to do- the deep insertion of the SAS. To have an SF helicopter that can't fly in cloud is like having a watch that only tells the time when you are not looking at it.
The MoD provides a world without consequence in which someone can make lunatic decisions with no adverse effect on his career. The Chinook man, who should now be hanging by his thumbs in the Tower of London, is instead happily retired. His successor is probably preparing a specification for a nuclear submarine that can troop the colour, extract Boy Scouts from horses hooves and engage in jungle warfare, but won't actually be able to go to sea.
Yet because defence projects take so long to execute, by the time they have proved to be lamentable failures, their political and civil service begetters will have moved on to untouchable heights. Indeed, merely to have initiated a major defence programme, no matter how worthless and ruinously expensive, is probably the basis for a knighthood. But a fully deserved one? Yes minister."
Hmmmmm, where to from here?
The article is in the Torygraph rather than the Times.
For those who have access to the site, it's in the comment section, and by Kevin Myers.
The give-away bit is the Torygraph logic that as the Typhoon has 'Euro' in the name, it must be complete and utter rubbish (I'm sure that the Jaguar and the Tornado would have been great successes had we collaborated with the Americans...).
Bits of it are fair enough, but some of it strikes me as utter rubbish - like most of Myers' articles, I regret to say. It might help if he actually bothered to do some research beyond looking at Noddy's Guide to Weapons...
For those who have access to the site, it's in the comment section, and by Kevin Myers.
The give-away bit is the Torygraph logic that as the Typhoon has 'Euro' in the name, it must be complete and utter rubbish (I'm sure that the Jaguar and the Tornado would have been great successes had we collaborated with the Americans...).
Bits of it are fair enough, but some of it strikes me as utter rubbish - like most of Myers' articles, I regret to say. It might help if he actually bothered to do some research beyond looking at Noddy's Guide to Weapons...
Last edited by Archimedes; 11th Apr 2004 at 20:49.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dansaff
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's time for a rant and I don't care whether or not this comes across as Crab bashing but reading the majority of posts here( WSOPWannabe1 the exception) I get the impression of a pipe and slippers intellectual discussion on what could have been!
Wake up fellas, the MOD has a history of procurement foul ups ranging from damp squib 9mm ammunition to this HC3 b******s.
When is the system going to wake up to the fact that two year Officer transients in the MOD are not qualified to enagage in mega bucks equipment procurement. It happens too often that those responsible either can't be bothered or couldn't care less about getting it right and taking advice from those who are to use the equipment is a bore and should be discouraged. The attitude of 'I'll leave that for the next guy' is probably rife in the bowls of the MOD and is a disgrace.
I listened with dismay to R4 the other morning as a Government spokesman blamed the Tories and said he wasn't interested in chasing those accountable for the procurement from the MOD as they 'would have moved on'
Well why not establish blame, is the MOD a special case? It's a big deal isn't it? As long as it's accepted that Government will allow this to continue then it will.
I
Wake up fellas, the MOD has a history of procurement foul ups ranging from damp squib 9mm ammunition to this HC3 b******s.
When is the system going to wake up to the fact that two year Officer transients in the MOD are not qualified to enagage in mega bucks equipment procurement. It happens too often that those responsible either can't be bothered or couldn't care less about getting it right and taking advice from those who are to use the equipment is a bore and should be discouraged. The attitude of 'I'll leave that for the next guy' is probably rife in the bowls of the MOD and is a disgrace.
I listened with dismay to R4 the other morning as a Government spokesman blamed the Tories and said he wasn't interested in chasing those accountable for the procurement from the MOD as they 'would have moved on'
Well why not establish blame, is the MOD a special case? It's a big deal isn't it? As long as it's accepted that Government will allow this to continue then it will.
I
