Nimrod Information
05-130 & Maos
I think the main problem with this initiative is a common one across MoD. The current system is perceived not to work, but nobody stops to ask why a system which worked perfectly well for donkeys years no longer does.
In this case, it’s the same old story. Political dogma demands “efficiencies”. The simple method is cutting funding on the basis that we’ve cut the number of aircraft by x%, so support can be cut by x%. But many of the important things in 05-130 (and the perfectly good Def Stans which already exist) ARE NOT VOLUME RELATED. They cost the same whether you have one a/c or one thousand.
The perfect example is in paragraph 1. The MoD has a “requirement for the establishment and maintenance of airworthiness”. Correct. But a requirement doesn’t become policy unless funded – which is THE basic rule of financial and requirement scrutiny, and it’s completely lost on most in the MoD. This is why the MoD’s “We have a robust regulatory framework” claim is hollow. Yes, good framework, but it merely articulates a requirement. No foundations and no funding, and it falls around you. This is why so many initiatives or programmes progress, apparently successfully, for years, only to flounder at the last minute because the scrutineer says “Yes, good idea, but there’s no money so forget it”. In this case, some very well intentioned people are working on this thinking; it’s a requirement so let’s crack on. But has the sponsor confirmed his funding source?
In this case, it’s the same old story. Political dogma demands “efficiencies”. The simple method is cutting funding on the basis that we’ve cut the number of aircraft by x%, so support can be cut by x%. But many of the important things in 05-130 (and the perfectly good Def Stans which already exist) ARE NOT VOLUME RELATED. They cost the same whether you have one a/c or one thousand.
The perfect example is in paragraph 1. The MoD has a “requirement for the establishment and maintenance of airworthiness”. Correct. But a requirement doesn’t become policy unless funded – which is THE basic rule of financial and requirement scrutiny, and it’s completely lost on most in the MoD. This is why the MoD’s “We have a robust regulatory framework” claim is hollow. Yes, good framework, but it merely articulates a requirement. No foundations and no funding, and it falls around you. This is why so many initiatives or programmes progress, apparently successfully, for years, only to flounder at the last minute because the scrutineer says “Yes, good idea, but there’s no money so forget it”. In this case, some very well intentioned people are working on this thinking; it’s a requirement so let’s crack on. But has the sponsor confirmed his funding source?
As ever tuc you hit the nail on the head. The MOD airworthiness "framework" is neither robust nor regulatory. It is a sham, as false as a stage magician's act. As has been said, it is nothing more than a hollow shell, which makes it more dangerous than if it did not exist. It conjures up false hope, like an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. That is the antitheses of Airworthiness and to professional aviators anathema, surely. An external MAA would not be a panacea, civil aircraft accidents and incidents happen despite the CAA's best endeavours. But its business would be what it says on the tin. Divergence away from its standards and regulations would be flagged up, rather as an accountants audit would damn a dodgy company. The easy option of saving defence money 'squandered' otherwise on safe and reliable aircraft would become painful and public. The secrecy surrounding so much of what the MOD does and doesn't do does not protect our armed forces it protects the men in power, uniformed and suited. Time they were outed and shown for the con merchants that they are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Magnersdrinker
With your vast experience and knowledge, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly what has been 'jiggled' on this thread please? thank you.
TSM
SM
I am just commenting in general over the newspapers certain info thats been published that aint really true. If i was to trawl through this thread I could find many a snippet here and there thats been published by the press which has in my opinion been blown out of all proportion. As users of the aircraft it is just frustrating to not being able to defend our aircraft and speak openly about it. I should really say no more now,please dont take that the wrong way I have maybe outstepped my mark by making a few comments already.
apoligies
MD
With your vast experience and knowledge, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly what has been 'jiggled' on this thread please? thank you.
TSM
SM
I am just commenting in general over the newspapers certain info thats been published that aint really true. If i was to trawl through this thread I could find many a snippet here and there thats been published by the press which has in my opinion been blown out of all proportion. As users of the aircraft it is just frustrating to not being able to defend our aircraft and speak openly about it. I should really say no more now,please dont take that the wrong way I have maybe outstepped my mark by making a few comments already.
apoligies
MD
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magners,
Thank you for your reply, but I have yet to see a single post on this thread that makes any reference to the aircrew or grooundcrew in a bad light, certainly not 'bitching few posts directed at a few guys that fly the jets' as you claim. On the contrary, there has been nothing but praise for both aircrew and groundcrew alike.
I appreciate your frankness about newspaper articles and their sensationalist reporting, however, the sad fact is that they appear to have a large degree of truth in them (although I'm sure it isn't 100% factual)
But that is certainly no reason for you not to defend 'your' aircraft. I applaud you and your colleagues for standing up for the old girl. The Nimrod has been an outstanding aircraft in many respects, and I can understand your anger at hearing people (including myself) who are now apparantly giving it a hard time. But we are not really.
You must understand that many of us have flown Nimrods (myself from the early 70's up 'till the late 80's) and the vast majority of us frankly never had any problems, let alone the problems the fleet are experiencing now.
I agree with you that the bottom line is money - end of story really. Continuing defence cuts have caused enormous problems and pressures for the groundcrew to maintain the aircraft, as far as spares etc are concerned, not to mention the manpower problems. To a lesser extent, the same goes for the aircrew.
My argument, and that of most subscribers to this thread, is that the current hierachal regime cannot continue with this policy unless they are prepared to accept the very real possibility of losing another aircraft. And that should not and MUST NOT be allowed to happen.
CAS, ACAS, AOC and Stn Cdr ISK all have a responsibility and duty of care to Nimrod crews. It is high time they exercised that by grounding the fleet, in total, until the AAR and Fuel leak problems are fixed once and for all, and the aircraft is made as safe as possible once again.
Regards
The Winco
Thank you for your reply, but I have yet to see a single post on this thread that makes any reference to the aircrew or grooundcrew in a bad light, certainly not 'bitching few posts directed at a few guys that fly the jets' as you claim. On the contrary, there has been nothing but praise for both aircrew and groundcrew alike.
I appreciate your frankness about newspaper articles and their sensationalist reporting, however, the sad fact is that they appear to have a large degree of truth in them (although I'm sure it isn't 100% factual)
But that is certainly no reason for you not to defend 'your' aircraft. I applaud you and your colleagues for standing up for the old girl. The Nimrod has been an outstanding aircraft in many respects, and I can understand your anger at hearing people (including myself) who are now apparantly giving it a hard time. But we are not really.
You must understand that many of us have flown Nimrods (myself from the early 70's up 'till the late 80's) and the vast majority of us frankly never had any problems, let alone the problems the fleet are experiencing now.
I agree with you that the bottom line is money - end of story really. Continuing defence cuts have caused enormous problems and pressures for the groundcrew to maintain the aircraft, as far as spares etc are concerned, not to mention the manpower problems. To a lesser extent, the same goes for the aircrew.
My argument, and that of most subscribers to this thread, is that the current hierachal regime cannot continue with this policy unless they are prepared to accept the very real possibility of losing another aircraft. And that should not and MUST NOT be allowed to happen.
CAS, ACAS, AOC and Stn Cdr ISK all have a responsibility and duty of care to Nimrod crews. It is high time they exercised that by grounding the fleet, in total, until the AAR and Fuel leak problems are fixed once and for all, and the aircraft is made as safe as possible once again.
Regards
The Winco
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have refrained from writing on here recently however I must comment on this ."I know something you don't know or I know because I was there" conversation.
Do you not think I spoke to guys in 120 sqd when they arrived back in Nov 2006, some came to Ben's funeral. I am sure all the other families have spoken to people who were out there at the time as well.
We were all told by the RAF at the time what they knew happened, as to why it happened we wait and wait for the BOI. However if you have fuel leaks on an ac and a fire breaks out, then those fuel leaks add to the original problem.
The question is could it have been prevented ?
Do you not think I spoke to guys in 120 sqd when they arrived back in Nov 2006, some came to Ben's funeral. I am sure all the other families have spoken to people who were out there at the time as well.
We were all told by the RAF at the time what they knew happened, as to why it happened we wait and wait for the BOI. However if you have fuel leaks on an ac and a fire breaks out, then those fuel leaks add to the original problem.
The question is could it have been prevented ?
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 19th Nov 2007 at 12:47.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Winco
Thanks for the reply and I dont want to extend this thread further on my reasons for my words. It is very wrong of me to start being just as bitchy back in a few of my replies. I apoligise.
Ill back of this thread for a bit as im getting involved where I should not really be and is silly of me to make comments, I should learn to lay off the beer and stop going on the PC late at night !!!
So much has been said as of recent which kind of gets you annoyed, so many doubters of the Nimrod but I for one am the opposite, ill stand in her corner for this one. There is so much we could all tell and defend the case but as a blue suiter it would be wrong of me to do so.That is a very frustrating position to be in too.hopefully the BOI will release soon and all answers will be sought.
Regards
MD
Thanks for the reply and I dont want to extend this thread further on my reasons for my words. It is very wrong of me to start being just as bitchy back in a few of my replies. I apoligise.
Ill back of this thread for a bit as im getting involved where I should not really be and is silly of me to make comments, I should learn to lay off the beer and stop going on the PC late at night !!!
So much has been said as of recent which kind of gets you annoyed, so many doubters of the Nimrod but I for one am the opposite, ill stand in her corner for this one. There is so much we could all tell and defend the case but as a blue suiter it would be wrong of me to do so.That is a very frustrating position to be in too.hopefully the BOI will release soon and all answers will be sought.
Regards
MD
... if something isn't "liked" for operational reasons, justification (however sketchy one may feel) can be made for doing what is "operationally necessary". What would having an an MAA add in this sense? If ACAS wants to sign off an RTS that says "Go do x, regardless of the risk, because the consequences of not doing are ...", I can't see an MAA getting in his way
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fit for Purpose
Chug,
I totally support your last post. Sure the military of whatever service can expect to get into harms way, but there is all the difference in the world between being killed in action fully trained, competently led and with all the right kit, and being killed because somebody does not buy body armour or ESF or keep your aircraft airworthy because they are trying to save money. As TD said on TV the other day, if his son had been killed by a Taliban missile he would still be grieving but he would accept that this was a price his son was also prepared to pay in his chosen career. To be killed when your aircraft has not been kept fully fit for purpose because your "masters" have decided not to fit the right equipment or maintain an airworthy aircraft is quite different. When it is money and not technology that is lacking there is even less of an excuse.
I do not see anything remotely operational about losing an aircraft and crew because of self-imposed airworthiness or equipment deficiencies - and the RAF has not adopted the Kamikaze role yet! Even though it is the RAF's fault that they have got themselves into this hole I am not saying ground the Nimrod fleet as some people are - I am saying start spending the money needed to implement the recommendations that have already been made and do it fast, and change procedures as needed (which at least seems to have saved the aircraft in the last incident) - thanks to the pressure from the media, and even PPRuNe, this seems to have worked for ESF on the C130. It would appear, if the NAO report is correct that the RAF will be operating MR2s until at least 2012 (R Mk1 until ?), and I wouldn't put money against them being around a lot longer (especialy if the same equipment deficiencies on the MRA4 need fixing) so please don't say the expense is not justified.
JB
I totally support your last post. Sure the military of whatever service can expect to get into harms way, but there is all the difference in the world between being killed in action fully trained, competently led and with all the right kit, and being killed because somebody does not buy body armour or ESF or keep your aircraft airworthy because they are trying to save money. As TD said on TV the other day, if his son had been killed by a Taliban missile he would still be grieving but he would accept that this was a price his son was also prepared to pay in his chosen career. To be killed when your aircraft has not been kept fully fit for purpose because your "masters" have decided not to fit the right equipment or maintain an airworthy aircraft is quite different. When it is money and not technology that is lacking there is even less of an excuse.
I do not see anything remotely operational about losing an aircraft and crew because of self-imposed airworthiness or equipment deficiencies - and the RAF has not adopted the Kamikaze role yet! Even though it is the RAF's fault that they have got themselves into this hole I am not saying ground the Nimrod fleet as some people are - I am saying start spending the money needed to implement the recommendations that have already been made and do it fast, and change procedures as needed (which at least seems to have saved the aircraft in the last incident) - thanks to the pressure from the media, and even PPRuNe, this seems to have worked for ESF on the C130. It would appear, if the NAO report is correct that the RAF will be operating MR2s until at least 2012 (R Mk1 until ?), and I wouldn't put money against them being around a lot longer (especialy if the same equipment deficiencies on the MRA4 need fixing) so please don't say the expense is not justified.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 19th Nov 2007 at 15:15.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magnersdrinker. This was addressed to you a few responses earlier:-
Magnersdrinker
With your vast experience and knowledge, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly what has been 'jiggled' on this thread please? thank you.
TSM
Strangely enough on 31st Oct TSM himself wrote with great authority about a particular BOI findings:-
one of the points that came out of that BoI was a weight restriction to be placed on the back end crew as a result of a seat detaching from the floor on impact.
The cost to the RAF of implementing that was £00.00 NOT a single penny! It was a case of simply stopping those aircrew (and there were quite a few I admit) that were over a certain weight from flying in the aircraft.
All I can say is Wrong - Wrong - Wrong. No such reccomendation was made by the BOI.
It may only be a small point but it was an attempt to say that the RAF/MoD did not carry out the findings of that BOI which was factually incorrect. But it goes to show that there are indeed incorrect posts on this site and maybe all the journos gathering data at this moment ought to be careful where they select their "Facts".
Magnersdrinker
With your vast experience and knowledge, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly what has been 'jiggled' on this thread please? thank you.
TSM
Strangely enough on 31st Oct TSM himself wrote with great authority about a particular BOI findings:-
one of the points that came out of that BoI was a weight restriction to be placed on the back end crew as a result of a seat detaching from the floor on impact.
The cost to the RAF of implementing that was £00.00 NOT a single penny! It was a case of simply stopping those aircrew (and there were quite a few I admit) that were over a certain weight from flying in the aircraft.
All I can say is Wrong - Wrong - Wrong. No such reccomendation was made by the BOI.
It may only be a small point but it was an attempt to say that the RAF/MoD did not carry out the findings of that BOI which was factually incorrect. But it goes to show that there are indeed incorrect posts on this site and maybe all the journos gathering data at this moment ought to be careful where they select their "Facts".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the RAF and MoD has got itself into a hole over Nimrod. There are clear airworthiness issues of concern over MR2. There are concerns that MRA4 does not have combat survivability at its core design. Adding on survivability and protective devices to MRA4 now will delay ISD and prolong aircrew exposure to MR2 an aircraft with seemingly insoluble leaks. Ground MR2 and the troops on the ground are blind.
Oh dear, how did we ever get to this situation?
It is not acceptable, in my view at least, to continue to fly MR2 until 2012 without additional protection. There is an awful lot riding on the BoI report.
Oh dear, how did we ever get to this situation?
It is not acceptable, in my view at least, to continue to fly MR2 until 2012 without additional protection. There is an awful lot riding on the BoI report.
Def Stan 05-130 & Airworthiness
Section 12 of this Def Stan sets out very comprehensively the experience, knowledge and professional qualifications required of personnel employed under this Maintenance Approved Organisation Scheme. Quite rightly so, and any engineer reading this, from apprentice upwards, will understand this. After all, Kinloss, you don’t just grab the nearest administrator when you want an aircraft signed off, do you?
It may or may not come as a surprise to you that similar requirements are not enforced in, for example, DE&S (or PE, AMSO, AML, DLO, DPA before it) when implementing their airworthiness and type approval obligations. There are some highly respected aviators here who know me very well from one particular major aircraft project, and know I spent the best part of 5 years keeping a beady eye on my non-technical boss who was in the habit of granting technical approval, signing off designs, changes, modifications etc off his own back. Unfortunately, one of the designs he sought to implement, but I managed to over-rule at the last minute, was implemented after I left (by whom, I do not know). The BoI condemned the system as unfit for purpose.
I won’t name names obviously; I do believe he thought he was acting for the best. Suffice to say, what I describe is not unusual and I’ve seen it in other IPTs/MDGs. My point is; the “robust regulatory framework” didn’t work. Grossly inexperienced and unsuitable staffs are in unprecedented positions of authority, and woe betide anyone who challenges them. I feel able to relate the tale, as the DG/XD (same one as Nimrod & Chinook) and CDP were content, confirmed under FoI.
I cannot see the situation improving, largely because MoD are actively getting rid of the very engineers they need, so I whole heartedly agree with Chug’s call for a move to an independent airworthiness authority for military aircraft.
It may or may not come as a surprise to you that similar requirements are not enforced in, for example, DE&S (or PE, AMSO, AML, DLO, DPA before it) when implementing their airworthiness and type approval obligations. There are some highly respected aviators here who know me very well from one particular major aircraft project, and know I spent the best part of 5 years keeping a beady eye on my non-technical boss who was in the habit of granting technical approval, signing off designs, changes, modifications etc off his own back. Unfortunately, one of the designs he sought to implement, but I managed to over-rule at the last minute, was implemented after I left (by whom, I do not know). The BoI condemned the system as unfit for purpose.
I won’t name names obviously; I do believe he thought he was acting for the best. Suffice to say, what I describe is not unusual and I’ve seen it in other IPTs/MDGs. My point is; the “robust regulatory framework” didn’t work. Grossly inexperienced and unsuitable staffs are in unprecedented positions of authority, and woe betide anyone who challenges them. I feel able to relate the tale, as the DG/XD (same one as Nimrod & Chinook) and CDP were content, confirmed under FoI.
I cannot see the situation improving, largely because MoD are actively getting rid of the very engineers they need, so I whole heartedly agree with Chug’s call for a move to an independent airworthiness authority for military aircraft.
tuc, thank you for your endorsement, for what seems blindingly obvious to me may not seem so to others. That someone who has intimate knowledge of the system, knows how it should work and how in effect it does not, sees no alternative other than a complete redesign with airworthiness authority vested outside of the MOD should act as a wake up call to those minded to sit on the fence on this one. This is not about the pros and cons of interfering in the MOD's fiefdom, this is about lives and saving them from needless avoidable accidents. The old system is now, to all intents and purposes, broken irredeemably, like so many of the institutions that have served this country well. May it Rest in Peace, but it must be replaced without delay or yet more chickens will be coming home to roost. Oh, and bad news Gordy, this is going to cost all the money that you denied so far. That is why we are in the mess that we are in. Thank goodness at least that you and your government are full square behind our Armed Forces.....well behind!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news and bad news for the thread tonight.
The good news will have to wait a little while longer til it is firmed up, but it directly concerns demands made on this thread for more safety protection.
Bad news, in answer to my question about the pipework in the bomb bay, it has been confirmed that it is in fact single skin throughout.
Keep pressing everyone, without saying too much, progress is being made in the background.
The good news will have to wait a little while longer til it is firmed up, but it directly concerns demands made on this thread for more safety protection.
Bad news, in answer to my question about the pipework in the bomb bay, it has been confirmed that it is in fact single skin throughout.
Keep pressing everyone, without saying too much, progress is being made in the background.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod R Mk 1
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/products/helix.html
S_H
Project Helix will upgrade the Royal Air Force (RAF) fleet of Nimrod R Mk1 aircraft. This intelligence upgrade to the British Nimrod platform focuses on maintaining the capability of the Nimrod R out to 2025 and includes upgrades to the aircraft mission systems, associated ground stations and training facilities.
S_H
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safeware
Better regulation within the framework that already exists would be a start, but self regulation is in my opinion, no longer an option. The MoD has demonstrably failed in this area. Do you think the organisation is capable of improving matters if left to its own devices, because I, and many others, think not. The remorseless drive to reduce costs, leads to major conflicts of interest within Integrated Project Teams and their respective Release To Service Authorities. That relationship for example is far too cosy.
Time and time in dealings with IPTs it was obvious that the objective was always to avoid spending money if at all possible, and not to maintain or improve safety.
There was a point last year when it was announced that there was no more money to maintain Flight Reference Cards, how on earth can this be allowed to happen ?
Personally, I would like to see the CAA SRG or HSE invited in to conduct a review of safety and airworthiness management. The practice and malpractice that has been allowed to develop within MoD is shocking.
One new IPT leader at Wyton started a Safety Working Group meeting by announcing that technical/engineering language would not be tolerated. This IPT leader you see, was not an engineer.
S_H
Better regulation within the framework that already exists would be a start, but self regulation is in my opinion, no longer an option. The MoD has demonstrably failed in this area. Do you think the organisation is capable of improving matters if left to its own devices, because I, and many others, think not. The remorseless drive to reduce costs, leads to major conflicts of interest within Integrated Project Teams and their respective Release To Service Authorities. That relationship for example is far too cosy.
Time and time in dealings with IPTs it was obvious that the objective was always to avoid spending money if at all possible, and not to maintain or improve safety.
There was a point last year when it was announced that there was no more money to maintain Flight Reference Cards, how on earth can this be allowed to happen ?
Personally, I would like to see the CAA SRG or HSE invited in to conduct a review of safety and airworthiness management. The practice and malpractice that has been allowed to develop within MoD is shocking.
One new IPT leader at Wyton started a Safety Working Group meeting by announcing that technical/engineering language would not be tolerated. This IPT leader you see, was not an engineer.
S_H
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S_H,
No, but then I would expect that you would have expected that as an an answer from me. As for
Seen that, with lots of politics thrown in for good measure.
I don't disagree at all with what Chug, tuc and yourself have said about MAA here, I just think that, given today's mindset, that the "it's my trainset" philosophy can't cope with the concept of an independent MAA, lest it get in the way. Not trying to defend it, or reduce the commander's consideration of risk, just trying to play devils advocate in a sense, and show an aspect of potential 'conflict'.
sw
Do you think the organisation is capable of improving matters if left to its own devices, because I, and many others, think not.
The remorseless drive to reduce costs, leads to major conflicts of interest within Integrated Project Teams and their respective Release To Service Authorities. That relationship for example is far too cosy.
I don't disagree at all with what Chug, tuc and yourself have said about MAA here, I just think that, given today's mindset, that the "it's my trainset" philosophy can't cope with the concept of an independent MAA, lest it get in the way. Not trying to defend it, or reduce the commander's consideration of risk, just trying to play devils advocate in a sense, and show an aspect of potential 'conflict'.
sw
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You speak with wisdom SW. But it should no longer be an MoD decision. The MoD has demonstrated that it is not capable of making the right decision. It's actions, and particularly its inactions endanger not just military personnel and equipment, but many other airspace users. The refusal to fit TCAS to ALL of it's aircraft is a prime example of this.
S_H
S_H
Winco, unfortunately the yoof-speak argot adopted by some youngsters does somewhat tend to confuse those who were brought up to speak the Queen's English.
Hence 'bitching few posts directed at a few guys that fly the jets' might well have been intended to mean the opposite to the meaning you assumed....
Research reveals that "bitchin'", as used by slouching, hooded street yoof, is synonymous with "cool" - or "kewel" in their argot. Innit. Like whatever.
Back to the main points, independent audit of airworthiness is an excellent idea. When, some years ago in a private e-mail, I made a similar point about training standards, the Stasi hauled me over the coals. My point was that in the civil world an external regulator maintains fixed standards, whereas in the military world standards can be (not necessarily are) reduced on financial grounds since there is no external regulation.
This is a statement of fact, not a criticism. It applies equally to all areas which, in the civil world, are regulated by the CAA.
What sound reason is there for the military not abiding by similar regulation? Operational imperatives are fine - if routine standards are not bypassed.
Hence 'bitching few posts directed at a few guys that fly the jets' might well have been intended to mean the opposite to the meaning you assumed....
Research reveals that "bitchin'", as used by slouching, hooded street yoof, is synonymous with "cool" - or "kewel" in their argot. Innit. Like whatever.
Back to the main points, independent audit of airworthiness is an excellent idea. When, some years ago in a private e-mail, I made a similar point about training standards, the Stasi hauled me over the coals. My point was that in the civil world an external regulator maintains fixed standards, whereas in the military world standards can be (not necessarily are) reduced on financial grounds since there is no external regulation.
This is a statement of fact, not a criticism. It applies equally to all areas which, in the civil world, are regulated by the CAA.
What sound reason is there for the military not abiding by similar regulation? Operational imperatives are fine - if routine standards are not bypassed.
