Nimrod MRA.4
Are you insinuating that it is only MPA that had airworthiness 'bypassed', and that all other fleets are squeaky clean?
To recover from this mess requires an independent airworthiness authority and an independent air accident investigator. UK Military Aviation presently has neither, and that must be the first step on this thousand mile march to regain military airworthiness. That won't happen unless the RAF bites the bullet, faces up to what has happened, and names those VSOs who perpetrated and covered up this scandal.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The result is that not one aircraft or system in the military inventory can be called "airworthy" today."
But they clearly ARE airworthy - they fly around all the time and rarely (compared to say the 50's) crash
what you mean is it may not have had dozens of people in Whitehall accumulating paper and studies over years and years
Don't you think it's odd how every time the RAF is required to perform at short notice (Falklands, Iraq etc) all this bumf is deemed unnecessary and everything still seems to work fine?
Just asking...........................
But they clearly ARE airworthy - they fly around all the time and rarely (compared to say the 50's) crash
what you mean is it may not have had dozens of people in Whitehall accumulating paper and studies over years and years
Don't you think it's odd how every time the RAF is required to perform at short notice (Falklands, Iraq etc) all this bumf is deemed unnecessary and everything still seems to work fine?
Just asking...........................
Heathrow Harry
That's the MoD argument. An aircraft is serviceable/airworthy (they don't differentiate) because it can take off and land. Too many have died because too few have challenged that notion.
Another argument they use is "95% is good enough". On Chinook, the other 5% was a fuel computer with "positively dangerous" software, a complete Nav System the crew were not permitted to rely upon in any way whatsoever, and a complete Comms system they were not permitted to use. Only they weren't told.
That's the MoD argument. An aircraft is serviceable/airworthy (they don't differentiate) because it can take off and land. Too many have died because too few have challenged that notion.
Another argument they use is "95% is good enough". On Chinook, the other 5% was a fuel computer with "positively dangerous" software, a complete Nav System the crew were not permitted to rely upon in any way whatsoever, and a complete Comms system they were not permitted to use. Only they weren't told.
Some of our aircraft are airworthy and I would stand in the dock with evidence to justify this.
Some of our aircraft are not airworthy and I hope I never have to stand in the dock with this evidence as clearly it cannot be justified.
This is my professional opinion, based on the facts.
Some of our aircraft are not airworthy and I hope I never have to stand in the dock with this evidence as clearly it cannot be justified.
This is my professional opinion, based on the facts.
Don't you think it's odd how every time the RAF is required to perform at short notice (Falklands, Iraq etc) all this bumf is deemed unnecessary and everything still seems to work fine?
Airworthiness and serviceability are indeed totally different conditions.
With respect Beags,
The same could be said of the aircrew who continued to fly the Blenheim in WW2, the people who "carried on" with the Manchester. With absolutely no respect whatsoever to politicians who pontificate on military affairs, the demise of Nimrod, the failure to continue our Maritime capability is down to political incompetence rather than equipment reliability.
Smudge
The same could be said of the aircrew who continued to fly the Blenheim in WW2, the people who "carried on" with the Manchester. With absolutely no respect whatsoever to politicians who pontificate on military affairs, the demise of Nimrod, the failure to continue our Maritime capability is down to political incompetence rather than equipment reliability.
Smudge
And I've still not seen a straight answer to this simple question:
should every MoD owned and operated aircraft be grounded until it can be proved airworthy?
Yes or No?
should every MoD owned and operated aircraft be grounded until it can be proved airworthy?
Yes or No?
should every MoD owned and operated aircraft be grounded until it can be proved airworthy?
There are degrees of "un"airworthiness and the decision, as always, is one of engineering judgement. (This concept is enshrined in regs). Personally, I'd trust that concept more if it were "independent engineering judgement", as we have seen what happens when MoD has the decision. Just to be clear, I'm talking about airworthiness, not serviceability. Very few in MoD have "done" both, which is self evident if you read some of the MAA's output.
At the root of the systemic failings was the decision to permit those who DID NOT have the necessary technical and airworthiness delegation to over-rule engineering judgement. Not only that, but this encouraged staffs in both AMSO/AML/DLO and MoD(PE)/DPA to self-delegate this authority. This is still permitted in MoD, although to be fair to the MAA I believe it is one of the failures they are doing something about. What headway they are making I don't know, because both Min(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service have recently condoned this. What is strange is that their letters were both constructed with the MAA's input. This amply demonstrates what we've known all along - the MAA is not independent; it signs up to whatever their MoD masters say.
I can offer literally hundreds of examples, but the one that sticks in my mind, because it was later revealed the Inspector of Flight Safety (RAF) had independently come to the same conclusion as the MoD(PE) engineers, on the same aircraft, was an Admin Assistant in AMSO being permitted, nay encouraged, to over-rule Engineering Authorities and MoD Technical Agencies (named staff with THE signature) and refuse Fault Investigations on Hercules. IFS called the system the single biggest airworthiness concern on the aircraft, but the facts were withheld from him, and the Chief Engineer stopped him from discussing the matter with PE's airworthiness specialists - and his report was withheld for 15 years anyway.
When the MAA was formed there was a series of audits undertaken. Some aircraft were better than others, in the sense they had fewer critical failures. Of course, it didn't help that some of the auditors were MoD staffs who had rolled over for 20 years and allowed admin to dictate engineering policy - which simply re-enforced my view on independence. Nor does it help that DE&S now has "senior engineer" posts, with at least one held by someone who is on record as being dead against the concept of functional safety. MoD has a long way to go.
So, yet again, you've described the problem. Now the answer to the fact you believe there are aircraft flying which are un-airworthy.....
Should they be grounded?
Should they be grounded?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 60
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm concerned, it's down to the incompetent leaders that run this country. We have lost a brilliant aircraft that from what I could see was rebuilt from the ground up and was going to be a success. We now have no system that watches our submarines in and out of port and is involved in catching Drug runners, as well as SAR. As for keeping Aircraft Airworthy, I'm ex RAF ground crew and there are none finer than the guys and girls who keep these aircraft and helicopters flying. We have often kept aircraft flying longer than was ever invisiged by the designers and builders.
ATG,
Yes, there are aircraft types that should be grounded. Not meeting the regulatory standard or achieving an ALARP status should be a 'stopping condition', as dictated by our own regulations.
If any of these types are essential to our output (ie protecting our own guys) then they may continue to operate under an OEC as long as there is a funded, achievable and timely rectification plan to achieve an ALARP position - but only if the risks remain tolerable and proportional.
It is all a bit of a muddle when grounding a fleet would expose a risk-to-life somewhere else; what is not acceptable is muddling through in the hope that nothing will go wrong whilst downplaying the true risk so that VSOs can hide behind 'plausible deniability'.
Yes, there are aircraft types that should be grounded. Not meeting the regulatory standard or achieving an ALARP status should be a 'stopping condition', as dictated by our own regulations.
If any of these types are essential to our output (ie protecting our own guys) then they may continue to operate under an OEC as long as there is a funded, achievable and timely rectification plan to achieve an ALARP position - but only if the risks remain tolerable and proportional.
It is all a bit of a muddle when grounding a fleet would expose a risk-to-life somewhere else; what is not acceptable is muddling through in the hope that nothing will go wrong whilst downplaying the true risk so that VSOs can hide behind 'plausible deniability'.
ATG:-
That can only be answered by the UK Military Airworthiness Authority. That immediately raises a problem. The UK Military Airworthiness Authority is the MOD (vested in its subsidiary, the MAA). In that role the MOD has suborned its own Regulations, sacked those who would not comply, and lied on oath about the airworthiness of its aircraft. Therefore what it says and what it does cannot be trusted. That is in addition to the lack of competence, the lack of safety cases, the loss of Regulatory continuity, that means that even if there were a sincerity and ability to provide for airworthiness, it cannot do it.
Obviously this is completely unacceptable and must change, ie the UK Military Airworthiness Authority must change. It must be made separate and independent of the MOD, as must the MAAIB. The MAA and the MAAIB must in turn be separate and independent of each other. Only then can they begin between them to answer your question.
should every MoD owned and operated aircraft be grounded until it can be proved airworthy?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
Obviously this is completely unacceptable and must change, ie the UK Military Airworthiness Authority must change. It must be made separate and independent of the MOD, as must the MAAIB. The MAA and the MAAIB must in turn be separate and independent of each other. Only then can they begin between them to answer your question.
Chug,
I wouldn't chuck the spears at the MAA just yet. First consider that the MAA is rather dependant on DE&S informing them (and the DH) of the problems with any particular fleet.
Do you think the PT's are minded to forward any particular damning document to the DH or MAA?
At the moment my view of the MAA is mainly positive. But has the DE&S that H-C rightly criticised been minded to change and to actual reveal the risks that have been buried for many years?
I have formed an educated and well-informed view on both the questions above.
I wouldn't chuck the spears at the MAA just yet. First consider that the MAA is rather dependant on DE&S informing them (and the DH) of the problems with any particular fleet.
Do you think the PT's are minded to forward any particular damning document to the DH or MAA?
At the moment my view of the MAA is mainly positive. But has the DE&S that H-C rightly criticised been minded to change and to actual reveal the risks that have been buried for many years?
I have formed an educated and well-informed view on both the questions above.
JTO, I take your point and once felt as confident as you in the provision of Military Airworthiness in general, and in the RAF Flight Safety system in particular. Now I know better, that the first has been destroyed from within and the second thus rendered impotent as a result. Even if all the "bad people" have left (doubtful), their legacy remains and even more importantly what they did others can do again, because the Authority is in the hands of the Operator (as is its Accident Investigation).
That is why I "chuck spears", because such a system can be, and has been, suborned. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
That is why I "chuck spears", because such a system can be, and has been, suborned. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 22nd Jun 2013 at 11:18.
First consider that the MAA is rather dependant on DE&S informing them (and the DH) of the problems with any particular fleet.
Do you think the PT's are minded to forward any particular damning document to the DH or MAA?
At the moment my view of the MAA is mainly positive. But has the DE&S that H-C rightly criticised been minded to change and to actual reveal the risks that have been buried for many years?
Do you think the PT's are minded to forward any particular damning document to the DH or MAA?
At the moment my view of the MAA is mainly positive. But has the DE&S that H-C rightly criticised been minded to change and to actual reveal the risks that have been buried for many years?
The MAA has direct access to other sources for such information, should they dare to “go there”; not least the raft of ART reports and direct access to Design Authorities and Custodians. They should be conducting their own independent assessment and comparing it with what the PTs offer them. Any discrepancy should be followed up.
They will not go there, because the ART reports (by the Inspector of Flight Safety) reveal the lie that is the H-C report, when he claimed the failings only commenced in 1998. The CHART report of August 1992 alone exposes this lie. (So when did the RAF stop using captured Argentinian pubs to maintain Chinook?)
Alcock and Graydon claimed that CHART had nothing to do with Chinook Mk2, yet it mentioned Mk2 383 (!!!) times. Dr Fox repeated this lie, which amply demonstrates who briefs him and how he was misled. The lie has been pointed out to the MAA, who refuse to comment; an abrogation unworthy of any "Authority".
You are correct in that PTs will withhold and mislead. For a start, they refuse to answer the above question. In one particular case, Sea King AsaC, they even deny an investigation took place and a report published, which requires a certain confidence (misplaced!) that all the evidence has been destroyed.
What is the MAA doing about this? Nothing.
Finally, did H-C criticise DE&S? He actually criticised DLO (Baber and Eagles from the IPT, and Cowan and Pledger as CDL) and that criticism has been revealed as utterly vindictive and designed to protect VSOs. To get to the truth, follow the lies. Who lied? (See above).
Well I haven't recycled your thinking SD, because I've no idea what it is. Do you endorse the issuing of illegal orders by VSOs? Do you think they should be named and brought to account for that or continue to be protected while deceased JOs names are besmirched? Should Military Air Accident Inquiry Reports still be liable to VSO "modification? What is your thinking SD?