RAF Rivet Joint
Wow
Never expected all of that
And sorry to rake through it if the embers were dying away 
There seems to be quite a few differing thoughts and quite a lot of repetition and just my thoughts but why do the MAA have to prove airworthiness? EASA or the FAA or the CAA do not have to prove airworthiness. The type certificate holder has to prove this by presentation of verification artefacts that demonstrate that a standard, (set of standards) has been achieved, compliance.
The CS and FAR are the framework to be verified against or by presentation of equivalent safety findings to argue what has been done is as good as those standards. EASA and FAA may mutually recognise each others work by validation but this considers that CS and FAR are very close in content and intent.
In the absence of those artefacts or mutual recognition based upon accepted standards the air vehicle has unknown provenance so who decides it is safe and where and when to fly it? EASA would say not happy go away, no TC, no fly.
Applied military or engineering judgment is great but if being true to good old Donald we don't even have any idea about the unknown unknowns then what are those people applying judgment to? Gut instinct, seat of the pants?
Worse still what if the assessment of the known knowns is false?
And sorry to rake through it if the embers were dying away There seems to be quite a few differing thoughts and quite a lot of repetition and just my thoughts but why do the MAA have to prove airworthiness? EASA or the FAA or the CAA do not have to prove airworthiness. The type certificate holder has to prove this by presentation of verification artefacts that demonstrate that a standard, (set of standards) has been achieved, compliance.
The CS and FAR are the framework to be verified against or by presentation of equivalent safety findings to argue what has been done is as good as those standards. EASA and FAA may mutually recognise each others work by validation but this considers that CS and FAR are very close in content and intent.
In the absence of those artefacts or mutual recognition based upon accepted standards the air vehicle has unknown provenance so who decides it is safe and where and when to fly it? EASA would say not happy go away, no TC, no fly.
Applied military or engineering judgment is great but if being true to good old Donald we don't even have any idea about the unknown unknowns then what are those people applying judgment to? Gut instinct, seat of the pants?
Worse still what if the assessment of the known knowns is false?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not totally unknown unknowns tho - a number of these aircraft have been flying around for years
This does not mean to say they tick all the boxes for a modern safety case - on thee other hand it doesn't mean they are instant death to fly in..........
moderation in all things..................
This does not mean to say they tick all the boxes for a modern safety case - on thee other hand it doesn't mean they are instant death to fly in..........
moderation in all things..................
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not totally unknown unknowns tho - a number of these aircraft have been flying around for years
This does not mean to say they tick all the boxes for a modern safety case - on thee other hand it doesn't mean they are instant death to fly in..........
moderation in all things..................
This does not mean to say they tick all the boxes for a modern safety case - on thee other hand it doesn't mean they are instant death to fly in..........
moderation in all things..................
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
indeed - but then no aeroplane is completely safe all the time -
balance of probabilities really
since the Rivet Joint doesn't litter the highways & byways in the same way as the F-104G or Indian MiG21's we can reasonably conclude it is not a total death trap
I agree in perfect world we'd have a proper safety case and all risks fully mitigated but....................
balance of probabilities really
since the Rivet Joint doesn't litter the highways & byways in the same way as the F-104G or Indian MiG21's we can reasonably conclude it is not a total death trap
I agree in perfect world we'd have a proper safety case and all risks fully mitigated but....................
drag - they'd have been too busy stocking up on DIY supplies in the other part of the BX 
It was always the case that once you got too slow to keep up with the MR2 eating team, you moved to the R1 and focused on more elderly pursuits (DIY, homebrew etc etc) 
It was always the case that once you got too slow to keep up with the MR2 eating team, you moved to the R1 and focused on more elderly pursuits (DIY, homebrew etc etc)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP, Did the road sign from the C Flt crew room remain on the sqn inventory when they moved from Wyton?
Serious note: I hear a rumour that an Ex OC 51 is on the RAeS lecture programme list to talk RJ or Air Sneaker this side of Christmas some where in East Anglia known for top scholars. I will post details on here once confirmed.
Serious note: I hear a rumour that an Ex OC 51 is on the RAeS lecture programme list to talk RJ or Air Sneaker this side of Christmas some where in East Anglia known for top scholars. I will post details on here once confirmed.
Last edited by dragartist; 29th May 2015 at 19:42. Reason: fingers like pigs tits
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
L-3 to deliver Rivet Joint aircraft to UK
LONDON — Britain is set to take delivery of its second Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft from US contractor L-3 Communications in the next few weeks according to sources familiar with the program. The new aircraft will join the first RC-135W Rivet Joint aircraft delivered to the Royal Air Force in late 2013 to replace BAE Nimrod R1 spy planes.......
Both Rivet Joint aircraft have been delivered ahead of schedule. The spokesman said the official delivery date for the second aircraft had been April 2016.
The aircraft, modified from a KC-135R tanker, has been converted by contractor L-3 at its facility in Greenville, Texas. The British signed a contract to take delivery of three Rivet Joints, known as the Airseeker in the UK, in a $1 billion foreign military sales deal in 2010.
The second aircraft is "conducting mission calibration tests prior to formal acceptance testing," the spokesman said. The third aircraft in the fleet is scheduled for delivery in the second half of 2017 said the spokesman.
LONDON — Britain is set to take delivery of its second Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft from US contractor L-3 Communications in the next few weeks according to sources familiar with the program. The new aircraft will join the first RC-135W Rivet Joint aircraft delivered to the Royal Air Force in late 2013 to replace BAE Nimrod R1 spy planes.......
Both Rivet Joint aircraft have been delivered ahead of schedule. The spokesman said the official delivery date for the second aircraft had been April 2016.
The aircraft, modified from a KC-135R tanker, has been converted by contractor L-3 at its facility in Greenville, Texas. The British signed a contract to take delivery of three Rivet Joints, known as the Airseeker in the UK, in a $1 billion foreign military sales deal in 2010.
The second aircraft is "conducting mission calibration tests prior to formal acceptance testing," the spokesman said. The third aircraft in the fleet is scheduled for delivery in the second half of 2017 said the spokesman.
Given what the PM said about spending more on "....new spy aircraft....":
Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron - BBC News
Would it be feasible to buy more than 3 of these aircraft if the UK government actually wanted to?
Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron - BBC News
Would it be feasible to buy more than 3 of these aircraft if the UK government actually wanted to?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: northwest england
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given what the PM said about spending more on "....new spy aircraft....":
Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron - BBC News
Would it be feasible to buy more than 3 of these aircraft if the UK government actually wanted to?
Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron - BBC News
Would it be feasible to buy more than 3 of these aircraft if the UK government actually wanted to?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
What the? Ahead of schedule? This just won't do!!
In all cases they'd not done their job properly and, depending on the contract, either undercharged or overcharged for the work done.....
So, does 51 have the crews to support the ac? last I heard was that moral was pretty low on the Sqn, with extended periods in the sates unaccompanied and then straight onto ops.............
Confirmed at this end:
RAF Airseeker Intelligence Aircraft
Is a/c #3 still doing airworthiness trials? IIRC it's entry into the conversion program was delayed by 6 months, so if #2 is seven months early, does this mean #3 won't start for another 13 months?
Can't beleive they are actually calling it Airseeker.
RAF Airseeker Intelligence Aircraft
Is a/c #3 still doing airworthiness trials? IIRC it's entry into the conversion program was delayed by 6 months, so if #2 is seven months early, does this mean #3 won't start for another 13 months?
Can't beleive they are actually calling it Airseeker.
