All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
Dervish, thanks for spreading some oil on these troubled waters. I'm afraid the intervention of outsiders, ie the likes of you and I, is as resented now as it was in our times, if not more so. The ever tighter ratcheting down of the financial screws, and the decreasing workforce resulting, makes the operation even more challenging than before. I get that, but all the more reason I would think to bite the bullet on any needless waste. The cover up is a needless waste, because it stands in the way of the urgent need to reform UK Military Air Safety. Here we have a fleet of what, some 80+ (?) aircraft, which is being got rid of because its airworthiness cannot be assured (seemingly because of the lack of Bob's scraps of paper). If airworthiness had been properly managed that would not be necessary and the type retained until its planned OOS date is reached (and no doubt beyond).
The only reason I can fathom for not instituting the glaring need for reform is that it would instantly shine a light on the illegal actions of past VSOs and of the cover up of that by their succeeding VSOs. A clear case of the Star Chamber closing ranks for the supposed good of each other rather than the good of their Service! Aviation doesn't give a damn about such niceties and will go on trying to kill those who dare to inhabit its domain. Our only defences against such forces are to Regulate and then to enforce those Regulations, and to independently and objectively Investigate every Air Accident, fatal or not, to prevent repetitions. That requires a truly independent Air Regulator and Air Accident Investigator, of the operator (the MOD) and of each other. The mere fact that VSOs could interfere with both functions (witness the Mull scandal) alone proves the urgent need for reform. Pennies need to drop, and very soon at that!
The only reason I can fathom for not instituting the glaring need for reform is that it would instantly shine a light on the illegal actions of past VSOs and of the cover up of that by their succeeding VSOs. A clear case of the Star Chamber closing ranks for the supposed good of each other rather than the good of their Service! Aviation doesn't give a damn about such niceties and will go on trying to kill those who dare to inhabit its domain. Our only defences against such forces are to Regulate and then to enforce those Regulations, and to independently and objectively Investigate every Air Accident, fatal or not, to prevent repetitions. That requires a truly independent Air Regulator and Air Accident Investigator, of the operator (the MOD) and of each other. The mere fact that VSOs could interfere with both functions (witness the Mull scandal) alone proves the urgent need for reform. Pennies need to drop, and very soon at that!
Chugalug
Can we please avoid conflating and potentially confusing separate issues
At what stage has anyone confirmed that the Hawk T1 is being retired early due to a lack of airworthiness?
That may well be the case but, unless it can be proven otherwise, I am more of the opinion that it is being retired because it’s a 45 year old design and aircraft that doesn’t really serve much of a purpose any more.
I love the T1 and it’s done a great job (I was a T1 QFI but haven’t flown one since 2011) but we don’t (or shouldn’t) really need it any more.
I know you think I’m trying to malign your efforts or to pour scorn on your suggestions but I’m afraid you may have misconstrued my intentions.
I’m merely trying to point out that your oft repeated rhetoric just doesn’t come across in the helpful and concerned manner that you think it does.
I truly appreciate your efforts but admonishing us for not listening to you will change nothing.
If you are correct about the evil masterminds at the top go after them and prove your point.
BV
At what stage has anyone confirmed that the Hawk T1 is being retired early due to a lack of airworthiness?
That may well be the case but, unless it can be proven otherwise, I am more of the opinion that it is being retired because it’s a 45 year old design and aircraft that doesn’t really serve much of a purpose any more.
I love the T1 and it’s done a great job (I was a T1 QFI but haven’t flown one since 2011) but we don’t (or shouldn’t) really need it any more.
I know you think I’m trying to malign your efforts or to pour scorn on your suggestions but I’m afraid you may have misconstrued my intentions.
I’m merely trying to point out that your oft repeated rhetoric just doesn’t come across in the helpful and concerned manner that you think it does.
I truly appreciate your efforts but admonishing us for not listening to you will change nothing.
If you are correct about the evil masterminds at the top go after them and prove your point.
BV
Bob, we know that Sean Cunningham was killed by an unairworthy system (no safety case) of his unairworthy aircraft type (no safety case). Dervish has asked if any change to that status has happened, ie has the Hawk T1 become airworthy since? No answer of course (no surprise there). Rather I am asked by FL :-
You are less outspoken but challenge me to quote anyone who has confirmed lack of airworthiness is the reason for the T1 going now. My answer to you both is of course not! They wouldn't say that, would they (to misquote Ms. Mandy Rice Davies)? Instead we are told the reason is because of costs, an explanation that hardly stands up to the difficulties and costs of replacement enumerated by FL. You say the design's age is reason enough. Well possibly, but that would be more appropriate in a defence budget that buys only the best for our boys and girls, and in the quantities needed. Yes, right then.
I don't expect you (or anyone else serving for that matter) to picket the main gates or SHQ in support of our campaign. In fact I'd earnestly counsel against that, but I would suggest that a process of self education starting with the link given in my earlier post would be appropriate for any professional aviator, serving or retired, civil or military. Of course, anyone free to do so who sees merit in our cause would be most welcome if minded to actively support the call for reforming UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. Most welcome indeed!
As to the evil masterminds (I do see what you are doing there of course), we try and will continue to try to bring them to book. Assistant Chief Constables, Provost Marshals, MP's, QC's, Coroners, the Media, etc, respond as if one, "Not me Chief, I'm airframes!". Perhaps you should add naivety to my obvious shortcomings.
I don't think you malign me at all, Bob. Indeed you offer advice so I might improve my case. I'm grateful to you, but I'm afraid old dogs etc...
Can you prove to me now that the current FL fleet are not airworthy?
I don't expect you (or anyone else serving for that matter) to picket the main gates or SHQ in support of our campaign. In fact I'd earnestly counsel against that, but I would suggest that a process of self education starting with the link given in my earlier post would be appropriate for any professional aviator, serving or retired, civil or military. Of course, anyone free to do so who sees merit in our cause would be most welcome if minded to actively support the call for reforming UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. Most welcome indeed!
As to the evil masterminds (I do see what you are doing there of course), we try and will continue to try to bring them to book. Assistant Chief Constables, Provost Marshals, MP's, QC's, Coroners, the Media, etc, respond as if one, "Not me Chief, I'm airframes!". Perhaps you should add naivety to my obvious shortcomings.
I don't think you malign me at all, Bob. Indeed you offer advice so I might improve my case. I'm grateful to you, but I'm afraid old dogs etc...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 3rd Oct 2021 at 13:58. Reason: Words, dear boy, words
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, we know that Sean Cunningham was killed by an unairworthy system (no safety case) of his unairworthy aircraft type (no safety case). Dervish has asked if any change to that status has happened, ie has the Hawk T1 become airworthy since? No answer of course (no surprise there). Rather I am asked by FL :-
You are less outspoken but challenge me to quote anyone who has confirmed lack of airworthiness is the reason for the T1 going now. My answer to you both is of course not! They wouldn't say that, would they (to misquote Ms. Mandy Rice Davies)? Instead we are told the reason is because of costs, an explanation that hardly stands up to the difficulties and costs of replacement enumerated by FL. You say the design's age is reason enough. Well possibly, but that would be more appropriate in a defence budget that buys only the best for our boys and girls, and in the quantities needed. Yes, right then.
I don't expect you (or anyone else serving for that matter) to picket the main gates or SHQ in support of our campaign. In fact I'd earnestly counsel against that, but I would suggest that a process of self education starting with the link given in my earlier post would be appropriate for any professional aviator, serving or retired, civil or military. Of course, anyone free to do so who sees merit in our cause would be most welcome if minded to actively support the call for reforming UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. Most welcome indeed!
As to the evil masterminds (I do see what you are doing there of course), we try and will continue to try to bring them to book. Assistant Chief Constables, Provost Marshals, MP's, QC's, Coroners, the Media, etc, respond as if one, "Not me Chief, I'm airframes!". Perhaps you should add naivety to my obvious shortcomings.
I don't think you malign me at all, Bob. Indeed you offer advice so I might improve my case. I'm grateful to you, but I'm afraid old dogs etc...
You are less outspoken but challenge me to quote anyone who has confirmed lack of airworthiness is the reason for the T1 going now. My answer to you both is of course not! They wouldn't say that, would they (to misquote Ms. Mandy Rice Davies)? Instead we are told the reason is because of costs, an explanation that hardly stands up to the difficulties and costs of replacement enumerated by FL. You say the design's age is reason enough. Well possibly, but that would be more appropriate in a defence budget that buys only the best for our boys and girls, and in the quantities needed. Yes, right then.
I don't expect you (or anyone else serving for that matter) to picket the main gates or SHQ in support of our campaign. In fact I'd earnestly counsel against that, but I would suggest that a process of self education starting with the link given in my earlier post would be appropriate for any professional aviator, serving or retired, civil or military. Of course, anyone free to do so who sees merit in our cause would be most welcome if minded to actively support the call for reforming UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation. Most welcome indeed!
As to the evil masterminds (I do see what you are doing there of course), we try and will continue to try to bring them to book. Assistant Chief Constables, Provost Marshals, MP's, QC's, Coroners, the Media, etc, respond as if one, "Not me Chief, I'm airframes!". Perhaps you should add naivety to my obvious shortcomings.
I don't think you malign me at all, Bob. Indeed you offer advice so I might improve my case. I'm grateful to you, but I'm afraid old dogs etc...
I think the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', neatly sums the problem up. The fact Hawk, maybe any other FL air system doesn't have a safety case does not make them unairworthy. Whilst I don't wish to belittle your argument, as I do believe that there are some serious questions to answer, I cannot agree with you that the reason the Hawk is going out of service is solely down to airworthiness.
As BV has pointed out, the aircraft doesn't provide the capabilities in the Red Air role that make it economic or sensible to keep running. The operation is already part privatised and there are issues in the supply and logistics chain to produce the aircraft on the line. There are COCO operations that are able to provide a radar equipped Red Air platform better able to threat rep than Hawk and the safety and regulatory issues mostly becomes someone else's problem to solve.
Interesting chat as ever with some different view points.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
To add a thought, has the Hawk T1 ASSC ever been released under FOI? I'd be amazed if it had given that too many CURRENT serving VSOs have their name signed on paperwork that accepted the risk as platform ODHs. So moving forward, what's the appropriate airworthiness assurance framework then for a Hawk T1 replacement, if it were to happen, morse so if it's a contracted solution as the activity takes place within the DAE as per RA1160? MAA as MRCOA? CAA under CAP 632 but taking note of RA1166? Foreign registered? Does anybody believe that the CAA is better equipped to regulate this space? What's the solution if the problem is known?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add a thought, has the Hawk T1 ASSC ever been released under FOI? I'd be amazed if it had given that too many CURRENT serving VSOs have their name signed on paperwork that accepted the risk as platform ODHs. So moving forward, what's the appropriate airworthiness assurance framework then for a Hawk T1 replacement, if it were to happen, morse so if it's a contracted solution as the activity takes place within the DAE as per RA1160? MAA as MRCOA? CAA under CAP 632 but taking note of RA1166? Foreign registered? Does anybody believe that the CAA is better equipped to regulate this space? What's the solution if the problem is known?
FL :-
Now it is my turn to ask you to prove that statement to be true, FL, for I consider it to be greatly mistaken. That may be the word being put about in the aftermath of the SI that discovered there to be no Safety Case, but it does indeed mean that airworthiness cannot be confirmed. If that is the case then that Air System is unairworthy I believe. I would put as much faith in the assertion that it is not as I would in the MOD's assurance to a next of kin, following the Mull tragedy, that there is no such thing as a Release to Service. Known in the trade as muddying the waters I believe.
It is reason enough though FL. Or would it be likely to be otherwise? Asking for a friend.
The fact Hawk, maybe any other FL air system doesn't have a safety case does not make them unairworthy.
I cannot agree with you that the reason the Hawk is going out of service is solely down to airworthiness.
To add a thought, has the Hawk T1 ASSC ever been released under FOI? I'd be amazed if it had given that too many CURRENT serving VSOs have their name signed on paperwork that accepted the risk as platform ODHs. So moving forward, what's the appropriate airworthiness assurance framework then for a Hawk T1 replacement, if it were to happen, morse so if it's a contracted solution as the activity takes place within the DAE as per RA1160? MAA as MRCOA? CAA under CAP 632 but taking note of RA1166? Foreign registered? Does anybody believe that the CAA is better equipped to regulate this space? What's the solution if the problem is known?
Notwithstanding this view, if there is no valid safety case, then one cannot justify conducting service regulated flying. Unless of course this regulation has been waived by the proper authority.
The book mentioned contains information relevant to this audit trail work, citing the Nimrod Review. British Aerospace breached their contract and allowed the Nimrod records to be stored in a derelict building with a leaky roof. I'm pretty sure the MAA would ensure this never happened in MoD, especially as its first head was seconded to the Nimrod Review and would be well aware of this...... Then BAeS billed MoD again, which is yet another fraud.
MoD/MAA is faced with having to reconstruct safety cases to the standards now required. (That is, below the old standards the RAF stopped implementing in 1991). They can legitimately use historical data to justify an RTS, but where is the line drawn? The signs are that someone is no longer willing to sign off with that degree of uncertainty. A factor in all this may be that the same people were responsible for gliders, which were definitely shelved for this reason. As was Nimrod.
As for the solution, implement the regulations. That was the central point of the Nimrod Review, and we eagerly await news of it being properly resourced. (A failing made abundantly clear by AOC 22 Group on gliders). Then things like this would be invisible to aircrew, which I think would allay some of Bob Viking's fears. If aircrew have to think about such things, then the system has failed them. They should be more concerned with fitness for purpose.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the west
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinated you say this FL. Given CAP 632 applicability is to aircraft that "Are on the UK civil register", I'm intrigued to see how the aspirant importers are going to achieve this. And if anyone is up for either accepting or placing a contract that depends on this being achieved.
Plus the debate about application of the MAA regs is one thing - but CAP 632 doesn't go half as far in many areas, so even if achievable, the overall systems safety case for the military operation in which those assets will feature will have to recognise a few more risks.
Interesting times.
TOL
Plus the debate about application of the MAA regs is one thing - but CAP 632 doesn't go half as far in many areas, so even if achievable, the overall systems safety case for the military operation in which those assets will feature will have to recognise a few more risks.
Interesting times.
TOL
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Fascinated you say this FL. Given CAP 632 applicability is to aircraft that "Are on the UK civil register", I'm intrigued to see how the aspirant importers are going to achieve this. And if anyone is up for either accepting or placing a contract that depends on this being achieved.
Plus the debate about application of the MAA regs is one thing - but CAP 632 doesn't go half as far in many areas, so even if achievable, the overall systems safety case for the military operation in which those assets will feature will have to recognise a few more risks.
Interesting times.
TOL
Plus the debate about application of the MAA regs is one thing - but CAP 632 doesn't go half as far in many areas, so even if achievable, the overall systems safety case for the military operation in which those assets will feature will have to recognise a few more risks.
Interesting times.
TOL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
They do have a USP in that they were upgraded with a multifunction AESA radar: the Elbit EL/M-2052 (as used by the Indian Air Force in upgraded Jags and the Tejas), I assume Israeli end user restrictions may limit the list of potential buyers as well. It'll be interesting to see if they do the same for the F/A-18s.
The attempt to sell them on can't be helped by the findings into the loss of one on 11 MAR 15. particular in regard to organizational attitude and procedures. Also BAe Systems attitude to support, if it hasn't changed..
NTSB Report
The pilot's initiation of an early rotation during takeoff, which led to an aerodynamic stall and loss of airplane control. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's use of nose-up pitch trim and the operator's policy to use nose-up pitch trim during takeoff and the lack of oversight of the operator by the US Air Force. Contributing to the severity of the accident were US Marine Corps airport policies that allowed construction activities immediately adjacent to an active runway, which resulted in the airplane's collision with a truck.
...
Air USA was granted a series of interim flight clearances for the Hawk from NAVAIR valid through January 31, 2016, with the understanding that beyond that period OEM support had to be achieved, along with reach back support. BAe reported that they initially received a request for support from Air USA on September 2, 2014, and replied stating that they did not support the continued operation of the Hawk by Air USA… BAe provided technical assistance to the NTSB during that accident investigation, and at the time of publication of this report, their decision to not provide support to Air USA remained in effect. Air USA voluntarily ceased Hawk operations immediately following the accident, instead supporting the current USAF contract with their fleet of L-39 airplanes. Following completion of the initial phase of the investigation, Air USA restarted Hawk operations on April 20, as part of a live CAS support mission for the USAF. At the time of the accident maintenance was being performed utilizing OEM replacement components, which were acquired from the ROKAF during the initial sale of the airplanes.
...
Air USA was granted a series of interim flight clearances for the Hawk from NAVAIR valid through January 31, 2016, with the understanding that beyond that period OEM support had to be achieved, along with reach back support. BAe reported that they initially received a request for support from Air USA on September 2, 2014, and replied stating that they did not support the continued operation of the Hawk by Air USA… BAe provided technical assistance to the NTSB during that accident investigation, and at the time of publication of this report, their decision to not provide support to Air USA remained in effect. Air USA voluntarily ceased Hawk operations immediately following the accident, instead supporting the current USAF contract with their fleet of L-39 airplanes. Following completion of the initial phase of the investigation, Air USA restarted Hawk operations on April 20, as part of a live CAS support mission for the USAF. At the time of the accident maintenance was being performed utilizing OEM replacement components, which were acquired from the ROKAF during the initial sale of the airplanes.
Air USA voluntarily ceased Hawk operations immediately following the accident, instead supporting the current USAF contract with their fleet of L-39 airplanes. Following completion of the initial phase of the investigation, Air USA restarted Hawk operations on April 20, as part of a live CAS support mission for the USAF. The USAF continued to utilize Air USA for close air support missions until the contract expired in September 2015.
NAVAIR immediately withdrew Air USA's flight clearance following the accident, a decision which remained in effect at the time of this report's publication.
NAVAIR immediately withdrew Air USA's flight clearance following the accident, a decision which remained in effect at the time of this report's publication.
Yuma Hawk Accident: Lessons on Ex-Military Aircraft Operation
The aircraft was also suffering from on-going fuel system issues. While not a contributory factor in the accident, this perhaps question the organisation’s competence in maintaining this type. Regulatory oversight was minimal (noticeably so when compared to the rigorous UK Military Aviation Authority [MAA] oversight under the Contractor Flying Approved Organization Scheme [CFAOS])."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
I presume they are surplus to requirement after Air USA signed up to buy 'up to 46' ex-RAAF F/A-18As and Bs.
They do have a USP in that they were upgraded with a multifunction AESA radar: the Elbit EL/M-2052 (as used by the Indian Air Force in upgraded Jags and the Tejas), I assume Israeli end user restrictions may limit the list of potential buyers as well. It'll be interesting to see if they do the same for the F/A-18s.
They do have a USP in that they were upgraded with a multifunction AESA radar: the Elbit EL/M-2052 (as used by the Indian Air Force in upgraded Jags and the Tejas), I assume Israeli end user restrictions may limit the list of potential buyers as well. It'll be interesting to see if they do the same for the F/A-18s.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I'll bite, the Hornet deal is effectively dead unless Kerlin can raise the CAPEX to a) acquire and complete the deal and b) undertake a CBR on all the airframes; hence why he is trying to sell the mk67s and his MiG. As for that USP, I'm sure a non-fully integrated 2052 radar with at the most 300 TR/RX module antenna and the SW&P issues associated with the host platform is that much of a bargain. I'd be more concerned that the 2052 records data onto a flash drive which is sent to Elta for exploitation, sorry I meant radar performance monitoring obviously.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airworthy?
I would happily buy a Hawk T1a from the MOD for a token amount, have it refurbished by Horizon because most of their engineers are ex military and I have done business with them in the past. In theory one might then enjoy flying a Hawk around Wales and the SW.
https://www.horizonaircraftservices.com/
Unfortunately, I suspect the CAA would say "No" to any prospect of even ex military pilots owning a civil Hawk on the G Register after Shoreham.
I would like to be proved wrong as they are great aircraft to fly and reasonably safe in competent hands because they were designed to be. Ironically, if you have the cash one can go out and buy a WW2 Warbird with very iffy handling characteristics and the CAA will not put too many hurdles in the way of a PPL flying it.
https://www.horizonaircraftservices.com/
Unfortunately, I suspect the CAA would say "No" to any prospect of even ex military pilots owning a civil Hawk on the G Register after Shoreham.
I would like to be proved wrong as they are great aircraft to fly and reasonably safe in competent hands because they were designed to be. Ironically, if you have the cash one can go out and buy a WW2 Warbird with very iffy handling characteristics and the CAA will not put too many hurdles in the way of a PPL flying it.
The WWII warbird, iffy characteristics or no, will have been completely disassembled on initial restoration and rebuilt IAW the appropriate regs, inspected and certified as such, and hence have a complete record of that work to prove its airworthiness. Your Hawk T1a would have to go through the same process BP in the absence of such a record. Is there such a record? If so where? I suspect that your token payment would soon have to be added to with a certain amount of arms and legs.
Safe for Scrap only ?
...
It's beginning to look as if DG DSA may have sussed a little local difficulty in confirming the safety case for the remaining, ageing Hawk Mk 1 aircraft **. Particularly noting the large number of airframes that will become available, but are apparently not on the recent 'For Sale' list, perhaps because they are only safe for scrap. Even MoD would know there would be trouble if they tried to pass off a used car with a faked MoT.
If past Hawk safety case issues and multiple unimplemented Hawk SI recommendations are anything to go by, it will be fingers and toes crossed until midnight on 31st March 2022, hoping the safety case won't be publicly tested (and found wanting again) in the very public way that the Hawk Mk 1 safety case and certain associated procedures have been found wanting in recent years.
However, a dozen Mk 1s will remain available for the Reds, probably under a special waiver, with perhaps a sensible change of rules to prohibit joy-riding and limit circus flying to 'strictly A to B, with no shenanigans in between.' Even that might now be considered a risk too far (ie Not ALARP) when safer alternatives are readily available.
One might reasonably ask if the specific subjects of Risk to Life and Duty of Care for all Hawk Mk 1 back seat passengers has been formally reviewed or discussed at all - at any Service or MoD level - since March 2018. If so, what was the outcome ? If not, why not ?
Notwithstanding the back-seater questions above, the abrupt capability gaps from April 1st 2022 and the significant extra costs of filling those gaps, might well encourage shoddy arguments for keeping another dozen Hawk Mk 1s flying under special waiver, pro tem.
LFH
** Did anyone mention recent Type Safety Reviews ?
...
It's beginning to look as if DG DSA may have sussed a little local difficulty in confirming the safety case for the remaining, ageing Hawk Mk 1 aircraft **. Particularly noting the large number of airframes that will become available, but are apparently not on the recent 'For Sale' list, perhaps because they are only safe for scrap. Even MoD would know there would be trouble if they tried to pass off a used car with a faked MoT.
If past Hawk safety case issues and multiple unimplemented Hawk SI recommendations are anything to go by, it will be fingers and toes crossed until midnight on 31st March 2022, hoping the safety case won't be publicly tested (and found wanting again) in the very public way that the Hawk Mk 1 safety case and certain associated procedures have been found wanting in recent years.
However, a dozen Mk 1s will remain available for the Reds, probably under a special waiver, with perhaps a sensible change of rules to prohibit joy-riding and limit circus flying to 'strictly A to B, with no shenanigans in between.' Even that might now be considered a risk too far (ie Not ALARP) when safer alternatives are readily available.
One might reasonably ask if the specific subjects of Risk to Life and Duty of Care for all Hawk Mk 1 back seat passengers has been formally reviewed or discussed at all - at any Service or MoD level - since March 2018. If so, what was the outcome ? If not, why not ?
Notwithstanding the back-seater questions above, the abrupt capability gaps from April 1st 2022 and the significant extra costs of filling those gaps, might well encourage shoddy arguments for keeping another dozen Hawk Mk 1s flying under special waiver, pro tem.
LFH
** Did anyone mention recent Type Safety Reviews ?
...