Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK aircraft time into full service..

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK aircraft time into full service..

Old 22nd Nov 2022, 21:55
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm out of this argument, Chugalug2, as you seem intent on redirecting everything into the context of the airworthiness mess that was Chinook 30 years ago, and are seemingly incapable of accepting that things moved on a great deal over the following decades.

Yes, ZD576 was a major tragedy, and highlighted gross failings in airworthiness and acceptance into service of one type of rotorcraft, but, despite your clear opinion that nothing changes, it did, and also the problems within the RAF were not necessarily applicable to other types, managed by very different teams. For example, there were no RAF members within my team, only Army, RN and civvies. What's more not all manufacturers behaved in the way that Boeing/Textron did, and neither did I as the airworthiness authority for a completely different in-service type. I find your constant criticism of me, when you clearly know diddly squat about what was happening in 2004, deeply offensive. It might surprise you to learn that we do learn from the mistakes of others. In fact, when I was doing the military aircraft airworthiness course at Cranwell there were several previous airworthiness failings studied in-depth, as a part of the "learning from experience" element of that course. I've no doubt that process is still going on today, with every newly discovered failing added to our body of knowledge.

Please do not bother quoting and replying to this post, I've had enough and will not be reading it or replying to it.
Old_Slartibartfast is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 23:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 81
Posts: 4,652
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old_Slartibartfast View Post
I'm out of this argument, Chugalug2, as you seem intent on redirecting everything into the context of the airworthiness mess that was Chinook 30 years ago, and are seemingly incapable of accepting that things moved on a great deal over the following decades.

Yes, ZD576 was a major tragedy, and highlighted gross failings in airworthiness and acceptance into service of one type of rotorcraft, but, despite your clear opinion that nothing changes, it did, and also the problems within the RAF were not necessarily applicable to other types, managed by very different teams. For example, there were no RAF members within my team, only Army, RN and civvies. What's more not all manufacturers behaved in the way that Boeing/Textron did, and neither did I as the airworthiness authority for a completely different in-service type. I find your constant criticism of me, when you clearly know diddly squat about what was happening in 2004, deeply offensive. It might surprise you to learn that we do learn from the mistakes of others. In fact, when I was doing the military aircraft airworthiness course at Cranwell there were several previous airworthiness failings studied in-depth, as a part of the "learning from experience" element of that course. I've no doubt that process is still going on today, with every newly discovered failing added to our body of knowledge.

Please do not bother quoting and replying to this post, I've had enough and will not be reading it or replying to it.
As you can see, OS, I am replying to your post if only to address the personal criticisms you accuse me of. I don't know you, I don't know what role you played in the IPT (presumably) of which you speak. I criticised the RAF VSOs that were involved in the original airworthiness scandal as well as those involved in the subsequent cover up. Since you say that none of your team were RAF, then none of that applies to you. I've never said that I know about your project, or diddley squat as you so eloquently put it, only what you have told us about your dealings with 'one man' at BD. If my taking the side of that one man is deeply offensive to you then take it up with the mods, we are all equal in their eyes. Obviously change happens; a lot, a little, for the better, for the worse. What hasn't changed is that in the UK, Operator, Regulator, and Investigator are all one and the same, the MOD, or subsidiaries of. That the signage outside may have 'Independent' painted in large letters means...well, diddley squat, or to rerun an old and much-loved favourite -

Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation It Kills!
Chugalug2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.