I seem to recall being told in the dim distant past that one of the differences between Cat 3 and Cat 4 (other than the obvious damage and repair means) was that the cause of / reason for a Cat 3 could (but not necessarily always) be investigated by a Unit Inquiry (appointed by, and reporting to, the stn cdr) whereas the cause of / reason for a Cat 4 or Cat 5 had to be investigated by a Board of Inquiry (convened by, and reporting to, the AOC). Maybe this is the politics that Lyneham Lad refers to?

Purely out of curiosity I would be grateful if anyone who knows for sure could confirm if this is one of the markers for deciding whether to run a UI or BoI.

W

I cannot possibly comment on the above............

The particular case I had in mind when I made my comment was about a Harrier in RAFG. It suffered engine failure on the approach and impacted very heavily in the undershoot at Guetersloh. The damage to the fuselage in particular was very extensive and even BAe (as was) sucked their teeth and shook their heads. However, 431MU was short of work and was fighting to justify it's existence as a repair organisation so (AIUI) a political (or perhaps deemed tactical) decision was made to declare the aircraft Cat3 in order to justify keeping a RAFG aircraft repair resource.

We ended up carrying out repair work that went beyond even what BAe had carried out previously and for the first time ever (AFAIK) BOTH of longitudinal beams for the main U/C were replaced as well as much other work to the fuselage. Nigh on 3 years of continuous work by the team saw the aircraft successfully returned to Guetersloh in fine fettle.

The military Vol 6 is called the Structures repair Manual or SRM in civil parlance. Damage beyond the SRM requires a repair design done by a suitably approved design organization. Looking at the damage to that E3 I'd say its well beyond a B707 or KC135 SRM and is therefore beyond the RAF Vol 6. Boeing would easily design a repair and also provide many of the parts needed to carry it out, but its well within an M.U.'s capability to accomplish it. I don't know if any RAF M.U. has the overblow equipment to 'work' the completed repair, but that could be hired in from Boeing too. Repair design contracted out with accomplishment in-house? I reckon that makes it Cat 3.

Sorry to digress, Ratty 1 stated :
Yet again another sensible thread has an attempt to hijack it into being a "we all hate movers" list.
Ratty, was your mother shagged by a mover or maybe you were rejected by the movements trade ? either way :
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
My apologies to all for the interuption.:ok:

I think the quote above touches on the political side. Ie the time factor to repair.

Let us say the damage is borderline Cat 3/4. In other words the station resources could do a competent repair to the same standard as the contractor. If the work is Cat 4 it will cost money to the contractor but free up station resources and possibly be done quicker.

OTOH as Cat 3 it will eat up station resources but cost less and may take longer.

How you pay therefore is the political drive to fudge the Cat.

Could that be the case?

Having spent many hours arguing with the structures desk at the IPT, I would say that Damage Cats are often determined purely by one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage. The issue is not, however, anything to do with a cover up, it is purely a battle of wills over who has the money and manpower to carry out the repair.

N Joe

N Joe,

I have been on a couple of BoI's and I am slightly bemused by your comments also. Are you actually saying that, in your opion and experience, an individual can make a decision of an aircraft damage cat based purely on 'one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage' ??

In my experience, the issue has been about getting together a bunch of experts to inspect, determine and try to put a value on the amount of damage the aircraft has sustained. I would agree perhaps, that station resources and £££ may have a very slight effect on the final outcome, but I can't agree about the 'passing regard' bit.

The winco

E3 Storm damage
 

Is the jet fixed and flying now?

Two SAC riggers an a roll o speed tape slapped her up an said "She'll be right boss, it'll do a trip!!":p

Not!!

I would surmise it's still sitting somewhere waiting for the flying buns to finish before a man with egg on his hat makes a decision

Repair contract now awarded.....

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=215832

Didn't take too long :rolleyes:

And the repair will only take another 11 months :eek:

Just glad it's being fixed. Had visions of her being laid up in Alpha as a hanger queen with no chance of being repaired.

Why is it being fixed? Do we need 7 E-3's in the forseeable future, aren't we looking to save £1 billion

Compare to the time scale for this repair:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=301696&page=4

OK, the E3 puncture is far "deeper" than the B737, and will require further interior strip out, but the 737 damage is spread over a larger area.

The construction / build / repair of the E3 / B707 / B737NG is very similar.

So whilst the 2 year repair drags on, RAF down another airframe and increased pressure for all concerned to maintain the few left not in repair or sched maintenance!

WOW after all this time am i right in thinking this jet has been hangared and has not flown and only now are they going to repair it ?

Yep, that's normal speed for the Ministry.

By comparison, when I worked for TNT we once tw@tted a 146 in similar style at LGG when the tractor pushing the aircraft out of a hangar following maintenance lost traction in the snow and skidded around on the towbar, taking out two fuselage frames. The aircraft was repaired on site inside four weeks, IIRC.