What's a deliberate error?

Beagle you've repeated your claim about normal law envelope being exceeded without saying why. Ditto for your postulation of. a LHS side stick fault. This may be the case on both counts but nothing so far publicly aired supports such specifics. Are you speculating or basing on an inside information, ?

a Six-Seven Sigma event so early on in fleet life? Really?

Yes VinRouge, I understand your point too:ok:. But, it seems the definition of "negligible risk" is somewhat vague in the "private raf"? :ooh:

OAP

Lets just say many of us have spent months/years crewed up together on previous tours and are still friends now.

So is it ok to leak information regarding an ongoing service inquiry to a friend so he can post it on pprune for you?

How very professional.

The facts will be published in the SI, in the mean time the jet is back flying because people who's job it is to make such a decision have done so based on facts, not leaked rumours.

Time to move on perhaps?

AF:-
That will be a first then!

Not at all Arty - I never said Beags had inside information and his speculating is just that - speculating.

Here is another thought: The "private raf" might not have to satisfy commercial risk oversight for insurance? How could that effect things?

OAP

I must admit, I'm a little confused by all this "private RAF" banter. What do you mean?

Maybe they mean the PFI?

All this 'Private RAF' banter is wrongly implying that ATrS have some sort of influence over the decision to fly the Mil Voyager again.
AOC 2 Group decided to ground the fleet and AOC 2 Group decided to allow the aircraft to fly again. The MAAIB are investigating and the event is the subject of a full service investigation. Seems to me the that the RAF are pulling the strings in this case?

You gotta love 'em!

Ok, I get it. It seems to me that some folk on this forum have a bit of an axe to grind with Airtanker.

Bul***it filter duly adjusted!

At last - do keep up Arty.

Arty Fufkin wrote: Apart from the rather inadequate news release on your....their website, I don't think that the company has come in for any significant criticism, Arty? Why should they have? That'd be like Avis being criticised because a hire car they'd provided in good faith had an unknown manufacturer's steering system fault.

I'll freely admit that I consider PFI to be a completely ridiculous way of providing core AAR assets, although it might be just about adequate for mere trash-hauling AT provision. Just as MFTS is a crazy way of providing military flight training. Nevertheless, ATrS are contracted to run with this PFI nonsense.

If there are any ar$es which deserve to be kicked, I suspect they're elsewhere....

And what makes you posit that there may be ar$es to be kicked at all?

You can't kick ar$es in this Just Culture we're adopting.........

beardy, don't you understand conditional sentences?

BEagle, yes very much so. I want to understand why you made your 'conditional sentence.' You seem to have preceded it with your own verdict after a trial by innuendo.
You now seem to believe that AirTanker are at no fault ( so it can't possibly be the commercial pressure you implied) and the fault must lie somewhere else. You seem to have that somewhere else in mind. So, go on, tell us all your conspiracy. There only seems to be The RAF in the form of AOC 2GP, the MOD and Airbus, or is there another villain hiding in the dark, you seem to have something in mind so who is it to blame BEagle? Come on, stop beating about the bush, spit it out.

First paragraph in Post 216?