Could be a very good reason to take it to Boscombe- We used to take the Nimrod there to weigh it. Very accurate it was too. Always an overnight to allow the fluids to drain for a weigh fist thing in the morning

Trying to draw a parallel: did Sentry spend long there?

Boscombe used to bring the mobile unit to us to do EMC and Tempest. Always a laugh seeing our Tefal men* with theirs.

*from the TV advert of the 80s era

Big Green Gilbert Just For You
 

January 24, 2014, 8:24 AM

The UK Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) is taking a leading role in a forum that aims to harmonize requirements within Europe for military airworthiness. The move would help the aerospace industry design future pan-European products. But although the forum is basing the requirements framework on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations, there is no intention to create a pan-European regulatory agency for military aircraft, according to Air Vice-Marshal Martin Clark, the MAA’s technical director. “Regulation will remain a national responsibility,” he told AIN.

In the absence of such a scheme, Airbus and the nations procuring the A400M sought EASA civilian certification of Europe’s new airlifter. This was achieved last March, but now the aircraft must pass examination by the national military airworthiness authorities of each acquiring country. In the UK, the entry into Royal Air Force service of the Voyager tanker/transport was delayed last year, as the MAA sought assurance that the military modifications to the Airbus A330 were fully understood and assured. The two supplemental type certificates (STCs) that Airbus Military obtained “did not cover the full extent of the military modifications nor their operation,” Air Marshal Dick Garwood, the director general of the MAA, told AIN.

Clark said that the MAA is “reasonably confident” that it will be able to issue a military type certificate for the A400M. This will be a first for the MAA, which was set up in 2010 in the wake of the Nimrod MR.2 crash in 2006 and a subsequent review that criticized the safety oversight of British military aircraft. Some new platforms entering service in the UK since then have been delayed “because of the need to have a more in-depth understanding of airworthiness,” Garwood said. He is unapologetic about the increased scrutiny. “The review called for an independent regulator that fosters continual improvement in safety culture, regulation and practice,” he told AIN. “It’s not acceptable for industry to have sole intellectual ownership of airworthiness, for aircraft on the military register,” Clark added.

One of the delayed platforms is the Thales Watchkeeper UAV for the British Army. But Clark noted that the MAA issued a statement of type design assurance (STDA) last October. The UAV still needs a release to service (RTS) authorization, but that is the responsibility of the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organization, he added. Regarding the Rivet Joint SIGINT aircraft for the RAF, Garwood admitted that “complex work” must still be done before the 50-year old airframes can be cleared for service. The first one has not flown since it was delivered to the UK last November. Garwood noted that the initial operating capability date for this aircraft is still 10 months away. Work is being done by the DE&S and user community to provide safety evidence to support RTS,” he added.

Maybe it would have been better to move the aircraft to Offutt where it could have joined the fleet, been beyond the reach of the MAA and been flown by joint UK/US crews, rather than sitting on the ground in the British winter decaying away slowly?!?

No Rolland, That would only work if they painted stars and stripes on them!


I do see where you are coming from but the Duty Holder who signs off the RTS or what ever they call it these days accepts responsibility for the engineering (configuration/Design etc) as well as the operation. he (or it could be a she) is looking for the independent advice to cover his @rse as Garwood describes above. Now that said the advice will be highly caveated and probably recommend that the Duty Holder takes a view on the risks of not having evidence to fill every single gap. I am not at all close to this programme nor ever have been but I guess the team will have difficulty getting eyes on every single certificate of design (F100A or equivalent) for every single widget. I think we are being told that the aircraft are re-manufactured to zero flying hour condition. I am sure they have been stripped and inspected down to the last rivet and cleat.


They sure look resplendent and I hope they do as good a job as the jet they replace.


The KURs at IOC will be more than just doing circuits and bumps.

:drag.
Hope they do as good a job as the jet that was replaced by the jet that is being replaced :p
Regards, Den.

ten months for heavens sake....

If the balloon goes up somewhere next month they'll be out of Boscombe in 3 days and working for sure - and then returned for another 10 month wait no doubt when they've proved themselves in action

HH:-
and counting...as you so rightly say this aircraft is desperately needed in service now, so why isn't it? Here is an even more obvious illustration of what has befallen UK Military Air Safety than a Fatal Airworthiness Related Air Accident, tragic though that be.


The genesis of this static display at Waddington can be traced back to 1987 when the attack by VSOs on UK Military Air Safety dates from. That resulted not only in Airworthiness Related Air Accidents involving 62 fatalities but a seriously inhibited Military Air Capability, as illustrated by this thread. Despite the cost in blood, treasure, and capability, none of those VSOs involved has been brought to account, but on the contrary continue to be protected by their successors. As a result the reform of Military Air Regulation and Investigation that is so desperately needed goes on undone.


Instead of making both independent of the MOD, they remain wholly in-house, and thus as exposed to undue interference as ever. An independent Investigator could revisit many past BoIs into Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents and find that the Regulator was seriously at fault, and that the BoIs had been subject to flagrant pressures from above to hide that very fact. That can't happen until the MAA and MAAIB are made independent of the MOD and of each other.


If it takes a static display at Waddington to remain for even more months in order to achieve that urgent reform, then that will be time well spent.


Self Regulation doesn't work and in Aviation it Kills!

Chug,I heard it was the MAA's certification process that was keeping it from flight...

EAP

I daresay that you are right, EAP86. The issue isn't that an RTS is still to be granted, but rather on what basis it will be if it is granted. In short can the airworthiness of this aircraft, or for that matter any other aircraft, be assured by the MAA, and if so how? The regulations and procedures have been lost together with the people who knew about both.


If you set out to subvert and suborn, all the above must be lost or they can be produced as evidence of your illegal acts. Once lost they can only be regained by a long and arduous process of reform, outside of your malevolent control. The MAA (and the MAAIB) as presently constituted cannot do that. The present default of rewriting those regulations and procedures from a new Year Zero is a nonsense, just as it would be if any other Regulator tried to do it.


Grounding fleets, or refusing and delaying the RTS of new ones, does not signify competent regulation. Only the continuous uninterrupted maintenance and enforcement of gradually evolving Regulations and Procedures does that... but they weren't.

You forget process, especially "safety case" process rules all.

Maintained Build Standard > valid Safety Case > valid Release To Service.

A simple chain, and break any link or fail to demonstrate each is intact, and the RTS cannot be issued. That is the systemic and organisational failure that led to the Nimrod Review and cancellation of MRA4.

In the case of Rivet Joint, the mandated regulations imposed on DEC and procurers would require them to confirm the robustness of this audit trail before even seeking approval to proceed. The scrutineers must verify it before granting approval. And, throughout the entire procurement and in-service phases, it must be the subject of continuous assessment.

What can go wrong if you follow the regs? We know what goes wrong if you don't. ZD576. XV230. XV179. ZG710. MoD/MAA are on record as agreeing with the instructions not to.

The third is/was still serving on operations as a USAF tanker last year.

RAF Waddington in line for £35.4m runway upgrade | Lincolnshire Echo

Must be about to close then.

It wasn't that long ago that a significant proportion of the runway was 'refurbished'.

"During the rebuild, aircraft will temporarily relocate to alternative operating bases across the county."

Massive undertaking to take all the groundscrew as well.

I suppose Coningsby is the obvious choice. It means the crews can be dic..., err, shuttled around as required.

"I suppose Coningsby is the obvious choice. It means the crews can be dic..., err, shuttled around as required"


..to say nothing of the T&S Budget savings.

Will there be some form of RTS (limited evidence) ready to let the ac fly anywhere before the rwy is dug up.

I bet we could do with RJ around at the moment...............

I am sure they are busy already.