Tuc said:
"I wonder if the Build Standard reflected in the Boeing Safety Case in the US is the same as the proposed UK one? We are told they are the same, but I'm not so sure. "

I would be absolutely gob-smacked if the Safety Case in each Directorate was even remotely the same.
The UK and US spec's should reflect those nations individual expectations and standards. The differences are clearly stated as such in the MAA's declared aspiration to align with future US mil certification processes for Apache and F-35.

They only have to bend the current rules slightly to achieve that.

NO I DID NOT!

I very specifically and clearly used that word in reference to those who claim that the massive mountain of documentation provided by the USAF does not exist, as it had not been generated inside, and in accordance with the processes of, the UK!


You continue to deliberately and maliciously twist and falsely misrepresent my statements, and you have both been reported to the moderators and placed on my "block" list.

Green Knight


For Goodness sake, no need for a little paddy. I would not say your post is as clear as you imply, but if that is what you meant, so be it.


If I were MoD, I wouldn't pay too much attention to USAF paperwork, in the same way I wouldn't expect them to pay too much to ours. What I'd want to know is what work the company charged with stripping, inspecting, making good, rebuilding, testing, trialling our 3 aircraft has to do to achieve this; especially the making good bit. One assumes they weren't simply fueled up and flown as is.

Then, given the airframes are 50 years old, I'd want to know if the standards and materiel from 50 years ago are still applied (or CAN be applied) and, if not, what DIFFERENCES there are, how to record them, make sure they actually ARE recorded, and WHO will underwrite them. In other words, how many Production Permits and/or Concessions have been necessary, and who signs them? Because, those differences, even just one (and there are probably hundreds) constitute a major risk to a programme that was predicated upon buying the exact same standard as the US (which is what MoD announced in the beginning to allay these fears).

And, all the while and in parallel, this work is being plugged into the Safety Case update and reveiwed at each change, because if the audit trail is broken at any point then, by definition, MoD is going to have to be seen to ignore Haddon-Cave and the Secy of State.

And what does the original DA (Boeing?) have to say about this? Would you, in their shoes, be keen to put your name on the line for the sake of 3 resurrected airframes being flogged cheap to patch up a major cock-up? Indeed, have they a mechanism in place for approving such changes to a 50 year old design? If not, or if they are unwilling to sign up to the new Build Standard, or have doubts about the ability to maintain it, then who will?

I can't help wondering why such a risky programme was endorsed and approved in the first place. By MoD's own admission, they knew from the outset the airworthiness regulations could not be satisfied, but proceeded "at risk". I'd say DE&S/MAA don't have that authority. Was it a political over-rule, due to the embarrassment of no longer having ELINT? My guess here is DE&S are being blamed unfairly. I'd also want to know if the MAA had the authority to play the red card, and if they tried.

Shiny New MMA anyone ?

Exclusive: P-8 Poseidon Flies With Shadowy Radar System Attached

Add an Elint package and some geeks and we get 3 fleets for the price of one.

Was going to mention AEW but thought that might be too controversial.. Bugger !:ok:

The MoD will have collective coronaries just checking the spelling, all those 'izes, 'ors instead of 'ours, 'ibers instead of 'ibres, etc.

One wonders if the onboard safety equipment includes an ax? And is the aircraft painted gray or grey? Will the MoD 'metricate' everything, they managed to avoid it on the E-3 thank goodness...

Ah yes - the documentation provided...


If I remember for the entry of the E-3D into service....the US equivalent of the aircrew manuals arrived at Waddington some time after the aircraft and we (the aircrew) were asked to make observations. Sadly, all of the diagrams referred to an E-3C - there was not a picture that contained an E-3D with a refuelling probe and the engines were Pratt and Witneys and certainly not CFM-56s. We shortly realised that we would have to write our own manuals based upon the existing USAF manuals. Unfortunately, the classified documents did not arrive until a year later and were blatantly WRONG in several areas! The difficulty in correcting these documents was that we had no facilities for changing these documents and they went on for many years uncorrected - unfortunately, when teaching subjects such as radar, the students were often confused because their instructor (me) was telling them something different to the manuals (if they actually bothered to get them out).

Like Tuc, I would have no real interest in the supplied paperwork apart from referencing where it fitted into my own research and requirements.
In my past I have been 'told' to certify several airliners that I discovered didn't have "paperwork" going back the length of service and I failed to sign, much to the boss's obvious frustration. But without my signature on the dotted line they (three 757s) didn't go anywhere (not on my signature and not in that airline, anyway).

Wensleydale,
when we first got the 'one off' C130K we had exactly the similar problems, especially with the servicing manuals. We were fortunate to have regular contact (OK beer calls) with the Mildenhall Herc detachment who were able to point us in the right direction, and we the aircrew on 47 were very lucky to have an experienced C130 pilot as our exchange officer Add to this the introduction of the new stock computer at Hendon, as they tried to convert Lockheed part numbers, Federal Stock numbers and good old section and refs and you can see why we had a problem.

I'd imagine the issues with these would be even greater, as whilst the majority of USAF RC-135s have been under L-3 (and it's predecessors) control for a long time, the RAF's aircraft have spent most of their life as KC-135s (presumably under Boeing design control) - I may be wrong, but I don't think any of the USAF RC-135Ws spent any great time as tankers (if at all), most being 135B models originally.

I understand one of the stumbling blocks is in the maintenance - How can you guarantee that the replacement parts match the original items the safety case was drawn up against?

Say, for example, part of the fuselage needed changing and L3 swapped it with a part off the rest of the RJ fleet which had an incomplete history and completely different flying hours, then what happens.

As to the reason for going down the RJ/Airseeker route instead of the original Helix upgrade plan - I'd guess that when Helix became unaffordable (due to them realising that extending the R1 was not solely it's current running costs because of the infrastructure support it enjoyed from the maritime variant?). It looks like they revisited earlier, pre-Haddon-Cave, proposals without fully considering the implications.

Am I the only one that finds it amazing that someone would spend many millions for an airplane and them get into a huge argument with themselves over whether they can actually fly the airplane ?

Rick777

Assuming that's a typo and you mean "argument"..........:ok::ok::ok:

Ricky,

no, you're not. if the RAF has bought this aircraft and then decides its never going to be safe to fly i wouldn't bother wasting money on a 'happy 100th Birthday' card for the RAF...

nobody minds the RAF nut-stranglers sitting down and saying that an aircrafts history, or non-existant history, means it should never leave the ground again. they do however mind if the RAF has just bought it, and persuaded ministers to make public pronouncements on the cleverness of buying this particular aircraft.

would you go car shopping with a bloke who only last week had taken a car for a test drive, bought it, and then - upon getting home - decided to send it off for scrap as it would never pass an MOT? no, and neither will ministers.

Nimrod, RJ, F-35B/C/B - all these embarrassing episodes under one government and that government is going to start doubting the competance of the people supposedly managing those programmes...

Just a reminder that this situation didn't just suddenly happen. It is the inevitable and logical consequence of the actions of certain RAF VSOs almost 30 years ago and of the subsequent cover up of those actions since, let alone any serious effort by the RAF High Command to correct them.

As you say cokecan, hardly the setting for any celebration in 4 years time, unless of course it bites the bullet, admits what happened, and sets about putting things right, starting with calling for the MAA and MAAIB to be freed from the MOD and from each other.

Now, deep breath in and hold....

Rick777 and cokecan,

I realize that this thread is getting quite long, and 500+ posts is a lot to read. However, if you go back and read my post 433, and some of the replies, especially 434, you will see a partial explanation of the situation you refer to - i.e. buying an aircraft that your own procedures then won't let you operate.

Between the RJ being ordered, and it being delivered, things within the MOD/RAF changed, including the creation of the MAA and the procedure for accepting an aircraft into service. Thus the RJ was ordered under one set of "rules", but was delivered under a different set due to the passage of time.

While this doesn't excuse the situation, and the problem (risk) should have been seen coming and mitigated earlier, it does help explain how it occurred.



I have used the phrase "rules" quite generally. tucumseh and others are far more knowledgeable on these issues and the many sins that appear to have been committed, and are still being committed, in this area for the past 25 odd years. Their posts are more enlightening about the situation in general.

oh absolutely, these problems are the result of actions/decisions decades old, but they are to the outsider (and i include the rest of the government in that..) all coming together at the same time.

it looks, again, to the outsider, like the RAF (collectively, regardless of how unfairly) couldn't find its arse with both hands.

while i've seen individuals blamed, it can only be the truth that a whole generation or more of senior RAF officers have conspired in this airworthiness abortion - as happened with Chinook ZD576 and the subsequent cover up, Nimrod XV230 etc...

on the evidence, you wouldn't trust the RAF to run a welk stall without killing the saturday girl.

Documentation
 

Wensleydale's post about documentation revived memories of the E-3D trial programme.

Apparently when the Boscombe Down team set about planning the E-3D trial programme it looked at the agreed contractual method of testing for the respective aircraft and mission systems.

Against some items it read "PV" meaning it had been previously verified and did not need to be tested. This had been agreed by the civil servants managing the project in the then MOD PE.

When the team asked for proof of how the systems had been tested the reply was that proof of verification was not part of the contract. I believe this led to a separate contract having to be set up for the documentation to be provided.

Cutting through this sorry saga to the chase - does anyone have the remotest idea when/if this aircraft will fly again?

"Cutting through this sorry saga to the chase - does anyone have the remotest idea when/if this aircraft will fly again?"

According to local television which has picked up on the story, the MOD has stated that the aircraft will be "operational" by the end of the year.

Are you 100% sure of this? Not arguing but I'm not convinced. Nimrod was scrapped after Haddon-Cave, who reported end 2009. The MAA is 4 years old this month. As tuc mentioned above, one of the main problems was probably the announcement that RJ was to be exactly the same as a US aircraft, then they realized the advice it couldn't be was correct all along. Over a year between delivering an "off the shelf" aircraft and entering service means something is wrong. Smells like someone just assumed the safety case would be a box tick and they parked it in a corner.