Military Aviation Quango-coming soon!

#2
HectortheInspector said:
Yes, I just read that on my RSS feed. Three thoughts;

1. I think something certainly needed to be sorted but is this yet another 'something was done' to hide the fact that 'people' were not doing their jobs properly in the first place.

2. Considering that cuts will be a fact of life, does one detect the 'hand of Sir Humphrey' here?

3. I wonder what the split of Mil:CS will be. I mean, a staff of 250 does seem a lot.
 
#4
lsquared said:
Oh! Yippee! Another expensive (250 staff) waste of time and space.

I hope it is already on the list of 'Quangos to be Axed'.
If you understood what was happening, you might have a point.

If you don't think military aviation safety is important, you've lost any point you might have had. Catch something painful and longlasting will you?
 
#5
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
lsquared said:
Oh! Yippee! Another expensive (250 staff) waste of time and space.

I hope it is already on the list of 'Quangos to be Axed'.
If you understood what was happening, you might have a point.

If you don't think military aviation safety is important, you've lost any point you might have had. Catch something painful and longlasting will you?
See your PMs please.

I repeat this will be an expensive and short-lived waste of resources. Having spent over a dozen years watching this nation being crucified by this apology for a government, I am not about to believe in any of its 'eye-catching' announcements, made as it is twitching in its death throes.

I do understand why Cowen and Pledger should be asked to make some explanations, but they were operating under the aegis and financial directions and control of Brown the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
 
#6
I don't care what you used to do. The guys I know working on the team are diligent, experienced and well motivated. I want them looking into how to advance flight safety.

It is a shame that, if you have the hours you claim, that you have ended up as an O Thief on here. I'd rather you saw less movements in the shadows and found peace somehow.
 
#7
IIRC, it was called the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety, under a One-Star. Staff of about 30?

Somehow it disappeared.

Wheel, re-inventing, GO :roll:
On a GRAND scale, of course, despite the fact that UK Mil Avn is substantially less than half the size it was in IFS days.
 
#8
blue-sophist said:
IIRC, it was called the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety, under a One-Star. Staff of about 30?

Somehow it disappeared.

Wheel, re-inventing, GO :roll:
On a GRAND scale, of course, despite the fact that UK Mil Avn is substantially less than half the size it was in IFS days.
Well, they've got to hide all those officers they're suppsed to be sacking somewhere.....
 
#10
Good idea in essence if it is staffed properly with the correct personnel.

Unfortunately if it's the government that are doing it then expect the same treatment as the CAA recently got, where new board members basically included Baroness Hutton as Chair, who has no knowledge or experience of aircraft, but does have a good knowledge of the food industry, then the chief executive is someone who has vast experience in the railway industry and another couple of the board are fantastic at finance initiatives.
 
#11
That's right Mr Hinecap if we all keep dutifully toeing the Party line then we can be assured that the present high quality service can be sustained. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can expect to be derided as not knowing what they are taliking about - you, after all, know all about it.

When you get all your info, lines to take and knowledge from the MoD Focus (and similar) magazine how can you be wrong? I'd stick to their letter pages if you want better quality debate!
 
#12
It isn't entirely clear to me what is being proposed. Is it (a) an MoD department providing oversight, but independent of the IPTs and various airworthiness committees or (b) a truly independent, from MoD, body (Quango, as the thread title suggests)? Perhaps it subsumes the committees, who obviously haven't done their jobs properly for years.

If the former, surely that is simply a reversion to implementing MoD policy anyway, which is the failing the Nimrod inquiry criticised in the first place?

So, we've had a 2 year inquiry by a QC, who has concluded "MoD should implement their own regulations" and a reply from Aisnworth saying "Ok..... Ish....." I do hope the QC hasn't asked for too much expenses.
 
#13
Herrumph said:
then we can be assured that the present high quality service can be sustained. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can expect to be derided as not knowing what they are taliking about - you, after all, know all about it.
Given that I don't believe the current 'system' works, keep your aspersions to yourself. I know the current system needs overhaul, along with many other areas of defence (especially DE&S).

Given I know a couple of guys doing some of the work now, I do know something of something (rather than your something of nothing). I know I'd trust them to make engineering decisions that are for safety - not something I'd trust everyone with. If you wish to jump to conclusions from what you read in the press you deride so much, crack on.
 
#14
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Herrumph said:
then we can be assured that the present high quality service can be sustained. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can expect to be derided as not knowing what they are taliking about - you, after all, know all about it.
Given that I don't believe the current 'system' works, keep your aspersions to yourself. I know the current system needs overhaul, along with many other areas of defence (especially DE&S).

Given I know a couple of guys doing some of the work now, I do know something of something (rather than your something of nothing). I know I'd trust them to make engineering decisions that are for safety - not something I'd trust everyone with. If you wish to jump to conclusions from what you read in the press you deride so much, crack on.
It's not the fault of the shop floor. It's the f**kwits in charge that are at fault. Chunking another quango on top/alongside merely adds another level of bullshite. Senior RAF Officers with balls to say "Nope, Not flying, It's not safe" is what's needed. It's not a major drama, quick press release, along the lines of "The RAF's reserve fighters of Sopwith Camels has been grounded due to woodrot and no cash to pay for new bits of wood." HM Government can't sack somone for saying something is dangerous. That would go down right well in the guttersnipes of the Press.

BTW Who going to pay for this? MoD? RAF ? If that's the case, then great, another chunk of cash wasted and independance? Really? What independance?
 
#15
Can I ask if, with an MAA we will still have to abide by CAA rules when taking Mil flights? Will we be able to have our own rules on taking nail clippers in our wash bags on flights to Afghan? Rhetorical, but just a thought...
 
#16
Kermit said:
Can I ask if, with an MAA we will still have to abide by CAA rules when taking Mil flights?
There are rules for 'war' aircraft and rules for 'passenger' aircraft. Guess which one is harder to do?

Just to add

It would be led by a three-star officer
Can anyone name a 'quango' that is led by a serving officer? Not me.
 
#18
Argee2007 said:
Good idea in essence if it is staffed properly with the correct personnel.

Unfortunately if it's the government that are doing it then expect the same treatment as the CAA recently got, where new board members basically included Baroness Hutton as Chair, who has no knowledge or experience of aircraft, but does have a good knowledge of the food industry, then the chief executive is someone who has vast experience in the railway industry and another couple of the board are fantastic at finance initiatives.
Probably be staffed by all the redundant fast jet jockeys as they are really clued up to what the little switch on the left does. Then again i wonder what DQAFF have been doing all this time.
 
#20
meridian said:
Will QinetiQ still be involved?

I think selling them off was one of the biggest defence mistakes we have ever made

Not for John Chisholm it wasn't!

I knew him when he was just a normal management bod at DERA, now he's seriously bloody rich from his £129,000 investment!
 

Latest Threads

Top