Fred J. McCall wrote:
Iain Rae wrote:

snip

: So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
: one proves up wrong?
:well, the statement was
:"It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher."
:
:you're the one who limited it to pilots.

Your maintenance grunts go through that?

No, neither do our pilots, it's a submarine commanders course. FFS go
out and try to buy yourself a sense of humour and then read the
submersible harrier threads.



: Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....
:
:Well, if that's how you want to tar yourself go ahead.

Somehow, I knew you'd try this sort of trolling misdirection from your
own behaviour. Either address the real issue or shut up.

AV-8 has 4 times the major accident rate of the other fixed wing
aircraft the Marines fly (the F/A-18) in US service. The human error
rate is over twice as large, and the catastrophic mechanical failure
rate is EIGHT times as large. Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
you. The human error rate also shouldn't come as a huge surprise to
anyone with two neurons to slap wetly together, since vertical landing
is obviously difficult.

Then comes you. So, tell me - just how is the statement that the AV-8
is the most dangerous aircraft currently in US service incorrect (or
even surprising) given the preceding?

It's not. I never claimed otherwise, clearly though from the article
human error also applies to the ground crew, not just the pilots. And
the article seems to imply that this is above the norm. To add to your
list of reasons above I'd imagine that an aircraft which is being
maintained out of rough forward bases is going to have a higher level of
ground crew ****ups than one which is based on a carrier or at a base.




So, what's the accident rate (under the same criteria used in the US)
for the Harrier in British service? No fair comparing apples and
aardvarks; you have to use the same criteria.



The only info I have is for all RAF harrier types (GR7 and T10) from
1988 to 2001 which lists the damage rate per 10,000 hours at 1.17.

The figures are for "damaged beyond local repair" or "loss of aircraft",
there's no monetary value attached .

For comparison the Jaguar is listed at 1.13 and the GR1/GR4 is listed
at 0.65.

Strangely there's an entry of 0.31 from 1989 for Lysander (I have to
assume this is a typo for something else).