Fred J. McCall wrote:
Iain Rae wrote:

: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
ut and try to buy yourself a sense of humour and then read the
:submersible harrier threads.

Go read them yourself. You'll find my name. I just don't
automatically remember nicknames for YOUR training.

: : 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.

Except, despite the ability, most AV-8s in US service aren't "being
maintained out of rough forward bases" most of the time.

: 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.

Ok. First scale it to 100,000 hours, which is how we measure them.
That gets you to 11.7, which is not appreciably different than the
12/100,000 hours that we're seeing on the Harrier.

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

Now add in those accidents which caused sufficient damage to qualify
as Class A but did not involve the loss of the aircraft (the value of
which is well over the limits of Class A). It looks to me like the
Class A accident rate for the Harrier in British service is *HIGHER*
than that for the aircraft in US service.

I think the figures I gave will include your "class A", I'd imagine
anything that's going to cost $1,000,000 plus is outwith normal squadron
maintenance. Ok some might not but you're probably going to get repairs
that are below that which are handled off site. It seem a reasonable bet
to me that they're going to balance out.