Neshant wrote:All that stuff doesn't work on me because I've worked in the industry and know what goes on behind the scenes.
Of course, it works on actual customers who are actually connected to the program, and the operators who fly it with more than half a dozen nations around the world (and who get access to these reports and recommendations).
But that $hit don't work on you
Neshant wrote:There is huge pressure from up top on program managers to _not_ find a major bug linked to their portion of the project once the program has reached a mature stage or deployment.
Yet, I just pointed you to not ONE, but TWO examples where folks tasked with investigating incidents, looked and found both a design flaw
that required correction, and picked out a quality escape
. I can go through and list other times where they did the same i.e. exactly what you claim they wouldn't because "you've worked in the industry and know what goes on behind the scenes" ..
You claimed earlier that a true engine "design flaw" (being "from the industry", you seem to have done your own preliminary investigation and think that there is an engine flaw) will never be reported by the investigators because that will kill the program. All reasonable people can do is point you to an example, from the recent past, where investigators in fact DID JUST THAT.
. That I did earlier.
I can give you more examples, but I'll stop at these two and let you do your own research.
Neshant wrote:Doing so risks the profitability and in some cases survivability of the entire company, including the jobs of employees shilling away for the product.
Do you have any idea who investigates?
Neshant wrote:I remember addressing on a known issue and the manager immediately blurting out loud in the meeting - "I knew nothing about it, nobody told me!" when its obvious he did.
I don't see how this is at all relevant here. Are you claiming that military investigation boards are completely ineffective at what they do because you "remember addressing on a known issue and the manager....."? What next, outsource it to forums?
If this were a case, universally, around the world, no incident investigation board would ever be able to pin point the root-cause of a particular accident or safety incident. Yet, we know of examples from this program itself (leave aside the thousands of other military hardware programs out there) where that was not the case. So how come your example didn't apply then?
Look, If you want to criticize investigators or their investigation, feel free to do so. No one is above criticism. But doing so, as a default, without even reading up on (because it has not been released yet) the report smacks of a bias especially when there is no indication (AT ALL) of a systemic problem manifesting itself in repeated component failures. This was the first type crash in more than 12 years of flying, with more than 150,000 cumulative fleet hours.
In fact, given how quickly the investigators were able to turn around and make recommendations to the global operators on a specific part inspection likely points to the fact that the root cause was quite obvious.
Neshant wrote:In another instance, I got a mark down on an annual performance review for highlighting a problem in the design that was recurring. This was when the product was still in the R&D stage. The manager was annoyed at this and wanted the problem handed off to another department because he didn't want it on his plate.
Over the last dozen plus years, more than 10 DOT&E reports have been published on the F-35. These reports are a litany of "discoveries" during the various stages of development and operational life of the aircraft. If your life-experiences were an effective barometer of how things work in this case, there would have been hundreds of people fired, had their annual reviews downgraded and not promoted because their entire job was to put the aircraft through its paces, and discover faults so that they could report them to the appropriate authorities who could then begin working on corrective actions and begin designing and implementing fixes.
In fact, this forum once had a dedicated thread where certain forum members took pride in reporting "discoveries" as major faults and rather than spending time to study how it was discovered, what it meant and what corrective actions were being taken (a natural process of development) they used it as a stick to attack the aircraft and its performance. All of that would never have even occured, if we are to believe that everything is going to be covered up and that it is all a big Conspiracy (let's throw in the deep state while we are at it).
Finally, the aircraft's EMD and operational phase safety record does not agree with your assessment either. If we are to believe your unsubstantiated claims that true design defects are being hidden (from everyone BUT you) then how come more than 300 aircraft are flying daily off of ships, from land and more than a dozen air-bases over three continents and these problems are not manifesting at a rate which would indicate systemic flaws which you claim are always covered up? The program is delivering close to 2 aircraft a week, aircraft are flying off of L-class ships in the Persian Gulf, and the Sea of Japan, aircraft are forward deployed in Japan, and are flying in Italy, Israel, Norway and the UK. Israel has flown 2 operational missions and the USMC one. The USAF will likely fly its first operational mission early next year. Yet all with massive hidden design flaws which only you are aware of.
Neshant wrote:As for "professional investigators", the only thing these guys are adept at is looking at requirements, records and logs. They have zero understanding of anything beyond that. Consequently its always a loose nut or tube.
So, If i read your claim above, and take it at face value, I would not be able to find A SINGLE example
where professional investigators tasked at looking into a program, incident or safety concern, actually found a major or minor "design flaw".
One doesn't need to be a subject matter expert to dismiss that conclusion. As I pointed out in my earlier comment, investigators in this program alone
have found design flaws while investigating incidents, mishaps or during testing. One need not look outside to disprove that BS conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that the current global F-35 fleet is larger than, for example, the Rafale, the F-22, or the Gripen fleet. In fact, it is fast approaching the size of the Eurofighter fleet. One aircraft is currently being delivered every 3 days so in a short amount of time the cumulative fleet size will outgrow most 4.5 generation programs. Once you have that many aircraft flying daily, some will crash or have some other form of emergency.
Most reasonable people will treat this with appropriate degree of attention that the incident deserves..i.e is it a one off thing, is it a pattern etc etc. Others will shout "Cover up" regardless of what happens.
Perhaps you think that when an aircraft crashes and the investigators find the root cause then they by default hide the true root cause. Just out of curiosity, is this your attitude towards everything or just this? Just trying to see whether you go through your spiel of being "from the industry..." to know that when aircraft crash, then its always a covered up design defect that is the culprit.