It is not eyewash, but if the makers are happy with the plane and the pilot is happy they should fly it, the company is owned by the government as is the certification authority what is the point in these delays.
May be I don’t know much, but the whole purpose of having government regulators is to make sure the private players don’t compromise on safety, if its government owned who cares, all money is government money whichever department/company it is in.
No if it crashed and expanded its flying envelope there by making it closer to FoC and induction i will be rather happy.
You realise how ignorant you sound ? Just read what you wrote once again. Every government agency / public sector company in its day to day operations requires several licenses and adherence to several guidelines associated with safety. What happens in the case if there is an accident and the subsequent enquiry finds the design implementation and testing team guilty of not adhering to the safety guidelines resulting in loss of human life, government property and private loss, should it land in an inhibited area ?
Sea Gripen has more chance than the LCA because people there know what they are doing, I am sure SAAB would have been willing to co-operate with NLCA more than EADS or Boeing, would have been happy with the role of a junior partner etc.
A plane which exists in power point presentations v/s one doing EGR. You really are an optimist. :rolleyes:
Sign In
