First of all, my sincere condolences. I may be a civvy, but I knew some who died unnecessarily in airworthiness related accidents. It is very sad.
The failures that led to the MAA being formed could not be influenced by (Service) maintainers or operators. Few, if any, have the necessary training to simply step into the MAA and understand, never mind correct, what went wrong.
Few have any experience of working in a system where VSOs dictate, under threat of disciplinary action, that ATTAINING and MAINTAINING airworthiness should be IGNORED. Their experience is primarily in one small part of the latter (1st/2nd Line). The failures that caused or contributed to Nimrod, Tornado/Patriot, Chinook, Sea King and C130 were all made in the attaining domain; primarily during major upgrades. What would have prevented these failures? Adherence to mandated regulations. From what I read the MAA are focusing almost entirely on one small part of maintaining.
In each case, the recommendations made by the Boards of Inquiry came as no surprise whatsoever to staffs taught how to attain airworthiness. In many cases, the proof is here on pprune, in the posts preceding the BoI reports. In each case there is a written record of senior staffs being advised to implement mandated regulations directly related to subsequent recommendations. In each case the BoI (and Haddon-Cave and Philip reports) can be summarised as "Implement your mandated regulations".
Until that simple truth is acknowledged, little will improve. MoD will not acknowledge it, because doing so directly implicates retired VSOs and senior Civil Servants. They will continue to lie to Ministers (not that Ministers bother about such things). This is where pprune plays a vital role, by naming those who Haddon-Cave refused to, despite being given irrefutable evidence. In this sense, he is part of the problem, not the solution.
It only needs one BoI to be reconvened. I believe, for example, this would require the President / ROs to state they were misled, by omission or commission. I know of two such Presidents / Senior ROs who have been approached recently and presented with such evidence. Disgracefully, each declined to comment, although one expressed himself satisfied that the direct cause of one accident (a Tornado crash) had been mitigated - but only after 20 years had passed since the original mistake. He was content that the systemic failure remained unaddressed in that period, despite VSOs being formally notified on numerous occasions. At first he was up for it. But when he saw the evidence proving his senior colleagues had condoned the aircraft being functionally unsafe, he closed ranks again.
A personal note, which is worth considering. The formal Ministerial and MoD position, conveyed to my MP, is that I remain the only person (in MoD) who believes the airworthiness regulations should be implemented properly. They refuse to withdraw this (written) claim, first made in 2003, even post Haddon-Cave/Philip and the formation of the MAA. I dare say the head of MAA disagrees, but he won't say so; each time I seek a retraction Ministers are advised the ruling should stand (and questions on airworthiness are now directed at the MAA). But this is the point I'm making. Keeping this opinion private to avoid conflict with VSOs and Ministers goes against everything the MAA is meant to stand for. If the MAA were truly independent, he wouldn't have to worry about this.
(Edited to clarify a point. The 2003 statement was made to justify a ruling that the Chief of Defence Procurement was right to uphold disciplinary action against me when I refused to obey an order to make a false declaration that the airworthiness regs had been implemented, when the person issuing the order (and myself, who had the signature) knew they had not. CDP also ruled that it was not an offence to issue such an order. This remains MoD's official position. I issued directions that the aircraft be made safe. The officer issuing the (il)legal order countermanded me, and the resulting lack of functional safety was cited in a subsequent Board of Inquiry report. Hence my "attitude" on here!).
Last edited by tucumseh; 5th August 2012 at 18:15.