BGG
I apologise if I wasn't clear. I don't agree with the definition of inexperience I mentioned. (Only having managed - not just worked on - and delivered 125 projects to time, cost and performance). It was and remains ludicrous, and I'd like to think most areas of DE&S don't apply it. Nevertheless, it was a formal policy, was applied, and is still cited. I mention this because I know the local Abbeywood MP/Minister once asked Min(AF) how widely this was applied and how many staff met the criteria, but MoD wouldn't reply.
I feel it is important to define SQEP for the purposes of airworthiness delegation, and technical and financial approval delegation. (All can only be given to engineers). Again, there are mixed messages from MoD/MAA. Correctly, it requires a degree of experience and qualifications, but in parallel continues to support those who self-delegated all three delegations - leading directly to many of the deaths discussed here.
I think honesty and integrity are equally important. One can be experienced and qualified, but a fraud and incompetent. Again, see the same deaths. We're not talking about scores of people. The same names crop up in most cases.
So, I think we agree. I don't like the term as it perpetuates the policy of dumbing down.
Regarding the pubs. Many are provided in the form of 'handouts' during training and, yes, you are right, they are not maintained. (As a matter of policy, so few are). But in this context (XX177) I'm talking about basic engineering that hasn't really changed for centuries. The AP that tells you one thread showing, not the 1.5 mentioned by MoD and HSE. (Apply that, and Sean Cunningham would be alive).
MoD has created a problem for itself by continually re-inventing the wheel. We lost our specialist Technical Authors (used to be around 600) and we now have contradictory regulations (e.g. 1.5 threads). Also, if the good book says to use a new stiffnut when loss of torque could lead to the loss of the aircraft, you really shouldn't need to spell out that this also applies to where loss of life could result, but the aircraft survive (e.g. this ejection). Note: stiffnut, not locknut, the term used by the SI. It's important to understand the difference when lives are at stake. And now that I've said this on MoD's Corporate Knowledge website, there will be a frantic re-assessment of said book and in a year's time a quiet amendment. As ever.
But, upon my first appointment as a Technical Agency (as you say, a new role, and requiring higher delegation) I was handed my personal copy of the two-volume Def Stan that anyone with airworthiness delegation should know backwards, that then sat on my desks for the rest of my career. If implemented, Sean Cunningham would be alive. (Just one of the layered defences in depth that broke down, long before he entered the aircraft). They were maintained, and our registry (sorry, showing my age) would come round and update it at each amendment. This standard was finally withdrawn in 2015, although staff had been told to stop using it many years before. It has never been replaced - D/Stan tried to update it many times, but weren't permitted. But the wise will still use it and, in fact, it still forms the basis of the Infantry's flagship programme whose aim is to reduce casualties. A noble aim, and perhaps the MAA should wander down and ask for an updated copy. Because, plainly, none of them have read it, never mind had to implement it.
Last edited by tucumseh; 6th Mar 2018 at 06:55.