View Single Post
Old 11th Dec 2018, 04:52
  #4664 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,844
Chevvron

Agreed. He'd asked for a brief about Nimrod MR4 and been told BAeS were to blame. Unlike many, he sought other opinions and was shocked at the links between it and other cases of waste, such as Chinook Mk3; and airworthiness-related deaths, like Nimrod XV230. He found it a real eye-opener that the same few names were all over them. He was particularly upset that prior written warning had been given in 2005 to a Defence Minister (Ingram) which was a brief summary of what Haddon-Cave said 4 years later; and Ingram had been briefed by MoD to reject that evidence. Like Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, he was not amused that a couple of his ex-MoD plebs could produce written evidence that MoD denied the existence of, both to Ministers and in court. And the letter from Ingram. He'd clearly done his homework and, we thought, spoken to Haddon-Cave; because we didn't seek him out, he invited us.

I hope those fuming at the ACO fiasco don't think the last few posts are thread drift. Work back a few years and this is directly related. But it does illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve change in the face of closed ranks. But it helps to identify those ranks. There is no point at all in going after a single Gp Capt, unless you think he might speak out and reveal all. He won't, because he patently doesn't understand how the fiasco could have been avoided. Why would he? He wasn't trained. Those really responsible can't believe their luck that (another) pleb is being blamed. You have to appreciate that his mistakes were simply repeats of what led to all the other cases we discuss. You have to ask what it is about MoD that permits these to happen time and again. Gliding was 'paused' on airworthiness grounds. What is MoD's stated position, under oath, about airworthiness regulations? 'Irrelevant'. Coroner Walker disagreed, and we had the Nimrod Review; but MoD succeeded in compartmentalising it again, just like gliders. One of these days someone in MoD might read the evidence and think about doing something. It's required reading, and offers a focus. Perhaps then the MoD/MAA will stop claiming 'credit' for it. That's what you're up against, the MAA Technical Director claiming credit for the contents of a document sent to a Minister in 2005, and a 3 Star in 2000, and.... Summary of said document? 'Do what the regulations already tell you to do'. MoD refused, and stills does. That's why the ACO has been decimated. Best of luck.
tucumseh is offline