Originally Posted by
Engines
As I've posted before, the responsibility for the 'hash' (actually a complete c*********k) made of ATC glider and maintenance records lies squarely with the RAF, not Serco. When you contract out a maintenance activity, you don't give up responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance of that contract. The RAF failed to do this, as was mentioned in letters from the Minister responsible.
Engines
Too right.
Lots of years ago, I and my colleagues stood in front of a 1* showing evidence of a contractor failing to fulfill their contract.
It wasn't the first time. CMT were also called in to present evidence of checks being carried out to ensure contract was being honoured.
CMT had failed to highlight, to the authority, that work was not being done in accordance with the regulations. In fact they had just kept putting satisfactory against the concerns.
No further action taken as 1* was told things will improve.
Funnily enough, the OC of the CMT took a nice high paying job with the contractor!