Originally Posted by
Engines
Sky,
At that stage of my career, I certainly wasn't familiar with DEFCONs. But what I was familiar with was our Quality Assurance system for all air engineering activity on the Station, uniform or civilian. And that was why our QA Officer (a Lt) stepped forward and proposed how we would incorporate the contractors into that system. And so we did. We inspected their work, checked the qualifications of the guys they had brought on the air station, and blocked the clearances of a couple of their managers, because we felt they didn't have the right skill set. We didn't do this because a VSO told us what to do. We didn't tell any VSOs what we were doing. We didn't even look at DEFCONs. We were just doing bog standard, basic, day to day airworthiness management. We didn't need to look at any regs. So how did a long series of RAF engineering personnel fail to do something like that? Was it that they just didn't know what to do? I find that hard to believe - their training is second to none. Did they try to do their jobs and get told 'not to bother' by a VSO? Honestly, I can't see anyone below a Wg Cdr getting involved in what should have been a routine QA audit on a contractor. Honestly, I can't say.
Engines
Engines won't mind me saying this, but I first met him in 1985. I am fully aware of the problems YL were experiencing at the time, as I was the HQ 'Customer' he mentions, on FAA avionics - radar/sonics at the time, and a year later comms, nav and EW. The basic requirement was for one to have had a logical and planned progression through (at the time) five grades, with appropriate training at each grade, for the next grade. That is, useful from day 1. My very first task in post was to write the Admiralty Board Submisson for the first Sea King AEW Mk2 upgrade, and staff it through approval. My mentors (and tormentors) were an old and bold Sunderland pilot, and the Cdr RN eng who slept on a cot for months managing the AEW job in 1982 24/7. Both superb. The main thing they taught me was, you can ALWAYS tell someone's background by what they omit from a requirement.
I fully agree with what Engines says. The actions YL took were, in our HQ and in MoD(PE), mandated policy in all avionics contracts - and theoretically remain so. His actions would not have raised eyebrows. Just common sense, although that is a rarity! Especially, the right to vet company employees. Moreover, the regs required that they be an MoD appointment. We couldn't fire them, but we could (and did) rescind their appointments and withdrew their financial delegation if they weren't up to the job. (MoD will have kittens reading that. Delegating financial approval to a named individual at a contractor? Yes, it was how you managed to kick off safety investigations within minutes of notification. No contract amendment required. Ask SERCO, or Grob, of whoever, what such authority would have meant on gliders. Even if told by some idiot in MoD not to keep an audit trail, they'd be able to ignore them and be guaranteed payment). However, the Def Stan and DEFCON(s) alluded to have indeed been cancelled without replacement. The MAA's attempt to write something suitable in the new regs gets the basic definition wrong, and wanders off at a tangent. But, while cancelled, it is notable that MoD's flagship Infantry programme is still entirely based on the Def Stan, which must tell the MAA something.
Finally, the proposal to have an inquiry is sound. No doubt it would be resisted in the way the Nimrod and Mull Reviews were, but that could be overcome again. It needn't be long. List the recommendations from those reviews, underline those that are mandated policy (over 95%) and say, get on with it, or I'll employ someone who will.
Well said Engines. Feet up.