Originally Posted by
CAEBr
The same system - which is the responsibility of MBA -
MBA are the Design Authority for the seat. The design, as used in Hawk, is based on MoD's Statement of Operating Intent and Usage. MBA's Safety Case is based on this.
Does the SOIU state that an untrained member of the groundcrew will fly in the rear seat? If so, then all Safety Cases will highlight the risk should the pilot decide they need to eject. MBA would propose in mitigation the modification you describe; and no doubt have.
It would seem, from MoD reports, that the chosen ‘mitigation’ placed far too much faith in an inexperienced groundcrewman reacting properly, even if given sufficient warning – which he wasn’t.
If the SOIU does not include this concept of use, that is nothing to do with MBA, except that they would be required to point out the risk as soon as they realised MoD was violating its own regulations, and hadn’t reduced it to ALARP.
The question is: can the Duty Holder (and his many predecessors) justify acceptance of the risk in his ALARP statement? Only a court can decide this. The Coroner’s ruling effectively lets the Duty Holder off the hook, although I note she left the door slightly ajar.
And it bears repeating, if only because MoD denied it in court - the SI report repeats 12 (twelve) failures noted in the 2011 XX177 (Cunningham) report. In 2014 MoD assured the XX177 Coroner that all were being addressed.