Originally Posted by
alfred_the_great
And yet again, the question that must be asked: if the military air regulator and military air accident investigators are to be independent of one another and the MoD, where do they get their SQEP staff from, and to whom are they responsible?
Alfred
Have you read the Tench Report of January 1987, by William Tench, head of the Accidents Investigation Branch? Not easily found, so I'd be happy to e-mail you a copy. An enlightening read, and it will be clear why MoD had it suppressed. To understand his points, you have to appreciate that the AAIB, IF called to assist a military accident, has a very limited role. It simply reports on the evidence found at the scene; nothing more, nothing less. In a civilian accident, it looks at ALL aspects, including legal, technical and airmanship. Had this been a civilian accident, the AAIB's main question would be 'Why were the crew given an unserviceable and unairworthy aircraft?' - which, for example, its Shoreham crash report dwells on. (Yet in both cases the pilots were deemed solely to blame by authorities; indicating the real problem lies elsewhere, with those allowed to judge their own cases - the 'independence' requirement).
However, in this ZD576 case the AAIB was prevented from carrying out even its limited role, as crucial physical evidence was removed from the scene before it arrived. MoD will not say where it was taken, but no assessment of it was ever made, despite the Release to Service stating that it could cause major problems with the AFCS, fuel computers, nav and comms. MoD then lied to Inquiries that it HAD been assessed, and was benign. The best argument possible for true independence.
To resolve this does not take huge effort or manpower. If I, a bum airframe/electrical fitter, can read a few pages of a report and say 'aircraft u/s and unairworthy', can explain precisely why, and persuade a number of Coroners and two legal reviews of the fact, then it would seem I am, in that sense, suitably qualified and experienced. (And MoD deemed me so). The question is why people with this background are not welcome in the MAA. Does this explain why no BoI/SI report spells out that the vast majority of their recommendations are mandated policy? For example, 95% in the case of Nimrod XV230. In the Cunningham XX177 case, 55 of 59 were mandated; and ALL 50 factors, and ALL root causes, were MoD liabilities. Yet MoD and the HSE joined forces and lied about Martin-Baker. Not only did that transfer blame, but it diverted attention away from the inconvenient truths, more or less guaranteeing recurrence. And than Jonathan Bayliss was killed, with 12 of the factors repeated from XX177. Before considering SQEP, let's get rid of those who encouraged this, and those who stood back in silence.