Originally Posted by
tucumseh
Only Hawk and Nimrod? I must be slipping.
Given the serious systemic failings reiterated by the Nimrod Review and various Coroners over the last 15 years, and that the root of those failings has been identified yet MoD still defends the individuals who caused them, while attacking the messengers, then yes, I'm afraid the narrative might seem repetitive. You should be asking why the same failings are raised time and again, and try to understand those failings.
Next week, for example, the Inquest into the death of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss opens again. In case you've forgotten, he was left behind in a Hawk T1 at RAF Valley in March 2018. MoD's submissons include a claim there were no systemic failings, and the risks that manisfested were not recognised.
There are twelve common factors with the XX177 (Sean Cunningham) accident in 2011 listed in the XX204 Service Inquiry report of 2018, despite MoD assuring the XX177 Coroner that they were being addressed.
And one can only assume the claim about risk means no-one today has read the Red Arrows risk register, an exhibit in the XX177 case. And, noting, XX177 was itself a recurrence of extant risks.
Please let us know what you think of the link I draw between the destruction of records, and inability to produce valid safety cases. Would you care to comment on how that came about, what MoD has done about it, and how such events might make the MAA nervous over other fleets? For the record, I think they're now doing the right thing, but on Hawk for example, this was known almost immediately after the XX177 accident. And on Nimrod, it was known in 2007, at latest. (And you may not know that Minister for the Armed Forces Adam Ingram was given written warning about these systemic failings one year BEFORE XV230, but the same people in MoD advised him to deny it). Why has it taken so long to act, when 'all' one had to do was implement mandated regulations? Who told them not to, and who condoned this? Might I suggest that is where your ire should be directed.
I don’t have any ire. I think it’s terribly disrespectful to say that Cpl Bayliss was ‘left behind’. That kind of pejorative language is unhelpful and wrong. All the examples you’ve cited are historical. It doesn’t make it right, but as I say, you don’t mention what’s being done today and for the future, yet you tar everyone with the same brush.