Originally Posted by
Mortmeister
Or then again, maybe RAF SE personnel are being similarly ‘leaned’ to save money by those that removed the requirement to conduct an engine Ground Run post MCD removal. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of not, or poorly fitted MCDs bringing down aircraft.
Anyone can know the cost of something, but only the SQEP few know the value and there but for the grace of God there were no funerals from this event, it could have clearly had a different outcome.
The reports from the Cunningham and Bayliss deaths (Hawks XX177 and 204) spell this out in excruciating detail. In the latter case, lack of SQEP was a common complaint. AOC 22 Group said he'd bags of staff, but they weren't SQEP; although others said they lacked any kind of staff. In the former, the Reds had armourers with no seat experience, they were directed to ignore mandates, and had/were allowed to use the wrong tools. But that is no excuse for so many above them agreeing to omit testing; especially, as 8674planes says, when double-checking is mandated.
That they were RAF, and the current one RN, simply highlights that these are core activities. The Panel's report, at 1.6.11, rightly touches on this, pointing out there is a single Type Airworthiness Authority. (I thought it a good report). But previous occurrences have demonstrated the weakness caused by TAAs not having the necessary authority, and the dearth of support afforded them. It's rather like giving a chippie a bag of nails and telling him to build a house.
If this is happening time and time again, and the subject of hundreds of recommendations in accident reports, then the Safety Management System isn't working and is unfit for purpose.
Here, DGDSA says there are 'valuable lessons', and then lists many that came up in the Jon Bayliss case, where only last November the Coroner found MoD negligent because it repeated breaches from 2011 and 2007. That damning indictment was on his desk when he took up post, and his predecessor knew throughout her tenure. I conclude the DG, also, doesn't actually have the necessary authority, and we already know that neither do the Delivery and Operating Duty Holders. Once again the current Duty Holder construct is proven a complete crock. There's plenty of people who say they're in charge, but there's apparently no-one in control.