Originally Posted by
Warren Peace
Tucumseh, I am not suggesting thet Bae Systems provide parts free, as the warranty on the T1 fleet is well expired. They have been reluctant to sell the spares, to promote the sales of T2 which now turns out to be no use.
This is just a solution, which is what the SofS instructed the RAF to find.
Some guys went from T1 at Leeming to Typhoon OCU so the T2 is not essential.
The alternative is for RR to say the existing engine is safe to fly. Based on last week, who is going to sign that off?
Thanks WP. I understand. I've known companies to adopt a reluctant position for this reason. There was a mandated Def Stan directing you what to do, but it was cancelled without replacement. If gentle persuasion doesn't work, the named MoD individual in the contract responsible for maintaining the build standard (which is what this is all about) summons the named company employee, who is an MoD appointee with delegated financial approval (i.e. he is permitted to commit MoD funding off his own back) and tells him his approval is being withdrawn.
In practice, with BAeS or Rolls Royce you'd prepare a Ministerial brief (because it might be seen as 'contentious'). I only had to do it once, when the company made my appointee redundant and 'appointed' their own man. He did he not meet MoD's SQEP requirement (which was far higher than it is today) so never was appointed, but the main issue was they had simply forgotten that they were not allowed to make the appointment. They could only propose. Within hours it was resolved, the redundancy notice withdrawn. Had it dragged on, their bills for the following month wouldn't have been paid.
This is a unique delegation because of what you're trying to achieve, which includes, as you rightly imply, maintaining the integrity of the safety case. It's the nearest most MoD employees get to the ability to hire and fire. Of course, matters are difficult if MoD no longer has a copy of the regs, and the new MAA definition of the process is completely wrong.
One thing crossed my mind. Has there already been an extension granted to extend use of the blades? It's a common temporary solution to spares shortages. But it then becomes the norm.... If so, there might be a reluctance to sign a safety report.