Originally Posted by
cliver029
Could somebody please tell us what the role “ controller of aircraft “ in context of Mr Austins title implied?
Controller Aircraft is a 3-Star civilian or Service appointment in (at the time) MoD(PE), in charge of the Air Systems Controllerate. As distinct from Land and Sea.
He received his airworthiness delegation from the Chief of Defence Procurement, not via the RAF.
He issued Controller Aircraft Instructions, mandated upon all his staff.
In this context, his role was to provide the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (ACAS) with a Controller Aircraft Release, which is a statement by him that the aircraft is airworthy, at a stated Build Standard, and (e.g.) there is a full system of support in place to be able to Maintain Airworthiness of the Mk2 design (his staff) and for the RAF to ensure Continuing Airworthiness of individual aircraft. There must be a valid Safety Case reflecting that Build Standard.
CAIs mandate that CA must offer ACAS an advance notification of his proposed CA Release, and that ACAS must accept this. Only then does CA issue his CAR. ACAS is strictly prohibited from changing it, only allowed to remove the cover sheet and replace it with his own, and the document forms Part 1 of the Release to Service. His letter of promulgation, not the Release itself, is the authority for the RAF to fly the aircraft. If he wants to add anything, he issues a Part 2, normally in the form of Service Deviations. Those of a technical nature must be written by CA's staff.
On Chinook Mk2, it is easier to say what of the above was complied with.
CA stated it was not airworthy. (Source: a report in the form of an INTERIM CA Release, and Boscombe Down reports. All mandated upon ACAS, confirmed by the Mull of Kintyre Review).
ACAS knew this as he asked for a Switch-On Only clearance, which is what he got. (Source: MoD correspondence and minutes of meetings).
There was no valid Safety Case. (Primarily because there was no Certificate of Design for the FADEC Safety Critical Software, which had to be signed by both Boscombe and RSRE Malvern. But the Mk1 Safety Case was also invalid anyway. FADEC was not allowed within a country mile of an RAF Mk2, and there was no legal authority to enter production, based on the criteria set by the Chief Scientific Advisor and issued by Secy of State).
There was no Statement of Operating Intent and Usage at all, when the Mk2 contract was let, without which one wouldn't know where to start on the rest. (Source: Director Flight Safety).
ACAS issued an RTS in November 1993, without articulating the mandate that it be read in conjunction with specific Boscombe reports saying it was not airworthy, and why. The big question is why did he do this? It's not a case of misunderstanding 'INTERIM' or Switch-On Only' (same thing) because Boscombe had written to everyone spelling it out.
ACM Graydon's introduction of AM Austin's role is interesting, which is perhaps why you ask. What formal role has a MoD(PE) 3-Star in an RAF Board of Inquiry? Apart from his junior staff providing briefings or statements to the Board, none. They made one, alluding to what was mentioned above, SEM and STFs not being appraised. But the circumstances, Austin's predecessor Donald Spiers knowing that ACAS had breached a mandate but apparently saying nothing, meant he was sucked in.
However, during the campaign neither Spiers nor Austin were mentioned, until the Air Staff lied to Dr Susan Phoenix, telling her that there was no such thing as an RTS in November 1993, and the only authority to fly was issued by Spiers. That Spiers continued to support the RAF VSOs, means there is something else that made him ignore the VSOs had lied and pointed the finger at him.
It was not an inadvertent error, because at the same time a Defence Minister had written to various MPs mentioning the RTS. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive a family. Who benefitted? When the facts were put to MoD by Dr Phoenix, MoD repeated the lie. This is not rocket science. If your view is challenged, turn round, pull the drawer marked 'RTSs', and look at the date of the previous ones issued by your boss. Lord Philip was not amused, wrote to Minister, and an abject apology was eventually issued. But various committees were misled in the same way, and their official reports repeat the same lie.
Hope this helps.