To: helmet fire
I quote “Would you not then say that, as you were the only one formally trained on R&M, and that as you were paid to develop and teach a program whose failure may have lead to the accidents, that perhaps there is some responsibility for you? Or do you believe your "attack" (as you put it) absolves you”?
Response:
The manager of the department was well versed in R&M and I will admit from knowledge of the specs covering R&M he probably knew more than I did. He however did not have a clue as to how to implement the program.
Here is my personal philosophy regarding my effort in being a consultant in R&M. I tell my client that there are wolves, there are sheep and there are sheep dogs that protect the sheep from the wolves. I am the sheep dog and the client is the sheep. The customer and the certification authorities are the wolves as are the subcontractors for the client. In making my “attack” as you put it I was trying to impress on my client (Agusta) and Westland that they were committing to a level of effort that they were incapable of sustaining. Making promises to the customer and setting delivery dates for that level of work and not being able to meet it was a death sentence as Agusta and Westland would have to pay a significant penalty. This penalty would have negated any profit the two companies would have made on their R&M effort. In effect I was protecting them from the wolves as well as from themselves.
When I left Agusta I went to work for their hydraulic system supplier and they became the sheep and Agusta was the wolf.
Here is another fact regarding culpability in the event of a lawsuit. As an R&M engineer I could be held liable along with other members of the company including management and engineering if I knowingly covered up a design flaw that eventually led to the loss of an aircraft and its’ passengers and crew. That is why I get so vocal in making my point of view known to everybody.
Here is another point of law. The Warsaw and Montreal conventions set a limit on the amount that can be claimed in a lawsuit (Flying Layer correct me if I am wrong). However if it can be proved that the company intentionally covered up a design flaw or concealed specific information then the amount of recovery is unlimited. That is why I try to impress upon my clients what is right and what is wrong.
If some lawyer wants to pick up on that then so be it. What I say is the truth.
Oh, by the way, R&M= Reliability and Maintainability and FMEA = Failure Modes Effects Analysis or FMECA = Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis.
[ 16 February 2002: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]</p>