As the Def Stan (Part 2) states, most emphatically, “THIS GUIDANCE IS NOT MANDATORY”. How safety management is implemented on a given project is left up to the IPT.
It follows that, as usual, the MoD describes very well WHAT safety is, but doesn’t offer any practical advice on HOW to do it. Even if the IPT were afforded the resources to appoint a Safety Manager (or Risk Manager for that matter), it is unlikely he’d actually get anywhere just by reading this Def Stan. For example, what to do when a senior officer gleefully points out it is not mandatory and uses this as his excuse for knowingly leaving the aircraft unsafe. (For those who haven’t experienced this, you ignore him, make the aircraft safe and take your punishment. Or you do what you’re told, get your promotion and brick it for the rest of your career waiting for a call).
It concentrates on delivering safety but, notably, does not cross refer to the Def Stan which outlines the procedures for maintaining safety through life. It has long been practice to ignore the latter but I wonder if this indicates it is now policy?
Getting back to the main topic, Mk3. Oh, just read the above.
(Edit) Perhaps worth pointing out the analogy to the Boscombe advice issue, where accepting this is not mandatory. However, only a complete idiot would ignore it. We have already heard that Boscombe advice was ignored on Mk3. This then only leaves the question, what idiots were responsible and did they routinely condone safety advice being ignored? (Yes).
Last edited by tucumseh; 13th Dec 2006 at 07:55.