JFZ90
To answer your questions:
“Tuc admits freely to know nothing about Nimrod trainer issues yet goes on to imply wrong doing here because of other experiences”.
I admitted I knew little (but not nothing) about Nimrod MR in the context of a lack of detailed knowledge of the RMPA / MRA4 programme, and why someone would pose the questions on the training facilities. I therefore made no direct comment on this.
“Tucs apparent safety analysis / certification credentials (I may have read this wrong, but I thought this was his background). Have I missed something Tuc?”
Well, a little. This is a bit like saying a pilot is someone who seeks permission to take off.
What I said was that, if you look beyond the apparently bland questions and answers on the Nimrod training facility, you can ascertain useful facts (not speculation) which help a better understand of the MoD system, and which can inform the likes of TD as to where to look for proper answers, and what questions to ask. There are various threads here (Mull of Kintyre, Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado/Patriot are a few) where people have vented their frustration at being continually fobbed off with half truths and outright lies from the MoD. I know little about some of these – but on others I was one of those who accurately warned of problems that later “emerged” in the BOI reports. What I can offer is an overview which wholly refutes the MoD’s standard response that problems were isolated events and completely unrelated. In this particular case (trainers) I simply commented that any problems would not be the first time, by any means, that MoD has got its knickers in a twist over aircrew / maintainer training. The common factors? Someone in the Customer organisation (not the procurers) must identify the requirement up front and make proper materiel and financial provision. MoD, as a rule, no longer does this properly or accurately, which causes financial pressure later in the programme, forcing people to take sometimes dangerous shortcuts. You do NOT initiate the Training Needs Analysis as an afterthought or, worse, take a bloody minded decision to ditch training altogether just because the Customer has forgotten to ask for it, or refused to do his job. (The other programme I mentioned). There needs to be acceptance that the ISD cannot, by definition, be met if the aircrew and maintainers are not properly trained. Training (and accompanying documentation) is a fundamental part of the airworthiness process. (Read the Mull thread – this is a prominent feature).
I say all this as if fact, but fully acknowledge that far more senior people than I think I’m wrong, and have formally ruled that, for example, it is ok to ignore all this (including airworthiness) if it inconveniently clashes with time or cost.
I find this unpalatable. If they read this, I hope they’re embarrassed. Certainly, I have been told my views are both unpalatable and embarrassing – by the very people I warned about at least three of the incidents I have mentioned. To which I say – good!
Best wishes