Bingo Handjob
“SFS for a 'well known' problem, unlikely. SFS raised for an unusual occurence or failure that the organisation that discovers it feels they should highlight to the EA. The subsequent actions are then decided upon by the IPT. The occurrence of this was probably on the date of the leak and henceforth the leak would have occured within the previous 24 hours, hardly time for it to become 'well known' even if it had a particularly busy social life!”
What you describe is the “ideal”. Consider this real occurrence, one of many……
RAF station raises MF760 (Narrative Fault Report) - cracked gearbox housing.
EA completes MF760A (Fault Investigation Request).
MoD Technical Agency (named individual responsible for airworthiness / type approval of item, usually a Civil Servant engineer) approves 760A.
RAF Supply Manager (age 18.5) refuses to release money. Supported by her boss, RAF Wg Cdr. Grounds? The kit is very old. Reliability improves with age. At this stage there should be no failures. Therefore, no funding. NOTE – Non-engineers making engineering decisions.
Next cracked gearbox, Lyneham (for it was they) try again. Same result.
After many cracked gearboxes, an omnibus 760 is raised (request for investigation into multiple instances – 23 if I recall). Same result.
SFS raised against “well known” problem.
TA completely ignores financiers/suppliers, transfers money from another budget and “cracks” problem.
RAF (suppliers) demand disciplinary action against CS.
Aircraft safe.