EdSet100
Your response to my post concentrates entirely on one very small part of the whole picture – the role of maintainers at Kinloss. It has been said many times here – no-one has ever pointed fingers in that direction.
Please read posts carefully. My point has always been that there are systemic failures across the MoD in the application of the processes and procedures underpinning airworthiness regulations. I have made this point repeatedly over time. The MoD have continually denied it, but the truth has been exposed.
In that context, please reflect on ACM Sir Clive Loader’s comment,
“I conclude that the loss of XV230 and, far more importantly, of the 14 service personnel who were aboard, resulted from shortcomings in the application of the processes for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod”.
He omits to say that the processes are not Nimrod-specific, that they apply to all aircraft. Hopefully the Review will explore this.
A remarkably similar sentiment to mine, may I suggest. I notice it is dated 2nd November 2007. Three weeks later MB were denying this very issue, in writing, on behalf of Min(AF). I have their letter in front of me, one of many over a period of years which all trot out the same mantra. “The MoD has a robust regulatory framework”. Frameworks collapse if they don’t sit on deep, stable foundations.
I am not Sir Clive Loader. Nor do MoD address their correspondence to "tucumseh".