Tucumseh wrote about the forthcoming review:
“to examine the arrangements for assuring the airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod MR2 in the period from its introduction in 1979 to the accident on 2 September 2006, including hazard analysis, the safety case completed in 2005, maintenance arrangements, and responses to any earlier incidents which might have highlighted the risk and led to corrective action;…”
Safeware is right. The processes exist and are robust. It’s implementation that’s lacking. And the processes, procedures and regulations apply to all aircraft, not just Nimrod.
Well you know that tuc, safeware obviously does, and now that you have spelled it out so do I, the MOD does for it composed it, The Smiter does:
This whole sorry episode is entering a new phase, and, although tucumseh has already posted the upcoming review's ToR'
And as tuc says:
I hope Mr Haddon-Cave has already seen through this and sought clarification……………
Which leaves just about every one else, with a few honourable exceptions, that post on this thread. As tuc tells us, the processes that are to be reviewed are robust and have worked well enough in the past. The implementation, which may well not be reviewed, almost certainly not fully, has proved to be lacking any robustness whatsoever. The result has been needless accidents that needlessly cost lives. This is not the clever script of ‘Yes Minister’, with Sir Humphrey running rings around a hapless stooge, but the total failure of the UK Military Airworthiness provision system. That has been tacitly admitted by the MOD and the RAF. We are fortunate to have someone as experienced and knowledgeable as tucumseh to tell us how this has happened, how long for, and what must be done to regain this protection for our aircrew and aircraft. The reaction from those who post here has been in the main compete indifference, with a preference for indulging in “Yes you did, no I didn’t” yahboo instead. This review, and hopefully a subsequent Public Inquiry, may be the only hope to right this glaring deficiency in the UK military air fleets. If the individuals who identify themselves as being professionally concerned, by posting here, with the causes and implications of the tragedy that is the subject of this thread have nothing to say on this issue, then who should have?
If you support tuc’s testimony, then say so. If you disagree with him then say so, for at least therein lies dialogue. If you do not understand fully what he says, then say so, for the labyrinthine beast that is the MOD is complex and devious, often by design, and he will no doubt try to make the explanation ‘pilot proof’ in his patient way. Flight Safety concerns you! That means not turning your back on what you do not wish to hear. Get angry with me, get angry with tuc, better still support what he says, but say something for God’s sake!