For those unfamiliar with the tome, Def Stan 00-970 is the Design and Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft, and is complemented by JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations and other standards.
While it is true that close inspection of most aircraft would reveal breaches of 00-970 – especially in Service Engineered Modifications (part of the reason we have SEMs is that Design Authorities won’t underwrite designs which don’t conform, so by definition many are unsafe or don’t work) – the most disturbing thing in my experience lies in certain long-standing rulings by MoD concerning the implementation of these standards (which of course is the point ACM Sir Clive Loader made in the BoI report), for example;
• They may be treated as optional, in doing so rendering the aircraft or system unfit for purpose.
• One may be instructed NOT to apply them, upon which refusing to ignore them becomes a disciplinary offence.
• It is sufficient for a system to be physically, but not functionally, safe.
And so on……… These are not temporary aberrations or isolated cases of insanity – they are consistent and quite deliberate rulings made or reiterated, to my knowledge, every year since 1998. They prove (to me) that ACM Loader’s statement is not a revelation. The Sea King ASaC BoI report detailed specific failures with regard to 00-970, condemning the design and implementation of a system as “unfit for purpose” (bullet 1). The Tornado/Patriot report clearly referred to (lack of) design features which were blatant breaches but, deliberately or otherwise, didn’t discuss them so those unfamiliar with the requirements wouldn’t necessarily realise the seriousness of the breach, which rendered the aircraft functionally unsafe (bullet 3). All of this is open source, but you have to be reasonably familiar with 00-970 and 553 to draw my conclusions.