I’m slightly cynical about this review.
It’s 14 weeks since I contacted the QC. No reply. I know others have had a little more success. We’ll see.
I’ve said this before, but I don’t like his remit. It’s very narrow. It talks in terms of “RAF” and “Nimrod IPT”. The well known problems with APPLYING the airworthiness regulations are pan-MoD. In fact, they have long since been elevated above MoD and notified to Ministers. Ingram specifically denied there was a problem, in writing, before the crash. MoD need only point to this approval and support. PUS was told 12 years ago (in a report which has been destroyed by the authors, but luckily retained by the sponsor). The QC needs a wider remit, as it would be possible for him to satisfy it by speaking to very few people, most of whom could just say “isolated case” or “happened under a different regime”. The usual, in fact.
WHO will speak to him, and HOW will he find those who know the truth? I don’t like an AVM being attached to his team. I suspect he may be the filter, to stop those who actually know the background getting to the QC. This is common practice. And the chosen few are of course “briefed” to make sure they are aware of the party line (and career path). The “risks” are actively prevented from coming forward, and if they try to submit a written report it seldom reaches the intended recipient. This applies to BoIs as well. We continually see the odium faced by those who step forward. Sqn Ldr Burke is the classic example.
Browne has reassured us that staff will be immune from disciplinary action, unless guilty of “gross misconduct”. But what is “gross misconduct”? MoD won’t say. I don’t know, and the issue is blurred by the long standing rulings by Browne’s junior Ministers, CDP, a DG who was in charge of Nimrod MRA4, an AVM charged with maintaining safety and airworthiness; and others. Their consistent ruling, over at least 16 years, is that it is an offence to refuse to lie about components of airworthiness, but not an offence to instruct one to lie. The only difference in opinion was over punishment. Some said sacking, others formal warning. Do I know of people who have, knowing they will be punished, ignored these or similar issues and abrogated their responsibility by lying or walking away; or advised colleagues to lie, to avoid punishment? Yes. And then people died. Need I say more?
I sincerely hope Mr Hadden-Cave is his own man. I hope he jumps all over the first attempt to “guide” him. And I can’t wait to see what he recommends on MRA4.