Small Spinner (D1??)
While you are correct, it should be emphasised that the regs specifically don’t permit the argument “We’ve never had a crash, so it must be ok” or “The risk has never occurred so…..”. This doesn’t prevent the MoD from constantly trotting this line out (year after year on Mull for example), but they’ve now been well and truly hoisted.
Nor is the Duty Holder permitted to rest on the laurels of previous work – airworthiness and safety are through-life processes subject to constant review. If money isn’t provided for this, then the “requirement” fails scrutiny and MUST be reported up the chain. If one looks at the letters of delegation, this includes the RAF’s Chief Engineer (a 4 Star?). In fact, this delegation specifically
excludes “key aspects of safety and airworthiness” which MUST be referred upwards. I won’t copy it verbatim, because not all letters are the same, but typically these exclusions include;
- Advising the Air Force Board on engineering matters, in particular airworthiness of aircraft and performance of ground systems (assuming the GSE exists, which was an issue on Nimrod).
- Specifying RAF engineering policies and procedures, including standardisation of maintenance and repair methods, QA (!!), modifications, engineering documentation and tech pubs.
- Defining standards for, and methods for monitoring, structural integrity.
In short, and in this weeks language, the IPT and Users must work within the confines of regs that flow down from God+1. They have some scope for doing their own thing, like approving production permits or concessions.
Of course, the real problem comes when someone is daft enough to actually delegate such a problem upwards. When I was a boy, you got a pat on the back. Now you’re constructively dismissed from post. You cannot imagine the odium someone in an IPT faces if they identify a risk that can only be mitigated at a higher level. You may as well start job hunting.