Biggus
Sorry, I meant to comment on this…..
Air Commodore Baber says that 'the buck stopped with him', and that the IPT got it wrong.......
What are the implications of that?
Should he resign?
Has he opened himself up to a civil prosecution by relatives?
Responsibility for the Airworthiness of all UK Military aircraft rests with the Secretary of State. He discharges that responsibility by means of a system of delegation of authority. Therefore, it was proper for Des Browne to accept liability in his December speech.
I’d say the buck stops with SoS, if only because Air Cdre Baber was IPTL for a very short time whereas the failure to implement airworthiness regs has been endemic for almost two decades. This was not a single failure of process or procedure – it is a daily occurrence. The many who have, over the years, benignly accepted the dumbing down of MoD and continual financial cutbacks are equally guilty. But I reserve my utmost contempt for those at the top who, knowing they were abrogating their duty of care, did nothing except bully those who satisfied their obligation by raising the issues.
If I may, an unclassified extract from the lecture given at the likes of Cranwell and AbbeyWood on “The Application of Technical procedures for Airworthiness and MA Release”.
Airworthiness – The RAF perspective
……a number of factors have put the management of safety within MoD, and airworthiness in particular, under the spotlight.- Repeal of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, which now permits crown servants or their dependants to sue the Crown (doesn’t mention an individual) in cases of alleged negligence
- The implication for the RAF is that litigation could now be initiated by people who know what questions to ask and where to point the finger, for example, the wife of a pilot killed in an air crash or tradesman injured in a ground accident.
As someone who held airworthiness delegation before and after the repeal of Section 10, I know we were well warned and the above extract is taken from refresher course notes. That is, ADRP recognised the implications and did their bit. However, for our part (I and my colleagues) we immediately asked if there was to be a commensurate repeal of the decision to slash funding to maintain airworthiness and then bolster it further to fund retrospective action to close the gaps in the audit trails caused by the cuts. You know the answer. You see the result every day. If you look at what was happening concurrently, this is when the seriously critical reports on MoD’s application of airworthiness regs started emanating from auditors.
The MoD’s attitude towards people with such delegated authority was bizarre. I recall our Director ranting at a Directorate meeting (my only experience of an entire Directorate being gathered together) and shouting at us that we were the “rump end of MoD(PE)” and good riddance, we were being transferred to the RAF. Then the new boss, an Air Cdre, visited us and made it clear he would not tolerate our insubordination and henceforth all technical grades would be subservient to admin grades. That would sort us out. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (as Pete would say). But we weren’t fooled again and when we didn’t comply, he bitched to the AVM who promptly threatened the “worst” offenders with the sack. Note – “Worst” in the sense that these were the people prepared to fight for airworthiness and safety.
Given all that, no I don’t think the Air Cdre should be sacked or resign. Just my opinion.