tucumseh:
(a)“I conclude that the loss of XV230 and, far more importantly, of the 14 Service personnel who were aboard, resulted in shortcomings in the application of the processes for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod”....
By “application of the processes”, he can only be talking about those MANDATED processes designed to ensure compliance with JSP 553 (Military Airworthiness Regulations)....
There is a very simple process that underpins the ability to comply with Chapter 5, and it is MANDATED by the Chief Accounting Officer, PUS (on behalf of the Secretary of State)....
In 1992 the (RAF) 2 Star responsible for “Management of Airworthiness In Service” ruled that it was an offence, punishable by dismissal, to comply with PUS’s MANDATED rules....
Thank you for bringing this navel contemplating thread back to reality tuc! Your post underlines the fundamental point that the airworthiness of HM' s aircraft is the responsibility of the Airworthiness Authority, the MOD, not lineys at KSS but the MOD! That responsibility has been reneged on deliberately and it would seem with some malice by those senior officers charged with its implementation. The airworthiness process, as you say, is clear and unambiguous. Action by the MOD over the past two decades has been clear and unambiguous; it has turned its back on implementing airworthiness action and endeavoured to persecute those who attempted to carry out their responsibilities as required by law. The MOD is unfit to hold such serious responsibilities which should be rested from it by the establishment of a dedicated independent MAA.