Caz
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that the “orchestrated campaign” was in fact initiated by those, like you, who held positions of responsibility for safety and airworthiness – in our case those with airworthiness and technical approval delegation. Our aim was to have the policies and practices I spoke of overturned. I’m sure you would have joined us.
Luckily, we were supported by an independent audit instigated by the EAC and another carried out by MoD’s own Internal Audit team. They conducted their business in the face of very high level opposition, in particular the 2* responsible for maintaining airworthiness, who had publicly threatened his technical staff with dismissal for daring to insist on meeting their legal obligations (to PUS and SoS). A similar stance was later adopted by his opposite number in PE, who was responsible for Chinook (post Mull). But, credit where it’s due, many of his junior officers, mainly Wg Cdrs, expressed their deep concern and supported us jumped-up civvies. I’m sure you know what it’s like – the lunacy of one or two men at the top does not constitute an orchestrated campaign, but those below must immediately make career decisions. Some chose their career, others chose airworthiness and safety. That is why the situation is variable across aircraft and equipment fleets, and why MoD will always be able to cite success stories.
As I said, there was only partial success and the inevitable outcome is recorded in various BoI reports, Audit reports and Committee proceedings.