VSF
Thank you for giving my post some thought but please don’t use the historical argument.
The MoD’s own rules regarding safety management (and airworthiness is all about safety) state they are not allowed to use non-occurrence to later justify a deliberate decision not to apply the regulations. They are required to be proactive. Yet, disappointingly, this is the MoD party line, adopted by Hutton, Ainsworth and others. They say “We haven’t lost another Chinook in 14 years” – but take care to conveniently compartmentalise the issue and ignore the fact that the regulations apply to all aircraft; with the cumulative effect across all fleets there for all to see.
While most Board of Inquiry reports have not used the word “airworthiness”, nevertheless the Nimrod, Hercules, Sea King, Puma and Tornado/Patriot reports (that I know of) have all quite clearly criticised the (lack of) implementation of the regs and procedures. (If I tell you today is Sunday, you shouldn’t need to be told tomorrow is Monday, but perhaps they should start spelling it out). I actually believe if you read many reports to the author and said “What you’re actually talking about is airworthiness”, they’d be astonished as few seem to understand the subject. Too many equate it to the ability of the aircraft to take off and land safely. They’d also probably cringe because, by definition, they are highlighting a fundamental breakdown in the delegation chain, which flows down from SofS.
Nor do they understand that “fitness for purpose” is very often a far higher standard than that granted Military Aircraft Release – they tend to claim “Military Risk” and think FFP is always a lesser standard. We saw this at the C130 inquest, when clearly a far higher standard was required for the aircraft to be fit for that particular purpose. This thinking didn’t exist 20 years ago, as people were taught properly and, by and large, had funding to implement the regs. But successive generations in MoD have now been brought up to think airworthiness and Duty of Care can be ignored.
And that is why ACM Sir Clive Loader is to be applauded, for spelling out the lack of implementation in the Nimrod report. And it is also why I am deeply suspicious of the motives of, for example, the Mull Reviewing Officers and MoD. What is the phrase? Nemo iudex in causa sua. It is the basis of natural justice that no one should judge their own case. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but is that not precisely what has happened here? Those who have knowingly compromised airworthiness have said “Not us Guv, it was the pilots”. “Guv” being the SofS who dishes out their airworthiness delegation. The only truly independent inquiries, by the Paisley Sheriff and the House of Lords, have taken the opposite view.