The aircraft Boscombe referred to in their correspondence was part of the PE Fleet, under "contract" (tasking in those days) to MoD(PE). “Boscombe” in this sense was part of MoD(PE) – hence “PE Fleet”. Their first duty was to their customer and would, quite properly, write to the PE Project Director on such a safety matter – which they did. Frequently.
When reading the correspondence, it is clear this is not the first time Boscombe have made such a recommendation. They were clearly exasperated at being ignored – I discussed this in a previous post about the obvious breakdown in relations between Boscombe, PE and RAF. We all know when this happens you make damn sure everything is formal and in writing. (And, if possible, as ex-Commissioner Ian Blair would agree, on tape. I do not jest). From Boscombe’s viewpoint, they had been systematically ignored by their own MoD colleagues, despite offering consistently good advice.
So, it was proper to write to PE (the project director) as it is HIS job to deal with HIS customer (the RAF) and bridge any gap between the PE Fleet build standard discussed by Boscombe, and the relevance of the comments to the In Use build standard employed by the RAF. (Which is why it is vital to maintain the build standard, a mandated requirement routinely ignored by PE and, especially, the RAF). It was for DHP to advise and discuss with RAF, NOT Boscombe. If they had dealt direct with the RAF, they would have been in breach of their contract/tasking. There’s more to this obviously, as at a working level RAF staff were embedded in Boscombe, and it would be extremely naďve to think the RAF didn’t know what was going on.
As a minor and slightly mundane aside, any letter from Boscombe would, at the time, have probably reached the recipient in St Giles Court quicker than a fax or telex. The advent of the “computer age” in about 1992 gave the BCs a ready made excuse to get shot of secretarial support, typing pools, writers, messengers and so on, but the necessary replacement technology (i.e. e-mails and integrated PCs) was not in place until 1996. The fax machine (singular) was, I can assure you, shared between scores of offices, was on a different floor, was invariably behind locked door (due to there being no up to date security regs covering such technology, so just to be on the safe side………) and the resultant printouts were usually illegible anyway. Yes, a formal letter was the correct thing to do all round.