I’m sure this has been discussed before, but a little repetition is good if it incrementally increases understanding.
If there is a single event which undermines the MoD case (at least to an engineer), it is this connector. The failure to immediately correct such a design defect is breach of duty of care amounting to gross negligence. And it is only the fact that we don’t know precisely what happened that one would stop short of gross negligence amounting to manslaughter. Now, THAT would be interesting. The MoD accused of gross negligence and having a defence of “but no-one knows what happened”. I can only dream, as that would clear the pilots at a stroke.
THAT is precisely why MoD doesn’t want to go there in a legal sense. The designer may take a hit and have to offer free rectification, which is peanuts, but in court he would have his day and the MoD’s role would emerge. And remember, this happened AFTER the repeal of the Crown Protection Act.
The procedures for dealing with such defects are the same today as they were 20 years ago. They form part of the foundations underpinning airworthiness. But;
- In the preceding years funding to implement the procedures was slashed, dramatically; forcing those with airworthiness delegation to decide which components of airworthiness must be set aside. From personal experience, I can state categorically that this reached the stage where I had to choose which safety critical snags could be addressed and which to defer. Then, the RAF took that out of my hands by saying “no safety tasks”.
- As there was less that could be done, the expertise was diluted and staffs given other tasks. The experience and Corporate Memory components of airworthiness eroded.
- Within a few years, a subject crucial to maintaining airworthiness (see JSP 553 Ch. 5) was relegated to a minor task, to be ditched if something important, like organising the office party, came up. The last time I stood in front of an IPT extolling the virtues of this process, to a man (both Service and Civilian) they shouted that it was a waste of money.