Ainsworth's assurance over "safe" Nimrod

[Rigga]

I dont know if I can articulate this properly, but here goes...

I believe the problem of an apparent lack of airworthiness duty of care has been brought about by several years (or more) of deeper and deeper defence budget diversions towards "the front line".

Diversions that didn't show as defence cuts.

Diversions that probably included transferring funds from "Back-Office" jobs, that top brass didn't see any real value in, to pay towards the direct operating costs of running a war. In the commercial world this would amount to a corporate manslaughter liability.

The new MAOS system uses the titles "Accountable Manager" for Maintenance (Pt 145) and the Operator's Maintenance Management responsibilities (one for Pt M and one for Subpart G - the CAMO).

If what I read here is true - then there is no real regulatory department within the MOD to force the accountable managers to use of funds where it is needed - or to close down a Fleet until the problem is fixed.

Is it possible that the "Accountable Manager" titles will actually mean something to the Top Brass or IPT's if they are HELD Accountable to ensure they take control of their Type Airworthiness and maintenance issues? Not with todays management environment, I feel.

Again, in civvy street these titles are given to people who can actually make the funds move to where they are required - not to some poor "lackey" who's brief is to "get on with it!"

If you want big badges - you've got to prove you're worth the money.

I'm starting to take bets on how long it will be before "Accountable Manager" disappears from MAOS?

Rigga