PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - 2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 18:04
  #325 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,226
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Twos In

This appears to be a fundamental failure to ensure that MoD policy is underpinned by an effective means of implementation, rather than an unsatisfactory feature of a publication.
Couldn't agree more. I think about 80% of my posts say the same thing!!! This is precisely what ACM Sir Clive Loader said in his coruscating comments in the Nimrod BoI report.

MoD was in complete denial, constantly briefing Ministers to say the regulations are applied properly. But Des Browne finally listened and appointed the QC to conduct his Review.

It is not clear if ACM Loader knew he was wholly contradicting Adam Ingram, who had been given the opportunity to do something when told the same thing, in writing, long before the accident, but stuck his head in the sand. I do hope the report makes the same point. And I hope those serial liars in MoD who briefed successive Ministers received their Salmon letters.

As to funding for fault investigation and rectification, the system demands that unless adequate materiel and financial provision is made up front, and maintained through-life, the "requirement" fails scrutiny. If insufficient funding exists, this immediately undermines the evidence supporting airworthiness. Again, numerous audits and reports over the last 15 years have severely criticised MoD for not implementing this mandated policy.

That does not necessarily mean an aircraft or equipment is not airworthy, but it removes one of the crucial defences in depth and requires a conscious decision and written justification from the RTSA to continue flying. Again, I doubt if any RTSA does this (if only because it is career limiting, but I also suspect because few if any would know what I'm talking about). The BoI into a 2003 fatal accident actually made this very point, stating that the final defence had been effectively removed (by a Service Deviation which had not been thought through, or tested and trialled for safety - again, despite previous recommendations to do so).

A common thread runs through these cases - none of what "emerges" is new.
tucumseh is offline