Mick Strigg:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
A sentiment with which I would normally concur, and indeed abide by. Flight Safety though needs to be continuously reviewed and revised, for that is the very essence of the process. Perhaps not throwing out babies with bath water might be a more apt entreaty? From what you tell me there would appear to be a pecking order of professionalism:
AAC deux points (Investigations led by a fully trained Accident Inspector)
RN un point (Fully trained Accident Inspectors but not leading AI)
RAF nul points (No trained Accident Inspectors on boards at all)
Logic would seem to suggest that both the RN and the RAF should emulate the AAC arrangements. Indeed I would further suggest an economy of scale by having a Tri-Service Accident Investigating Unit, what I have called elsewhere an MAAIB. Now we come to independent. If the AAC has the prototype arrangement how is it independent of the CoC?
The Scruggs Battlebomber has just suffered a serious fatal accident. This is now the second crash in which the tailplane has detached and already there is a serious question mark over the design integrity of the type. The SI/BoI is promulgated and immediately the nominated President (Lt Col) is summoned before General Melchett who reminds him of the cost and embarrassment to the Army and the AAC in particular if all the Scruggs BB's were grounded until rebuilt along recommended lines. It might be as well for the Board to bear that in mind when calling witnesses! How does the President resist such pressures, other than simply manning up and being a stout chap? If he were not a Lt Col but plain Mr in a Military section of the AAIB he has no problem there. How is the problem overcome in the AAC?