Firstly, I extended my deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of those who lost their lives.
I am a practising, qualified, safety engineer. I am also in the RAF. I have dealt with several IPTs and projects, both those in service and those in the process of being introduced. I wholeheartedly agree with the findings of the H-C report
. In my experience, the personnel with day-to-day responsibility within the IPTs are poorly (if at all) trained in functional safety, they are not paid much and some have no interest at all. To be fair there are a few (the honourable minority) who are the opposite.
Let's put this into context. There is a shortage in the UK of Engineers. There is a significant shortage of safety engineers. Every job I applied for (I am leaving) I was offered. Not because I am the bees-knees but because I am qualified and competent. Against this background the salaries being offered are equivalent to SO2/SO1. Paying a civil servant in an IPT at, say, C1 level means that in a highly competitive recruiting environment the MoD is offering less than half the market rate. There is a saying about peanuts.... As I said though I have also met some dilligent, hard working personnel also.
So where am I going with this? I have written safety cases basing them on risks and hazards which the operators presented to me. I then did the behind the scenes safety work to demonstrate (or not) whether the system was acceptably safe. On one major project it was not - this was raised and the response? We'll accept the risk. Fair enough. They get the money (DACOS level) and they take the risk. However, according to the rules & regulations they are not allowed to (in this case)
. I worked hard (that's what I am paid for); the operators identified the major risk; I documented and presented it; it was ignored. The thing that gets me? A simple procedural change would have solved it with no cash outlay just time and training. Against this I decided to leave.
Against all of this there is a "safety-fog". Why on earth we have an explicit name/process for something which used to be called good design, good maintenance, listening to people, heeding what the operators say and then having the money to fix it. Ah, oh well there goes that theory!
Apologies for the long post. Frustration reigns supreme. Hopefully, Charles Ness will undertake the necessary culture change - the one required at the top. More importantly some political leadership would be welcomed. Ainsworth should do the honourable thing and resign. It would cost him nothing, restore his pride, improve the image of a rotten political elite and, hopefully, give an crumb of comfort to those who have lost the most - the families.