In a letter to the Glasgow Herald on 7th January, the Convener of the Church of Scotland quoted the reply received to a letter to Gordon Brown;
“Although the MoD remains open to representations and evidence on this issue, unless compelling new evidence is presented of some actual (rather than hypothetical) failure of the airframe, avionics or engine, it is unlikely that the official position will change”.
Yet again MoD moves the goalposts. From the long-stated “new evidence”, why the move to evidence relating only to failure of airframe, avionics or engine?
For years they have claimed (wrongly) to have investigated all airmanship, technical and legal issues. Now, it appears, they only need to consider a small part of the technical aspect. Sorry, I must have missed this retrospective change to the regulations.
A clear attempt, yet again, to exclude evidence of systemic failings in the application of the airworthiness regulations in 1993.
It won’t wash this time, as the cat is out of the bag. Their actions are laughably transparent. This time, unlike before, questions will be asked of key participants.
Here’s a good question – which category does the DECU sit in? Engine or avionics? Therein lies the answer to why the safety critical software was mismanaged, until Boscombe applied the correct procedures. You’d think an electronics unit, containing safety critical software, would be overseen by a specialist electronics HQ Modifications Committee. Oh, the committee was disbanded in early1993, leaving no independent scrutiny; as demanded by the airworthiness regulations.
Who made this decision? The RAF. Oh dear. As I used to say on the Nimrod thread, this is the reason why the only Def Stan setting out the procedures for maintaining airworthiness has not been updated since 1990 – there is a fundamental contradiction whereby the structure of MoD no longer aligns with the Secretary of State’s requirement for independent expert scrutiny. Nobody will take on the task as they will immediately be in conflict with their management.
MoD were crucified by their own Director of Internal Audit in 1996 over this, and refused to do anything; the Chinook 2 Star in MoD(PE) saying it was “of no concern to PE”. He was later supported by CDP, and Ministers Ingram, Ainsworth and now Rammell. Safety. No concern. And yes, all evidence with Haddon-Cave.