Two years (!) after my post on the subject, Shell Management asked:
by what power do you think is POSMS made mandatory
I forget the exact details but some very very senior MoD person (head of old DPA?) signed the letter saying it was mandatory for all MoD (Integrated) Project Teams.
and/or is more important that a Defence Standard
I didn't say POSMS was more important than Def Stan 00-56. Do you want to rephrase your question?
About Hobbs testimony, Shell Management wrote:
Is he perhaps trying to make a point that an aircraft can be airworthy but still vulnerable to enemy action?
(It's certainly true that an aircraft can be airworthy but vulnerable to enemy action.) Hobbs seems to show, just as the Nimrod TL did at his inquest, a poor understanding of his responsibilities (though, to be fair, there may be some context missing from the testimony nigegilb quotes).
1. Hobbs was responsible for the safety of the aircraft, not just its airworthiness. However, responsibility for certain aspects of that safety, it is true, may be vested elsewhere.
2. Hobbs is responsible for many aspects of "fitness for purpose". Perhaps the context of his claim regarding "fitness for purpose" was hostile enemy action.
3. I believe what Hobbs was trying to express is that he was not responsible for aspects of safety directly associated with hostile enemy action. In this, I have some sympathy for Hobbs as an individual but only frustration and anger for the MoD as a whole because this subject seems to fall between the cracks between different MoD organisations for just about every aircraft I've ever been involved with. And I don't particularly see it getting better post XV179, Haddon-Cave, etc.