JFZ90, Charlie etc
You entirely miss the point. I can only speak for myself, but for 20 years, since first being ordered to ignore the airworthiness regulations, and make false declarations that they had been complied with, I have fought daily to prevent the problems reported by Haddon-Cave. In that time I have been threatened with dismissal and, to ensure my aircraft and equipments were safe, had to lie through my back teeth and disobey direct orders. If any aircrew don’t like what I’ve done, please come forward.
On MRA4 in particular, next time you are in AbbeyWood or Wyton, please ask the team leader or Risk Manager for sight of his Risk Register. The regulations require their 2 Star to personally assess the top 10 risks, once a month. The risk that the MRA4 programme would be delayed by years and exceed budget by over £2Bn would be more than sufficient for it to be Number 1 risk. The secondary risk, to MR2, would be equally serious. What comments are appended by the 2 Stars each month?
Let me give you a clue. In 7 years managing concurrent and in many ways equally complex programmes, that very 2 Star did not approach me once on matters of risk. However, I approached him. He is on record as refusing me the resource to manage risk, instructing that it not be done in “company” time. In other words, DIY, at home, at week-ends – and it had better not cost anything. From memory, my Risk Mitigation plans, including ensuring airworthiness, cost over £35M to implement, expenditure I was told not to incur. (Where do you think that money came from?).
If the loss of MRA4 is the penalty for correcting these systemic failures, so be it. But, as many have pointed out, that is not the same as losing capabilities. If CAS fought for retention of MRA4 and lost, my question would be what alternative was suggested. He should have ascertained the reason for cancellation. Was it because MRA4 safety was suspect and the programme no longer viable, or because UK don’t need the capability? The implication is that Cameron decided it should be cancelled for the latter, because no compensatory provision has been made to replace the capability. Whose fault is it if CAS can’t make a case for ASW, ASuW, SAR etc. First things first. Why remove the capability?
If the official reason is we don’t need the capability, you should ask who this (ludicrous) decision protects. They are the only ones to gain. It is the same leading question as the Mull case. Who is protected? If we do need the capability, the Public Accounts Committee, HoC Select Committee and every other public auditor I can think of should be digging into this gross waste of public funds. They aren’t. Funny that.