If the Sunday Times article is remotely correct, well done the current MRA4 team.
The inevitable public inquiry (!) should ask at what point the following mandated process broke down for each of the identified problems.
· Allocated Development Phase Baseline
· Configuration Management Plan
· System Requirement Review
· Configuration Item Review
· Configuration Item Identification / Selection
· System Design
· Functional Baseline
· Requirements Analysis
· System Design Review
· Configuration Item Specification Review
· Allocated Development Baseline
· Preliminary Design
· Preliminary Design Review
· Detailed Design
· Critical Design Review
· Configuration Item Manufacture
· A Model Build
· Configuration Item Test And Integration
· System Test Readiness Review
· System Test And Integration
· Design Development Review
· Qualification
· Trials Baseline (Preliminary Master Record Index Issued)
· Pre-Production Model Build
· Functional Configuration Audit
· Production (Physical) Configuration Audit
· Product Baseline (Consisting of the MoD approved Master Record Index)
· Production Readiness Review
I’d be particularly keen on the CDRs (underlined) which, you can see, must have taken place a long time ago; and should have been repeated following significant specification changes.
On the other hand, I simply note that in June 1998 senior management in this MoD(PE) Directorate General were formally notified (on another programme) that their ruling that Critical Design Reviews could be waived, yet full payment made with critical safety issues unresolved, should be rescinded as it was absolutely barking and illegal. The notification ends “To not even insist on a CDR when the main subject is electrical and structural integrity of the aircraft is beyond me”. No reply was received and no action taken.
Among the problems listed were invalid safety case, invalid hazard log, unverified stress calculations, HF hazards, electrical bonding, connector design, load shedding, reliability and maintainability. None of these were of any concern (apparently) to either senior staff or the contractor. In the aircraft in question, the problems were resolved by contracting and paying a third party (bearing in mind the prime had already received full payment). But that meant disregarding senior staff instructions. I wonder how often MRA4 disregarded these rulings?
Last edited by tucumseh; 30th Jan 2011 at 10:53.