Alfred
lets be honest, ALARP does include cost issues
Absolutely right.
But what if the money to achieve ALARP is bid for, approved and committed in the contract; and then at the last minute the contractual requirement is
waived (e.g. as described above) yet the
monies paid in full?
The (engineering) programme manager has a choice. Go with the flow, follow orders and sign off on safety knowing that it has not been demonstrated. (And take a chance that the holes don't line up and result in a crash). Or refuse that order and meet his legal obligation to Secy of State.
If he goes with the latter, and actually achieves anything before the disciplinary might of MoD descends on him, where does he get the money? It has already been spent (on nothing) so the normal "solution" is to chop some capability from the programme. pprune is full of such examples - typically in support. Insufficient spares, poor tech pubs, inadequate training etc. These are the avoidables I talk of.
Instead of asking about how many flights without accident (the MoD's own rules prevent one using such an argument to justify safety anyway) I prefer to look at all the BoI reports we discuss here. I read the recommendations and ask - Are these recommendations mandated anyway? Invariably the answer is a resounding YES. Nimrod. Hercules. Sea King. Chinook. Tornado/Patriot. (4 didn't involve enemy action, which is all the more galling). All the reports include recommendations in this category - the common denominator being "implement mandated airworthiness regs". If that simple, legal obligation had been satisfied, how many deaths would have been avoided? Avoiding that obligation seldom saves time or, in the long term, money; and by definition compromises performance.