Mach Two
Thank you.
But there must be a balance and an acceptance by those that take the Queen's five pence that there is, at times, an element of risk, often due to budgetary constraints et al.
I agree. My point is that many of the risks you are asked to take have often been identified, the mitigation determined to be achievable quickly and at less cost, but the more costly and less timely route taken to protect certain individuals. Or, in the case of IFF warnings, no action at all. I abhor that approach, mainly because people I regarded as friends have died unnecessarily.
Easy Street
Thank you as well.
And I presume that you see the re-instatement of the Chief Engineer position as A Good Thing?
Hmm. You know what I’m going to say. Alcock was Chief Engineer and, because he was double hatted as AML, his name is all over the systemic airworthiness failings that led directly to so many deaths. If pressed, he may have an explanation, but his ludicrous letters to the press suggest otherwise and the later ARTs tell a story. Nothing was done. It is always about people and their willingness to do the right thing. In my experience, there aren’t many in MoD. The decision Alcock had to make upon receipt of, for example, CHART (Chinook, Puma, Wessex) in August 1992 was simple. Do I rescind the policy to rundown airworthiness (issued in my name in 1991!), or ignore the Inspector of Flight Safety’s recommendations. He did not choose wisely. A 1st year apprentice or a 40 year veteran 3 Star could make that decision – I’d vote for the apprentice if he stood up and did the right thing. In fact, the issues would be fresher in his mind because he’s taught them before being allowed near a toolbox! I know what my first day consisted of. A film of a post mortem, the message being “This is what happens if you F*** UP”. (But 2 years earlier I’d been to the real thing, which is a starker message!).