Crab
Many thanks. My comment, while prompted by this incident, was on the general subject as I don't think most other aircraft have the Apache system you mention (which I know little about).
The MAA 's recent involvement would be to have the Safety Cases and implementation of the MoD's Safety Management System audited. I can't comment on Apache, except to note that during development and production they were under the same anti-airworthiness regime (at 2 Star level) that was concurrently (mis)managing Nimrod RMPA and Chinook HC Mk3. However, to be fair, they had some excellent people on the programme and I'd like to think they chose to ignore the routine orders not to deliver airworthiness if it meant slippage or cost over-runs. Others did and delivered to time, cost and performance (which includes safety), but not Chinook or Nimrod; which, ironically, by following these orders delivered both slippage and sub-airworthiness.
But it was also routine, at the time, to salami slice programmes at the whim of beancounters and such databases were easy targets when the policy was "Wait until there is a problem (i.e. an incident or accident) and then we'll have another look". (In this sense, Haddon-Cave was "another look"!). I'd like to think those I knew on the programme would have recorded it as a risk, but I know from personal experience their 2 Star would not even give it a second glance, despite it being his primary role to provide management oversight and assess major risks once a month. (In 6 years, he never once assessed any of mine, despite my being on the PAC's radar as a test case; but then, if he had, he'd have gone berserk at my refusal to ignore safety and the aircraft would still be sat in a hangar somewhere a la Chinook). I reckon I'm not far off.
Regards