Pheasant
ps MAA would have happened whether H-C existed or not as the RAF saw it as the route to control all things air.
For a number of reasons I believe this is true.
But if Haddon-Cave had published the truth, presented to him in the form of numerous reports detailing the adverse effect of the RAF Chief Engineers’ actions (or failure to act) throughout the 90s, then I’m sure the MAA wouldn’t be the offshoot of the RAF we see today. Instead he bottled it, and praised the CE, which misled and misdirected everyone who has subsequently had to deal with the fallout.
There is at least one pprune poster here who suggested such a restructuring in about 2000. He, and the rest of us, were on a hiding to nothing because this was the same period in which senior staffs had relentlessly ruled that MoD(PE) / DPA could deliver functionally unsafe aircraft; and indeed should do so if it meant saving time or money.
Looking at it from a different perspective, on a number of occasions before and after this date I was asked to chair a committee to update the only Def Stan which laid down the procedures for managing airworthiness, in particular the delivery and maintenance of Safety Cases (the main subject of Haddon-Cave’s report). The very fact I was asked demonstrates people higher up in MoD knew of the systemic failings imposed by the Chief Engineer’s regime, especially under Alcock. In 1993 the instruction had been given not to implement the mandated procedures in this Def Stan, and funding was largely withdrawn. (They remained mandated under Controller Aircraft in MoD(PE), but as funding had been transferred to AMSO, CA’s staff had no means of meeting this legal obligation. This is the crucial evidence underpinning, for example, the fact the Chinook was unairworthy in 1994).
The update never happened because my superiors refused to release me for the requisite 2/3 days a month and, 3 years ago, the Def Stan was cancelled without replacement. But in anticipation of being allowed to do the work (the request would never have been turned down pre-1993) I produced the 1st draft, and still have it. In fact, unknown to MoD (and to prove a point
) in 2001 I used this draft as the basis of a Business Case and specification for a Cat A project (over £400M at the time), which was approved by the very people who said we shouldn’t be using it. Which simply demonstrated they knew cock all about practical implementation. A bit like MAA.
The resulting flagship contract remains current, which makes me wonder if they realise it calls up an obsolete Standard; and how do the auditors validate and verify the contract documentation, or the MoD demonstrate they are current and maintained? They (MAA) clearly don't realise this contract exists, or else they'd have used it as a template for the work they've employed scores of consultants to do for the last 2 years.