The fact that HEART missed the ESF issue was partly down to its narrow TORs (as you say, constrained by CE and ACAS). One other reason why perhaps ESF was not fitted at initial buy (early-mid 1960s) was perhaps that it wasn't offered, or that it was too 'immature' (ESF fitted to USAF ac in 1968 IIRC). But I think it could have been because, in Transport Command, the Herc was initially used mainly in the 'strategic-lift' role. I might be wrong but it was only in the early 1970s that it started regularly going 'sausage-side' in Africa etc - an opportunity missed? But the fact the IRA were becoming increasingly well-armed in the mid 1970s should have brought the fitting of ESF to go with IRCM. Why it didn't, Lord only knows - perhaps even then the experience in PE, OR and on the Sqns had already disappated? For sure, too many 'shiney-types' at Group HQ has always been a hindrance to the TacAT fleet (I recall it still was in 2003/5 when SASO and AOC were super-shineys). JTO will confirm this I'm sure.
However, JTO makes a hugely valid point if he is correct that some officers are saying a risk/threat is deemed ALARP when all they have done is identified the problem but not actually mitigated/addressed it (ie no funding). If so, this is criminal and I think it is morally indefensible - these should become constraints and passed onward/upward and the responsibility taken at a much higher level. Certainly, this needs to brought out at MAA Conference because DG MAA cannot allow the MoD to get away with it - otherwise he is undermining everything the MAA has acheived so far and it risks being seen a lap-dog of MoD..... if it is not too late already? More independence is the only way, I fear.
Last edited by flipster; 9th Oct 2012 at 06:59.