Ancient
Thank you for those comments. In general terms we knew the ARTs had very narrow remits, but the only one we had firsthand knowledge of was CHART in 1992 (which also covered Puma and Wessex). The RAF Chief Engineer delayed their start, spending 2 months “adjusting” the TORs to stop CHART speaking to anyone outside the RAF; specifically excluding anyone in MoD who managed attaining or maintaining airworthiness. But he kept their target delivery date the same – August 1992. (i.e. 3 months instead of 5). This meant they were spread very thinly with a fixed number of Air Stations and departments to visit, so for example a non-engineer would have to conduct interviews with Engineering/Maintenance staffs (and engineers with aircrew).
Nevertheless, the CHART team did an excellent job and, had the ZD576 BoI been shown, for example, the Annex discussing RAF Aldergrove, then I imagine things would have been very different. Also, given the criticism of aircraft documentation by witnesses, I’m sure the BoI would have mentioned the use of captured Argentinean pubs, used because ours weren’t up to scratch. (By definition, this alone renders the RTS invalid).
If I were to criticise the ARTs, they made the common error of confusing airworthiness and serviceability, although given their narrow remit this was perhaps understandable. The result is they identify a subject (typically a systemic failure) and get so far, but then stop. They seldom dig deep enough to reveal the root cause (but maybe didn't have the time, and their interviewees wouldn't understand that detail anyway). For example, the use of Argentinean pubs draws a simple criticism of Guttersloh (from memory) for using them (which was a good spot by the team), but doesn’t take the next step of asking why the UK versions are crap. The answer was that the Chief Engineer’s department had directed that AP updates should cease. However, I may be doing them a disservice because I know there were a number of draft CHARTs which were diluted. I only have one of them, and it is obvious word came down not to criticise senior staffs.
What I found interesting was the Executive Summary and Covering Letter (to CE and ACAS – Alcock and Bagnall respectively) was taken out of the hands of the Team Leader and written personally by IFS. Clearly, this was to send the message that the report raised very serious concerns about BOTH Mk1 and Mk2. Graydon, Alcock and, ultimately, Fox,
lied about this aspect, claiming CHART only addressed Mk1. The TORs make it very clear they were instructed to assess Mk2. Graydon, Alcock and MoD claimed CHART didn’t mention Mk2; it did,
363 times!! Lord Philip wasn’t impressed by that lie either.
Rigga
My "session" with a rent-a-crowd / mob-handed PT ended in me backing out of the building and raising a "risk" from my home turf against him/them. Very slow, but more positive/productive than a one-sided argument.
I had the same experience. Asked to present to an IPT at AbbeyWood some years ago (2002 I think), when I told them they were required to have a continuous contract with their Design Authorities to maintain the Build Standard and Safety Case (essentially, the Nimrod failing), almost to a man they jumped up shouting “Waste of money”. Much the same at Shrivenham the same year, although to be fair a couple of DEC Brigadiers told their Colonels to shut up, I had a point (even though they didn’t understand it!) But then they were over-ruled!