Nutloose
I know what you’re saying and admire Boeing’s stance. My viewpoint is one of someone who had to explain to other contractors why MoD’s mandated policy of competition didn’t apply to certain contractors. For example, in the late 90s our Chief of Defence Procurement upheld criticism in an annual report when a project manager was castigated for not cancelling a successful project, on the point of completion ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec, and starting all over against with a single tender contract on Thales. There have always been a favoured few.
In the case of Chinook, I imagine Boeing would most certainly point to the serial abuse of the Service Engineered Mod and Special Trials Fit processes that, in the 80s and 90s contributed much to its lack of airworthiness. I also said on the MoK thread that before passing judgement on Boeing I’d want to look at their contracts (or, more accurately, lack of contracts). The FADEC arrangement was ludicrous, breaching every mandated contracting rule in MoD. Not to mention a certain two IPTs in the 90s and 00s handing out Chinook airworthiness delegation to infantry soldiers and graduates who’d never been near an aircraft. Much to the annoyance of the Chinook IPT, who were blameless and toothless. The sheer shambles this creates means it is little wonder upgrade programmes experience delays.
One does wonder the legal ramifications if a Chinook crew is killed due to MOD negligence under failing to comply with Airworthiness requirements laid down by the manufacturer.
Not only Boeing’s requirements, but MoD’s own! We know the answer. MoD didn’t comply, and staffs were actually under direct orders NOT to comply. We know the names and they have been published. Nothing was done!
Incidentally wasn't one of the major advantages of the Jaguar that the design authority had transferred to the MOD, thus allowing upgrades to be carried out both cheaply and quickly?
I’m less enamoured with the thought of this. I’ve heard this proposal many times from beancounters and, especially, suppliers. There are very few in MoD who know what being a Design Authority entails, especially if they are also the PDSC. But I’ll absolutely guarantee you MoD did not maintain the Build Standard or, by definition, the Safety Case. MoD has never in my time had the experience or knowledge to be DA on a whole aircraft. They have done it on engines, but with varying success, but this was more of a paper appointment – Rolls Royce was still under significant contract to provide the expertise and support. In simple terms, MoD relied on RR but signed documents that normally the contractor would. MoD being DA wouldn’t make upgrades quicker or cheaper; it is circumventing the regulations that does that. In particular, those governing SEMs.