Orca, sorry I’m late replying, but others have posted good replies. In summary, and as Distant Voice says, it is MoD who have admitted this. We’re just discussing it and, in effect, debating whether or not very senior staffs are correct. Some think there are, others (bravely!) think they are not.
My concern is that this debate is taking place so many years after the general problem was reported and staffs threatened with dismissal for seeking to follow these regs. That root problem, confirmed by numerous internal review teams under the RAF’s Inspector of Flight Safety, is the systematic refusal to implement the mandated regulations, often choosing a lengthier and more expensive route that produces a functionally unsafe system.
One example I chose, as it is topical, was the flat refusal to properly integrate IFF failure warnings in (inter alia) the GR4A; which, if present would (according to the BoI) have prevented the 2003 Patriot shootdown. Boscombe followed the mandated regs; the RAF, project office and their friendly 2 Star flatly refused to. (The same 2 Star having management oversight of Nimrod, Chinook.........)
Boscombe were placed under inordinate pressure, and then direct orders, to withdraw their recommendation that MAR should not be granted when an IFF is functionally unsafe as it could (the word used in the regs) result in, for example, friendly fire and loss of aircraft. They, and MoD project staffs, were instructed to falsely state the IFF installation satisfied the regs. The recommendation to inspect the entire fleet was rejected, twice, at 2 Star level. 2 Died. An IFF going u/s during a mission is bad luck. To provide an IFF and claim it is working, knowing it is not, is criminal.
These days I prefer to simply highlight the irrefutable fact that all the cases we discuss here, Nimrod, Chinook, Sea King, Tornado etc, are inextricably linked by this single policy – the regs are optional if it means delivering to time and cost. Safety regulations are irrelevant (to quote MoD at the XV230 inquest). And, perhaps worst of all, it is acceptable to make a false statement that the system IS safe, and issue direct orders to subordinates to make such a statement. That is beyond criminal.
Make no mistake, despite the formation of the MAA this remains the formal policy of DE&S (to be precise, their Policy Secretariat), as advised only this year to Ministers and the Head of the Civil Service, who accepted this advice and issued rulings to that effect.