Originally Posted by
tucumseh
dragartist
Excellent. And unfortunately we've been there before too often.
MoD always look to the final act, but these defences in depth have been systematically weakened over many years. Yet they are money in the bank to both the designer and MoD.
To your list I'd add the Design Reviews (especially the Critical Design Review) and Installation Design Conference (the 555), when as many knowledgeable people you can spare from the squadrons are allowed to crawl all over every aspect of the design and installation.
In the 1990s building these defences became optional, and in the case of CDRs non-technical staff are now permitted to waive them, yet sign a declaration to the effect they have been held, successfully. That, of course, is a serious fraud; DE&S has expressed itself content, and Min(AF) and the Head of the Civil Service have accepted this advice and upheld the policy.
Given the MAA is part of this cowboy outfit, it is little wonder we're repeating ourselves yet again.
As a long time lurker and very infrequent poster I have to say that I am saddened by some of the frankly myopic and self-serving sentiments that are being expressed here. As a designer though I’m furious:
The death of Flt Lt Cunningham was tragic, as is every other needless death that occurs as a consequence of an aircraft accident.
Those on here who know who I am, and remember my contribution to TELIC 1 may also remember the post TELIC 1 conference at Marham.
At the opening of that the staish gave a briefing which paraphrased said: “give me the tools…” (he meant the upgrades to the jet) “… and an appraisal of the safety… or not.. and let me determine the benefit vs risk …and choose to take or not take it into battle accordingly”
Now, for a variety of reasons which we all know, that brave but slightly cavalier (sorry Sir) attitude simply is neither feasible nor is it favourable in today’s world.
At the other end of the scale we have this emotive sentiment being rattled out which would apparently seek to find anyone involved in the design chain, at whatever level, and hang them out to dry if any tiny thing should go wrong . Ever!
Now if that’s the way you want to play the game then fine, so be it.
But just remember this: if you ‘phone me and ask me to drop everything in order to design, build, integrate and clear a UOR onto a fast jet in a matter of literally weeks, then guess what? I’ll tell you to get lost, I’m busy. I really don’t need the stress today, and I certainly don’t want it in ten years time when some-know-it-all uses the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to point out something that I missed, and that didn’t get spotted at PDR, CDR, TRR or any other R!
If flexibility really is the key to air power, then you have to understand that it works both ways. ‘He who never made a mistake never made anything’ as the saying goes, the corollary of which is that if you want something made, then as a consequence it must be accepted that sometimes mistakes will occur.
No one, me included, has not been shocked by what Haddon Cave has uncovered, and yes, there are areas where accountability is lacking. But please don’t tar everyone with the same brush.
After the H-C report was published I had conscientious hard-working young engineers come to me to ask whether they could end up in jail for making an honest mistake in the design process. The gist of what I told them was “no, you’ll not end up in jail if you…try hard… be honest…tell everyone the truth….and document everything…and you’ll be ok”.
Sadly, it sounds as though if some of you lot had their way that wouldn’t be the case.
Is that really what you want?