Originally Posted by
tucumseh
Zulu
Please explain.
I talked of Design Reviews, and the policy decision by CDP and his staff (especially DGAS2/XD1 - Nimrod, Chinook) that they may be waived by non-technical staff, and a false declaration made that they were held successfully, and full payment made. Like dragartist, I state a simple fact, and DE&S has on many occasions confirmed this practice is acceptable, most recently last month. I am quite comfortable repeating this.....
.... Finally, how daft does it look sniping at someone who has consistently fought for aviation safety, yet in the same breath list a raft of things both you and I fully agree upon. It makes me think what is upsetting you/MoD is WHO revealed the failures and, more to the point, WHO ordered and perpetuated them while aircrew were dying in avoidable accidents. Please don't shoot the messenger.
Yes, we do agree on the the erosion and consequent failures of the review, clearance, and release system. Also on the need for dishonesty to be penalised.
What I do not agree with is your point in #299 that "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."
Your post was supporting Drag Artist's post in which he had suggested taking responsibility for this dreadful accident all the way back to the application of ink to drafting film. i.e. to the designer.
My concern being your statement, also castigating the "designer". It is the position of the designer that I am attempting, but apparently failing, to defend. I am proud to say that I have never met a designer who would place money above safety.
Corporations and design organisations might, but designers? Never.
I'll agree not to shoot the messenger if you agree not to shoot the designer.