It is a pity that factors which in the opinion of the Panel did not lead directly to the accident, and did not directly or indirectly make the accident more likely, have attracted the most unpleasant and emotive comments in this thread. SOP for some PPRuNe contributors.
Well said. And MoD/MAA, who routinely do this to detract from the real issues. As stated earlier, MoD has a long history of deflecting blame onto juniors. One must always ask who their actions protect. In the last 20-odd years the same names crop up regularly.
I would therefore agree that the cause was the failure of the scissor shackle to operate correctly. The cause of which would appear to be miscommunication of some kind between MB & MoD
But inbetween there was some poor engineering practice. On such an assembly the test has got to be freedom of movement, not torque or visible thread. However, I won't be too critical because there was no mention of what action the maintainers took, and whether or not it they were ignored - which is all too common.
But what the SI failed to mention was the systemic failures noted many times over a 20 year period. And, withheld from both SI and Coroner was the fact there is evidence of excellent communication coming from Martin Baker about the seat, increasing the chances the breakdown was within MoD (where it was practice NOT to communicate with Design Authorities because it was deemed a waste of money).
Just a couple of points that, if made available to the SI or Coroner, would have changed their direction significantly.