SPHL & JTO
With respect, I don't think it is DV or Dervish who is confused. The SIL noted by DV was issued AFTER the accident, and amended just a couple of months ago. This is not the "missing" information from 1991 MoD claimed it could not find.
To answer a previous question, yes it says a new nut must be used.
The obvious questions are;
1. Why was this 2011/2013 SIL not mentioned by the SI or at the inquest?
2. What instructions does it replace? That is, do the previous instructions call for a feeler guage test, a new nut, a manual freedom of movement check and the nut to be flush with the end of the bolt?
This comparison, and understanding the difference between old and new procedures, it absolutely vital. Clearly, the SI has been deliberately misled. Or, if they were given this SIL and omitted to mention it, they are equally as guilty as the VSOs who directed that such maintenance data should not be included in ATPs. Either way, they (SI and Inquest) took a direction that would have been very different had the SIL been mentioned.
By the way, last week I spoke to the head of Tech Pubs at the time. Before you ask, no, the SI didn't bother to make the phone call, despite him being VERY well known to MoD for a number of reasons. He confirms the standard Publications clauses, and hence Publications Management Plans of the day, mandated a "Common Source Database of all technical information applicable to the system". The Plan is very specific about (in this case) Martin Baker's obligation to update MoD pubs and inform (in this case) BAeS.
But, and it is a big BUT, this assumes MB were under proper contract and properly funded. This is doubtful because, as stated before, the RAF Chief Engineer had set about chopping all funding for this, and by January 1993 had decreed no tech pubs amendments would be funded, not even safety related amendments. This applied to Fault Investigations and Unsatisfactory Feature Reports, and all other components of the Build Standard. When this fact is mentioned in a report or at an inquest, I'll think about amending my factual statement about VSOs being protected! But the fact remains, these quite deliberate cuts were made, they were concealed from various inquiries by MoD, whose denials only ceased when original copies of the policies were submitted to Lord Philip. Why lie? To conceal the truth. They no longer lie about it; they just mislead by omission and commission. But many would say this is tantamount to lying, especially when people are dying. Either way, it is a grave offence, yet openly condoned by DE&S, the MAA and Ministers.