But I don't think that any SI is going to be able to go back tens of years and look at funding and policy decisions by VSOs that contributed to the present situation. My own view is that the MoD has to be responsible, at all levels, for managing and preserving 'Air Safety', which includes airworthiness. That means people have to do their job. The basics haven't changed. What does bother me is that a number of managers within the system no longer have a clear idea of what 'the basics' involve.
I entirely agree with this, not least because, with the passage of time, it is very unlikely that an SI panel will have the individual or collective experience or knowledge to ask the question. In my experience, your typical BoI or SI engineering member has never served in a post that would expose him to the detail of airworthiness assurance; and that is where the Devil lies. And aircrew would simply not be expected to know, in the same way I would never expect to be asked about piloty stuff.
This is where MAA oversight comes in. They most definitely DO know of these problems from tens of years ago; because they remain current, they have been told this in the form of formal reports, submissions to Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip and during meetings with Ministers. Yet, they (MAA) are willing party to recent DE&S and Ministerial rulings, upholding the rulings of Alcock's crowd 21 years ago (Baker, December 1992), that refusing to make
"savings at the expense of safety" is an offence. (What is it about Bakers? It was another Baker who upheld the same ruling in MoD(PE) on 9.9.02, a ruling still cited by DE&S, Ministers and the Head of the Civil Service and provided under FoI).
Please consider that fact. Then ask why the MAA was established. Because Haddon-Cave condemned this long standing policy of
"savings at the expense of safety". (Only he conveniently omitted to say it was policy since 1988). That is, the MAA and DE&S are on record as disagreeing with the very premise upon which the MAA was formed. You couldn't make it up.
Most in MAA would, I hope, be astonished at what is being said in their name. But the fact remains, and is fully documented, that their senior staffs are fully aware of these continuing systemic failings, routinely condone them and flatly refuse to officially recognise them. That refusal and gross dereliction of duty can be seen in what is omitted from the RAFAT SI report. Perhaps, in private, they are fuming. But demonstrably they vent their spleen on those, like me, who tell the truth, while actively protecting those responsible for so many deaths. Do us all a favour and resign now.