Sorry Green Knight but you used a slightly derogatory term ("blathering") to describe those who advocate configuration control and documentation. I twitch because it was precisely those failures, openly admitted by MoD in the 90s, that should have prevented the Chinook pilots being blamed in the first place. They were the very first signposts to the fact the aircraft was not airworthy; and indeed highlighted from the very beginning - but unfortunately not understood or pursued. Too often, both here and in MoD, we have people saying they are a waste of money, when in fact doing it correctly is money in the bank. They are pre-requisites to a valid Safety Case and I think I'd rather have people blathering on about them than ignoring them. We should be looking at the people who don't want to talk about them, and who issue instructions (a) not to do the work and (b) sign to say it has been done.
My position is that there is more than enough documentation to make up a valid Safety Case as long as the UK is willing to admit that other nations are capable of designing and operating aircraft safely without following UK protocols, and to look outside its own borders for the information on which to base its decision.
I fully agree and said so above. However, I also noted that MoD doesn't always have the luxury of buying to the same build standard, and any variations MUST be reflected in the Safety Case. THIS is where MoD has historically failed, again because of senior staffs deeming it a waste of moeny.
I wonder if the Build Standard reflected in the Boeing Safety Case in the US is the same as the proposed UK one? We are told they are the same, but I'm not so sure.