If this is true (and assuming you meant "refuse to obey"), then heads should roll. Write to the PM. The leader of the opposition. Shadow SecDef. The Queen. The appropriate Coroners. I can't believe that this situation exists.
Sorry, yes, "obey"! Thank you.
All done, except Her Majesty.
PM - no reply, except from lackey acknowledging receipt.
Leader of Oppo - Done; and his Shadow SofS for Defence. (Good reply from latter). Ditto when Labour were in power, which says much about duplicity and blind obedience to MoD briefings.
Coroners - Done; Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. Lots of correspondence from them and their investigators; of course, both accepted related evidence. (Plus Procurators Fiscal and Crown Office in Scotland).
Civil Service Commissioners - Done; nice reply saying misconduct in public office is of no concern to them. (They also agree with MoD that if a person has retired or even just moved post, no retrospective action may be taken. Didn't know that. Rolf would be interested in such a concept! Balls of course, but it tells you what you're up against).
Parliamentary Standards Ombudsman - Ditto. Latest reply just last week.
Information Commissioner - Interesting to discover that, while one can complain if information is untruthful (as opposed to mistaken), there is no obligation on the part of the holder or provider to ensure that the information provided is truthful, and no obligation to correct it. As long as they provide it.
Invited to brief two former Mins (AF). One was replaced shortly thereafter; the other was more intent on seeing BAeS in court. He made good coffee though. MAA were present at the former meeting, and the verbatim transcript demonstrates they know all this and (obviously) continue to condone it. And aforesaid DE&S Policy Branch continue to quote MAA attendees when lying about what was said and agreed.
Not one has ever disagreed that this ruling was made. To be fair, that would be difficult as both DGAS2 and CDP (2 and 4 Stars) placed it in writing, many times. (DGAS2 - Chinook, Nimrod etc). And the Head of Personnel upheld it at a fully recorded meeting. And late last year DE&S Policy Branch confirmed, in writing, they continue to use these rulings as the basis of current rulings and policy; even quoting the MoD file references of the original MoD(PE) rulings. (So, not one of the missing files then).
But not THE original rulings, because they were made in December 1992 by DGSM(RAF) (2 Star) when threatening to dismiss his airworthiness staffs for this offence (refusing to make a false declaration on airworthiness and financial probity). In that case, Director Internal Audit (MoD) investigated and issued a report confirming the "offenders" were innocent, and DGSM wrong. (Funnily enough, the only Directorate that got a clean bill of health was Tornado). He was ignored and his report binned (information confirmed in a FoI reply). Not that I needed confirmation, because if the recommendations had been implemented, the MAA would not exist and many aircrew would, probably, still be alive.