I note that in para 1.4.235 we get back to the old subject of Duty Holders and ALARP. The ODH (2*) is legally responsible and accountable for the airworthiness, maintenance and safe use of the air systems in their defined area of responsibility. According to MAA RA1210 he is required to make an argument (written statement)that all risks are tolerable and ALARP, which must include CFIT. The validity of the argument can only be decided definitively by the courts, if an accident occurs; which it has. So will we see the Comd JHC (2*) in court, and who will initiate the move? If he goes to court then AOC No 1 Group must go to justify his tolerable and ALARP statement for Tornado.
I also note that, once again (page 1.4-67), the meaningless figure of 1 in 1000 per year is used as the acceptable level of tolerability. For Army Lynx the level was 0/1000 before the accident, and 6/1000 after the accident, which means that the CFIT risk is no longer tolerable and therefore not safe. The figure of 0/1000 is also used for Typhoon CWS, and suggests to me that MoD/MAA use actual death rates as the means of determining what is tolerable and what is not. No deaths means a risk is tolerable, this is worse than the approach used for Nimrod fire risk.
DV