PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Air Cadets grounded?
View Single Post
Old 14th May 2016, 16:24
  #2502 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Engines

Excellent, as ever. I, too, could offer many examples of each point you make, but the comment that strikes home most is this;

My final thought - I'd be a lot more comfortable about the MAA if it started withdrawing some of its approvals for organisations that have manifestly failed to operate correctly.
Where is the authority to do this? Well, it used to be in the only airworthiness-specific procedural Defence Standard, which was mandated in every aircraft-related contract. But it was cancelled, without replacement, in 2008; having been ignored since 1992, by order of AMSO. (An order that was ignored, until those who routinely used it moved on). Or, rather, the MAA attempted to replace a small part of Part 1 (of 2), but in the first page got the basic definition wrong and promptly went off at a tangent never to return.

That Def Stan describes very important MoD and Industry appointments. In MoD, the Technical Agency, the named man in the contract, with the signature over all the elements of airworthiness Engines mentions. The TA has the power of God over his counterpart in Industry, at each firm, because the company merely propose their man, and the TA appoints him. This is unique. The reason is simple. Airworthiness. Again, uniquely, that appointee is granted authority to commit MoD funding without having to seek the TA’s approval. The sole purpose of this is to nip safety problems in the bud. No need to even phone – he self-tasks in the certain knowledge he will be paid. If he doesn’t do his job properly, his appointment is withdrawn by the TA. I only had to do this once. The word soon gets round. I forced the company to replace a senior manager with a recently retired RN Chief Petty Officer (whom Engines will know), whom I considered the only suitable employee.

I do not believe the MAA has anyone junior enough to be a TA. (Discuss!) I doubt if they have anyone experienced enough, as one of the criteria is to have maintained, and preferably trained maintainers and diagnosticians, on the equipment or aircraft he is responsible for; at all Depths. Again, discuss – what became of MoD’s natural recruitment ground for such people? Bottom line – these perfectly good regulations are simply not implemented.
tucumseh is offline