PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Air Cadets grounded?
View Single Post
Old 21st Jan 2017, 09:37
  #3197 (permalink)  
Engines
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 781
Shaft,

Thank you - and yes, I'm still looking. Your very helpful post triggered me to do something I should have done a long time ago, and go to the 'what do they know' site - I'm working through that now. Once again, my sincere thanks.

First response - the link you posted was the MAA's report on their CAMO Initial Audit Approval Report carried out in Dec 15. There's a lot there, and I'll post later once I've assembled my thoughts, but here are a few initial thoughts.

The MAA report helpfully tells us that this wasn't the first 'Initial Audit' - the first was carried out in December 2013, which was a 'fail'. Now this is interesting, as the DHAN 86 issued by OC2FTS in April 14 referred to a 'trial of the newly created CAME' at which 'evidence emerged' that 'called into question' the 'type and continuing airworthiness of the...fleets'. That now appears to be an example of being 'economical with the truth'.

Actually, it's a lie. In December 2013, 2FTS badly failed their initial CAMO approval audit. No 'trial'. OC 2FTS even had the gall to say in the DHAN that it was 'pleasing to note that the MODCAM process had proven its design utility'. A b*****d child of a phrase, a piece of mangled English that looked suspicious at the time. Now we know why.

This 2013 audit opened up a can of worms. Such a huge can of worms that it took two years to get ready for another audit. Which they failed again. The final 'Initial' (!) MAA approval finally happened in June 16.

I've also found the Feb 16 2FTS response to the failed audit in Dec 15, listing in detail their proposed analysis of why the problems were there, and their corrective and preventative actions. If anyone wants an example of what's going on with the UK's military airworthiness management, this could be a textbook example. In every one of the 25 issues raised, the response is a cut and paste version of the same story:

1. Analysis- The reason we had the problem was a lack of resources
2. Corrective action - We will get more resources to establish a CAMO team and prepare a compliant CAME plus processes.
3. Preventative action - We have got more resources, and we are establishing a CAMO team and reviewing our processes.

So, nobody failed to do their work (or as Tuc would say, 'follow mandated regulations'), the solution is more people, and it will all be OK because we'll pass the audit.

Hoop. I'd have rejected it and set it back for some proper staffing. There's more, but I'll just bore everyone. More digging required, though.

Best Regards as ever to all those having to tick the boxes while doing the actual airworthiness engineering stuff,

Engines
Engines is offline