m0nkfish:-
I believe this should have been left up to the individuals to make their own informed decisions and did not need further regulating,
As a matter of interest, has the instruction to disarm only after shutdown come from the regulator (ie the MAA) or from the operator (standardisation flight etc)? Either way I am surprised that you think it should be left to each individual pilot or crew, as the case may be, to decide for themselves whether to disarm or not while taxiing in. What about the ground crew receiving an aircraft, not knowing if it is armed or disarmed? What about the crash crews not knowing if an aircraft that has been abandoned on a taxiway (on fire?) is armed or disarmed?
As I've said before, I don't pretend to understand the pros or cons of which is the best procedure for modern zero zero seats, but I'm pretty sure that once the procedure is set then it should be adhered to, if for no other reason that everybody knows what to expect.
In any case, aren't we straying somewhat from the thread OP? MBA (and not the MOD!) are being prosecuted over the death of Sean Cunningham it says. Given the interesting stat posted by tucumseh in post #231:-
In the early 1990s, funding to do this was cut by 28% per year, for over 3 years. Direct orders were issued not to use the MF765 (or MF760 fault reporting) systems – part of the “savings at the expense of safety” confirmed by Mr Haddon-Cave; although he dated them to 1998, not 1987, despite the actual documents and directives being submitted to him. There, systemic airworthiness failings in a nutshell.
While some of this work has been resurrected, by no means all – evidenced by the much abbreviated definition of it in the MAA documentation.
So a 28% cut every year for over three years. Just think about that one. This to a system that is one requiring a process of continuous uninterrupted auditing. UK Military Air Safety was killed stone dead by that. It has never recovered. This seat had no Safety Case Report. It was unairworthy. The aircraft was therefore unairworthy. What the hell was the regulator doing? If your only quibble is that it has messed you around simply to be seen doing something you have my sympathy, but I would expect it to be doing its job, which is to ensure the airworthiness of HM aircraft. It has singularly failed in that.