Leon
Having headed the thread “...Aviation”, you list a number of entities who are mostly unconcerned. But your point is taken.
Irrefutable facts:
- Many Government Ministers of all persuasions, Senior Officers/Officials and Cabinet Secretaries, have formally ruled that it is an offence to disobey an order to make a false declaration on airworthiness (and financial probity). The MAA has existed for seven years and has not sought to overturn these rulings – in fact, DE&S actually named a senior MAA officer in its last briefing to Minister, when it advised him to continue upholding the ruling. Which he did. In the past, some have queried this statement, but I assume that my having published the References, and MoD approved their publication, means it is now accepted.
- On 17 January 2011, Minister for the Armed Forces Nick Harvey confirmed that, under SDSR 2010, various MoD departments had demanded a substantial cut in airworthinesss funding. This, shortly after publication of the Nimrod Review and formation of the MAA. Clearly, MoD still retains a culture whereby such “savings at the expense of safety” are still acceptable, even after the Nimrod Review. As of that date, this was being fought by other parts of MoD (well done). Subsequent events, such as (but not restricted to) (a) the MAA condoning no safety case for the Hawk ejection seat, and an invalid one for the aircraft itself, and, similarly, (b) the Air Cadet saga, again involving unairworthy aircraft and no valid safety case, means that these demands were, at least in part, met. Or, perhaps, the “good” part of MoD succeeded in maintaining the status quo, which would actually be a huge setback, given the regression need to fix the failings noted by so many since the late 80s, and simply repeated by Haddon-Cave.
This, and natural justice, makes it unsafe for MoD to sit in judgement of itself. The fact that MoD continues to make – in fact actively demands, under threat of sanction – the same old mistakes, means, I believe, that it is time to try something different. And legal.
Of those you list involved in aviation, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch are the full-time professionals. The MoD departments are, at best, enthusiastic amateurs, most there on a 2 year desk job they see as a route to advancement. A possible solution emerges.
You cite the HSE having primacy on the Red Arrows XX177 accident, but they only got seriously involved after the CPS conducted a disgracefully narrow “investigation”, limiting its investigation to servicing of the equipment. The CPS has form here, including lying about lack of witnesses coming forward on Nimrod XV230. The case is sub judice, and it is to be hoped that the Crown Court, unlike the CPS and HSE, actually pays attention to the evidence. Perhaps, if justice is served and the MoD replaces Martin Baker in the dock, your question may receive more attention!