JTO
In other words, you agree with me!
MoD is long past the stage where it can appoint its own permanent staff in sufficient numbers. By definition, the vast majority were civilians, but the decision to close most workshops meant it no longer had a recruiting ground. I was speaking to an airworthiness certification engineer yesterday, and he wouldn’t get out of bed for what MoD offers the inexperienced staff who have replaced highly trained engineers. This is not to the MAA’s fault – they inherited this situation. Like you, I’ve made representations - our 3 Star (Mr Gould) didn’t bother to reply in January 2000. Perhaps because his immediate subordinate, the Nimrod/Chinook 2 Star, had just ruled that safety was optional, and one could sign to say the regs had been met, knowing they hadn’t. (Which is what prompted my submission to him).
The MAA cannot make inroads into this culture, and I’m not sure it wants to or even understands. Remember, MoD continues to confirm that not a single person in the MAA reported the systemic failings. That means; if they were trained, they avoided a legal obligation; if untrained, they aren’t suitably qualified or experienced. Some in the MAA might choose to challenge this; if so, take it up with your Air Policy branch and DE&S Secretariat, who wrote the letters with the agreement of your bosses. (Not too far from your own experiences, JTO).
As ever, I acknowledge the vast majority in MoD loathe this culture. Some years ago we speculated here that a high profile court case might do the business. We got the timid Nimrod Review, which MoD now rejects. Perhaps the XX177 case might be the catalyst. Come on Mr Campbell, tell the truth on behalf of your client.