Whilst it may be the way of the modern world to have RTSA exclusively manned by engineers - that stops working when they make decisions about piloty things because they think they know better and won't ask an operator. That goes for aircraft configuration, role equipment, avionics and general ergonomic layouts of cockpits.
Crab, I recall a few years ago replying to the same issues by simply quoting the regs. RN types agreed with me, RAF didn't recognise anything I was talking about! So, there are many answers. (Essentially, the RTSA has little or no input to the elements you mention, and MoD has recently stated that he has no responsibility for matters relating to actually flying the aircraft. Some might disagree, but there you are). I thought a different approach might help......
In 1999, the National Audit Office, and then Public Accounts Committee, published reports “Modifying Defence Equipment”. The NAO took on 7 test cases, two of which were programmes of mine. One of the questions it posed (it didn’t know the answer, so made no recommendation) was - why, when presented with precisely the same problem (relating to the issues you raise) do some projects crack them with effortless competence, and others (e.g. Nimrod, Chinook Mk3) immediately grind to a halt and waste billions? (By the way, this is the evidence that MoD and Government knew in 1999 these programmes were dying on their feet).
I was tasked with replying, initially to our 3 Star, Deputy Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, one David Gould. It was in 3 parts.
- I took a hypothetical test case, a proposed major modification/upgrade. I set out the process and procedures, and who was meant to what, and when. That’s simple, it’s a direct lift from a mandated Defence Standard, basic training notes, internal instructions, etc; all of which you must know backwards long before becoming a project manager.
- I then explained why and when all but one of the posts (and, hence the people) no longer existed. The only remaining one was the project manager. It followed that we no longer recruited project managers who knew the answer, which did not bode well.
- It was therefore a matter of luck if the project manager had done any of these jobs before, and was able to simply do his old job to maintain progress. I demonstrated that the successful projects among the 7 had such managers, the unsuccessful ones didn’t.
All very simple, but the 3 Star didn’t reply, and DPA’s official response was “We cocked up and it’ll never happen again”. A ludicrous response, when PE/DPA could not be held responsible for (e.g.) (a) the RN shutting down these posts, and (b) the RAF never having them in the first place (at least, not in living memory). That situation will, of course, be familiar to the few left in MoD who are familiar with this policy. (Which, because it is not resourced, is now only an aspiration).
Related to the general subject (airworthiness), this was the audit at which the Chief of Defence Procurement, in his evidence to the PAC in March 1999, admitted that the Chinook HC Mk2 was still not airworthy, almost 7 years after the Director of Flight Safety had warned the Chief Engineer and ACAS (who signs the RTS) of precisely the same thing. Had the Committees had their thinking hats on, they would have realised this immediately cleared the ZD576 pilots – as it did, 10 years later. Nothing in CDP's background suggested he knew anything about the subject. At the time, we thought it a subtle move by a sympathetic RAF or Army officer to slip that into his briefing, but nobody took the bait.