Airworthiness & Safety Post Haddon-Cave
The video (from 2005) is like sitting through old MoD training lectures. They started with the question "Is an aircraft a system?". (No). The next 10 minutes were the most vital 10 minutes you ever listened to as an engineer and project/programme manager. Trying to implement that learning was also the biggest career killer!
NASA’s attitude “Just keep flying until foam shedding becomes regarded as normal” and “Treat it as a planned engineering test” is precisely the attitude you see in MoD. It should be required viewing for those in MoD who still maintain a system need only be physically safe, but not functionally safe - despite Nimrod, C130, Tornado, Sea King (etc) BoI reports.
NASA’s attitude “Just keep flying until foam shedding becomes regarded as normal” and “Treat it as a planned engineering test” is precisely the attitude you see in MoD. It should be required viewing for those in MoD who still maintain a system need only be physically safe, but not functionally safe - despite Nimrod, C130, Tornado, Sea King (etc) BoI reports.
...very insular organisation...wanted to conduct an accident inquiry into its own accident...vehicle designated operational thus no longer needing experimental oversight...what a condemnation of the MOD following the Mull accident! Oh sorry, she was speaking about NASA and the Shuttle loss on re-entry!
Birds of a feather it would seem, so let us hope that the MAA becomes truly independent before the RAF really does attempt to live up to its Motto!
Birds of a feather it would seem, so let us hope that the MAA becomes truly independent before the RAF really does attempt to live up to its Motto!
To nick a phrase from Nancy Reagan " Just say no".
I've had many conversations regarding MEMS,AEMS,DAEMS with people who feel that if they tried to address all the problems they could'nt do the day job.
The short termism habit is ingrained in the military "we who have done so much withh so little blah,blah effing blah.....
This is the way we do business,overseen (in the majority) by senior officers with no cojones & only interested in their next promotion.
We are our own worst enemies,behavioural & attitude changes can't be imposed they must come from within.At some point we must learn to say NO,STOP we can't do it!
I'm winding my self up - off for a brew & a fag!
I've had many conversations regarding MEMS,AEMS,DAEMS with people who feel that if they tried to address all the problems they could'nt do the day job.
The short termism habit is ingrained in the military "we who have done so much withh so little blah,blah effing blah.....
This is the way we do business,overseen (in the majority) by senior officers with no cojones & only interested in their next promotion.
We are our own worst enemies,behavioural & attitude changes can't be imposed they must come from within.At some point we must learn to say NO,STOP we can't do it!
I'm winding my self up - off for a brew & a fag!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga, thanks for the info. on civil airline safety managers pay ("Safety Managers for Airlines - £90K+ - and they say NO when they need to"). I know the roles and responsibilties are different between MoD PT Safety Managers and airline safety managers but it does kinda bolster my view that the MoD Safety Manager role is undervalued.
Couple of random MAA snippets.
1. One of Haddon-Cave's criticisms was that MoD aviation safety regulation was in a confused state. Work to rationalize it (the JSP 55x series, JAP100A, AvP67, a few Def Stans, etc.) into a more coherent and usable whole is ongoing. The new version is due to be issued in the Summer. If they get it reasonable right, which is not certain given it is such a huge monstrous mess at the moment, I think it will have a significant positive effect on safety.
2. A fairly senior member of the MAA threw the following, almost randomly, into an email to me (about other things).
Seems an odd characterisation, not least since the MAA is part of the MoD! The only justification I can see for it is the independent reporting. Perhaps this is a line that MAA members are being told to spin out!
Couple of random MAA snippets.
1. One of Haddon-Cave's criticisms was that MoD aviation safety regulation was in a confused state. Work to rationalize it (the JSP 55x series, JAP100A, AvP67, a few Def Stans, etc.) into a more coherent and usable whole is ongoing. The new version is due to be issued in the Summer. If they get it reasonable right, which is not certain given it is such a huge monstrous mess at the moment, I think it will have a significant positive effect on safety.
2. A fairly senior member of the MAA threw the following, almost randomly, into an email to me (about other things).
MAA is independent of the MOD and reports direct to 2PUS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squidlord
Seems an odd characterisation, not least since the MAA is part of the MoD! The only justification I can see for it is the independent reporting. Perhaps this is a line that MAA members are being told to spin out!
The MAA is supposed to be directly accountable to the SofS for Defence, as the member of the ruling Government, who adhere to International agreements, ultimately decided by ICAO. The MOD is not involved.
Now ask me if in these austere times, the SofS and his lackies, are not putting heavy financial pressures on the fledgling MAA?
It goes back to tucumseh's statement about a PUS telling him he is the only person in MoD who believes it right to implement mandated airworthiness and financial probity regulations.
Seems an odd characterisation, not least since the MAA is part of the MoD! The only justification I can see for it is the independent reporting. Perhaps this is a line that MAA members are being told to spin out!
The MAA is supposed to be directly accountable to the SofS for Defence, as the member of the ruling Government, who adhere to International agreements, ultimately decided by ICAO. The MOD is not involved.
Now ask me if in these austere times, the SofS and his lackies, are not putting heavy financial pressures on the fledgling MAA?
It goes back to tucumseh's statement about a PUS telling him he is the only person in MoD who believes it right to implement mandated airworthiness and financial probity regulations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small Spinner writes:
Not sure what you're saying there. "The MOD is not involved" in what?! (Always bearing in mind that the MAA is part of the MoD.)
The MAA is supposed to be directly accountable to the SofS for Defence, as the member of the ruling Government, who adhere to International agreements, ultimately decided by ICAO. The MOD is not involved.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MAA have a direct access through to the Defence Environment Safety Board and then the SofS, which theoretically gives them supposed independence from their line of authority, although as you rightly say they are composed of MOD personnel. Practically I'm not sure how it works / will work.
SS:
Don't torment yourself any further Small Spinner, as it doesn't work/won't work. It is instead all smoke and mirrors. Unless and until the MAA (and the MAAIB come to that) is separate, removed, independent and outside of the MOD, UK military airworthiness provision will remain compromised and unfit for purpose. An independent regulator and investigator is as essential to military as it is to civilian aviation. If it had been so then many fatal airworthiness related military air accidents involving Sea King, Tornado, Chinook, Hercules and Nimrod aircraft might well have been avoided, not to mention that we could still have an MRA capability. Perhaps most importantly of all, some 62 people could still be with us today.
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation It Kills
Practically I'm not sure how it works / will work.
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation It Kills
Point taken Rigga, and I'm sure that the MOD would concur, but I speak from the "customer's" point of view (as you do also I know). Banks and the MOD share in common that their systems work to the advantage of their leadership but to the impoverishment of the tax-payer, and also to the cost of lives in the case of the MOD as Military Airworthiness Regulator.
