Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 48
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4
Hi all,
I reckon we have more chance of platting fog or pushing a boat with a rope than seeing MRA4 entering into service!!
My mate has just done his Q course on it and was told at the end by the instructors that he is very unlikely to ever work on one!!!
Got to love BAE!!
I reckon we have more chance of platting fog or pushing a boat with a rope than seeing MRA4 entering into service!!
My mate has just done his Q course on it and was told at the end by the instructors that he is very unlikely to ever work on one!!!
Got to love BAE!!
bought as “air vehicles” and then populated with UK kit
was told at the end by the instructors that he is very unlikely to ever work on one!!!
Isn't this what happened to the Chinook HC3s?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF probe after woman hurt in base simulator
Read more: RAF probe after woman hurt in base simulator - Press & Journal
Not flying yet and already the first accident
, I would have thought Health and Safety was uppermost in the minds of everyone at Kinloss.
Read more: RAF probe after woman hurt in base simulator - Press & Journal
Not flying yet and already the first accident
, I would have thought Health and Safety was uppermost in the minds of everyone at Kinloss.Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that the P&J state that the first Mk 4 is due to arrive at Kinloss later this year. Is that after all the "required" Mk 2 kit has been transfered to it?
DV
DV
Tappers dad......when will you let go.....an accident happened and you cannot keep bringing up the past......families security relies on other people doing a good job and I am confident that they will do that good job given a fair go at it......they dont need you bringing up the past evry time something happens near to Kinloss.....what next a car accident outside the main gates because someone was looking at the gate gaurdian would be the fault of the Nimrod.....get a life and let it go.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer
I don't know if you have children or not, but when I stood next to my son's coffin to talk about his short life it was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.
NIMROD REVIEW
Criticisms and naming of organisations and individuals
1.18 In this Report, I specifically name, and criticise, key organisations and individuals who bear a share of responsibility for the loss of XV230.
I name individuals whose conduct, in my view, fell well below the standards which might reasonably have been expected of them at the time, given their rank, roles and responsibilities, such that, in my view, they should be held personally to account.
Once those responsible have been held personally to account, then I can say all that could be done has been done. Until then
I don't know if you have children or not, but when I stood next to my son's coffin to talk about his short life it was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.
NIMROD REVIEW
Criticisms and naming of organisations and individuals
1.18 In this Report, I specifically name, and criticise, key organisations and individuals who bear a share of responsibility for the loss of XV230.
I name individuals whose conduct, in my view, fell well below the standards which might reasonably have been expected of them at the time, given their rank, roles and responsibilities, such that, in my view, they should be held personally to account.
Once those responsible have been held personally to account, then I can say all that could be done has been done. Until then
Here, here!
Let poor old Ben rest in peace. You've found the systemic failure that led to that very sad day, now please let us take the Haddon Cave findings forward and get on with the business of combat aviation (or what is left of it).
MR2 is gone, R1 will be next year (even though the fuel system is different to MR2) and MRA4 is just around the corner (hopefully!).
In fact it isn't in service now because of the nervousness generated by Haddon Cave, I'll leave us all to decide whether that's a good or bad thing!
In the words of a 'Jerry Morsetapper' - The B Word sends...
Let poor old Ben rest in peace. You've found the systemic failure that led to that very sad day, now please let us take the Haddon Cave findings forward and get on with the business of combat aviation (or what is left of it).
MR2 is gone, R1 will be next year (even though the fuel system is different to MR2) and MRA4 is just around the corner (hopefully!).
In fact it isn't in service now because of the nervousness generated by Haddon Cave, I'll leave us all to decide whether that's a good or bad thing!
In the words of a 'Jerry Morsetapper' - The B Word sends...
To those who stand against Tapper’s Dad, your criticisms would only be remotely valid if;
1. The Nimrod MRA4 were a brand new aeroplane design and in no way related to the MR2 and,
2. The failings reiterated by Haddon-Cave only applied to the MR2
The MRA4 design audit trail relies on the airworthiness of the MR2, even more so now we hear of museum pieces being robbed of spares for the MRA4 line.
The failings were systemic, across the MoD (with a few exceptions when individuals stood against the senior staffs that knowingly compromised aircrew safety).
Haddon-Cave’s report seems to have become a convenient excuse. The general failings and criticisms he reported were well known within MoD for over 20 years. The programme is 10 years late. 9 of those years have nothing whatsoever to do with the publication of the H-C report. The latest delay, which you attribute to H-C, is in all probability caused by people in MoD who are paid to know the airworthiness regs inside out, reading H-C and suddenly realising they don’t. They will have had to regress and correct any mistakes made over the last 15 years. Mistakes, by the way, that were well known and reported to MoD(PE)’s 2 Star and 4 Star at the time; who directed that JSP553 and Def Stan 00-970 could be ignored – on all programmes. As I always say, take even a cursory glance at the MoD family tree and you’ll see, for example, the Chinook Mk3 came under the same 2 Star. Ask why that post is not even mentioned by H-C. Yet that is why he used the term “systemic”. (Actually, he lifted it from a submission to his Review).
If anyone wants to have a pop, please don’t go after the easy target. Try to understand the wider and deeper issues. Go after the faceless ones who were told exactly what would happen, but got their gongs and retirement benefits and walked away.
Have as go at, for example, Adam Ingram, who was told, in writing and over a year before XV230 crashed, that the airworthiness regs were not being implemented properly. (Precisely the words used by ACM Sir Clive Loader in the BoI report). Ask Ingram why he only replied 9 months after the crash, ludicrously claiming they WERE implemented correctly. (He didn’t even show a morsel of remorse and both he and his successors are quite content at being lied to this way, because it is politically convenient. That is why, despite his other failings, Des Browne should be applauded). More to the point, ask if those who lied to him in that Ministerial Brief still work in airworthiness or, worse, the MAA. Are you happy that they still work in MoD at all? The Haddon-Cave report is just the beginning.
1. The Nimrod MRA4 were a brand new aeroplane design and in no way related to the MR2 and,
2. The failings reiterated by Haddon-Cave only applied to the MR2
The MRA4 design audit trail relies on the airworthiness of the MR2, even more so now we hear of museum pieces being robbed of spares for the MRA4 line.
The failings were systemic, across the MoD (with a few exceptions when individuals stood against the senior staffs that knowingly compromised aircrew safety).
In fact it isn't in service now because of the nervousness generated by Haddon Cave, I'll leave us all to decide whether that's a good or bad thing!
If anyone wants to have a pop, please don’t go after the easy target. Try to understand the wider and deeper issues. Go after the faceless ones who were told exactly what would happen, but got their gongs and retirement benefits and walked away.
Have as go at, for example, Adam Ingram, who was told, in writing and over a year before XV230 crashed, that the airworthiness regs were not being implemented properly. (Precisely the words used by ACM Sir Clive Loader in the BoI report). Ask Ingram why he only replied 9 months after the crash, ludicrously claiming they WERE implemented correctly. (He didn’t even show a morsel of remorse and both he and his successors are quite content at being lied to this way, because it is politically convenient. That is why, despite his other failings, Des Browne should be applauded). More to the point, ask if those who lied to him in that Ministerial Brief still work in airworthiness or, worse, the MAA. Are you happy that they still work in MoD at all? The Haddon-Cave report is just the beginning.
Indeed Rigger1, well said on all counts tuc! As ever you are polite and precise in your post, as ever I will fail on both counts.
One of the systemic failures in my book, if not specifically in Mr H-C's, is the sheer bloody ignorance of those who call themselves aviation professionals about Airworthiness. This despite Mull, despite the Hercules crash in Iraq, despite the Nimrod one in Afghanistan, and Sea King, and Tornado, and Puma and I don't know how many others instanced on this very Forum.
It took civilians from outside the Services and MOD to highlight what was the best kept of all Military Secrets, the deliberate and systematic suborning of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations by the very Priesthood responsible for enforcing them. The High Priests of that Priesthood were Royal Air Force Air Marshals.
Thank heavens for the likes of Tappers Dad, Chappie and all the other NoK who refused to be cowed by the ganging up seen on this thread and others. Thank heavens for HM Coroners who told the RAF that "There is something wrong with your bloody aircraft". Thank heavens for tuc, who brings personal experience and knowledge to bear, where all else are lies and deceit. As he says, don't shoot the messengers rather than those guilty of perpetrating this scandalous waste of our blood and treasure. If you call yourselves professionals start acting as such!
I'm sorry if that is all rather intemperate. Perhaps it is due in some small measure to even more intemperate posts here last night that were promptly removed by our Mods, who I thank for that quick and effective response.
One of the systemic failures in my book, if not specifically in Mr H-C's, is the sheer bloody ignorance of those who call themselves aviation professionals about Airworthiness. This despite Mull, despite the Hercules crash in Iraq, despite the Nimrod one in Afghanistan, and Sea King, and Tornado, and Puma and I don't know how many others instanced on this very Forum.
It took civilians from outside the Services and MOD to highlight what was the best kept of all Military Secrets, the deliberate and systematic suborning of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations by the very Priesthood responsible for enforcing them. The High Priests of that Priesthood were Royal Air Force Air Marshals.
Thank heavens for the likes of Tappers Dad, Chappie and all the other NoK who refused to be cowed by the ganging up seen on this thread and others. Thank heavens for HM Coroners who told the RAF that "There is something wrong with your bloody aircraft". Thank heavens for tuc, who brings personal experience and knowledge to bear, where all else are lies and deceit. As he says, don't shoot the messengers rather than those guilty of perpetrating this scandalous waste of our blood and treasure. If you call yourselves professionals start acting as such!
I'm sorry if that is all rather intemperate. Perhaps it is due in some small measure to even more intemperate posts here last night that were promptly removed by our Mods, who I thank for that quick and effective response.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 22nd Aug 2010 at 09:22.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Forres, Moray, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh,
Firstly, I'm not a disgrace to the RAF, I'm an avidly loyal member of it and I will defend its and my reputation as and when I see fit, sometimes more strongly that others will like. I am not ashamed or apologetic about that. The mods deleted my reply; it's their forum and their call. I fully respect their actions. I expected it to be honest.
Enough of that though, to your recent post.
TD has become so blinkered by his thirst for revenge that he is just stirring up trouble for the sake of it. An accident in a static, non moving, piece of training equipment that is bolted to the floor has little or nothing to do with military airworthiness. His comment;
"Once those responsible have been held personally to account, then I can say all that could be done has been done. Until then...” proves he's out for revenge. OK, he lost his son, he's angry, we understand, but to post;
"Not flying yet and already the first accident, I would have thought Health and Safety was uppermost in the minds of everyone at Kinloss." has one purpose only, to be inflammatory. I wrote the SOP's and I was heavily involved in the risk analysis process for the device involved. I will not let a bitter, uninformed, cynical man, defame me or my colleagues, on this or any other forum. We are all working very, very hard to bring a new aircraft in and move forward. He is using every excuse he can to deliberately undermine our efforts. He has no idea what happened in the ASTA building, but none the less his post is little more than sniping at those involved. It is he who is targeting the wrong people not us. Being in the military, you would, I hope, expect us to defend ourselves. As an aside, as of 0945 this morning, I've had 71 messages of support for my post, so I'm not alone.
As for your post about museum pieces being robbed for spares for the MRA4 line, to me it appears a little bit sensationalist. The bits, of significance, we know about (and please feel free to tell me about items you have heard of that we haven't) are beam windows and the overwing escape hatches. They are the ones fitted to the MRA4 because it's an MR2 fuselage and those items form part of it. They are perfectly serviceable and free, so why not use them?
As for having ago at Adam Ingram and his former government colleagues....trust me we have, and still do. TD should continue his attacks on them, not Kinloss personnel.
We have so much sympathy for all of the families who lost their loved ones, they were our friends as well, but TD is bang out of order in his actions, hence he got both barrels.
Firstly, I'm not a disgrace to the RAF, I'm an avidly loyal member of it and I will defend its and my reputation as and when I see fit, sometimes more strongly that others will like. I am not ashamed or apologetic about that. The mods deleted my reply; it's their forum and their call. I fully respect their actions. I expected it to be honest.
Enough of that though, to your recent post.
TD has become so blinkered by his thirst for revenge that he is just stirring up trouble for the sake of it. An accident in a static, non moving, piece of training equipment that is bolted to the floor has little or nothing to do with military airworthiness. His comment;
"Once those responsible have been held personally to account, then I can say all that could be done has been done. Until then...” proves he's out for revenge. OK, he lost his son, he's angry, we understand, but to post;
"Not flying yet and already the first accident, I would have thought Health and Safety was uppermost in the minds of everyone at Kinloss." has one purpose only, to be inflammatory. I wrote the SOP's and I was heavily involved in the risk analysis process for the device involved. I will not let a bitter, uninformed, cynical man, defame me or my colleagues, on this or any other forum. We are all working very, very hard to bring a new aircraft in and move forward. He is using every excuse he can to deliberately undermine our efforts. He has no idea what happened in the ASTA building, but none the less his post is little more than sniping at those involved. It is he who is targeting the wrong people not us. Being in the military, you would, I hope, expect us to defend ourselves. As an aside, as of 0945 this morning, I've had 71 messages of support for my post, so I'm not alone.
As for your post about museum pieces being robbed for spares for the MRA4 line, to me it appears a little bit sensationalist. The bits, of significance, we know about (and please feel free to tell me about items you have heard of that we haven't) are beam windows and the overwing escape hatches. They are the ones fitted to the MRA4 because it's an MR2 fuselage and those items form part of it. They are perfectly serviceable and free, so why not use them?
As for having ago at Adam Ingram and his former government colleagues....trust me we have, and still do. TD should continue his attacks on them, not Kinloss personnel.
We have so much sympathy for all of the families who lost their loved ones, they were our friends as well, but TD is bang out of order in his actions, hence he got both barrels.
Champagne anyone...?
Sorry, but I agree with ferg et al (although perhaps not with the delivery).
The newspaper article TD refers to has absolutely nothing to do with the tragic accident in 2006 and trying to draw parallels with it just serves to distract from the real issues and to bring individuals objectivity into question. There are real issues to be dealt with and I'd suggest that muddying the water in this way serves no purpose other than to further taint both Nimrod (old and new) and all of Kinloss with the failings of a system as addressed by H-C.
The Nimrod MR2 was scrapped not to save money but because it had become a millstone around the necks of both the MoD and Downing Street. Perhaps it had just opened so many cans of worms that the easiest thing was to jut get rid of it, I don't know. That said, there are still hundreds of decent folk at Kinloss who just want to get back to the business they do best - MRAing - and with the imminent arrival of the MRA4 it is now time to just let them get on with it.
I'm not saying this wipes the slate clean and indeed TD, tuc et al still have a long way to go if they truly want "justice" for the systemic failings that led to the loss of 230. But how about giving the guys and girls at Kinloss a break and letting them move on and start rebuilding the once world-beating maritime patrol capability we once had? Yes, keep hammering away the shower of ****e that oversaw the undermining of our Airworthiness system but give Kinloss a break; every time it's mentioned it's just another slap in the face for the hundreds of servicemen and women up there just trying to do their jobs as best they can. In seeking to bring to account those at fault you risk inadvertently smearing those around them, who are blameless - that is why you get reactions like those posted above.
Chug - there is no "ganging up" on these threads, just expressions of opinions by individuals. Believe it or not, many of us "aviation professionals" serving in the RAF don't possess the "sheer bloody ignorance" you describe nor are we part of the conspiracy to perpetuate "lies and deceit". I fly military aircraft and I (like 99% of my colleagues) make it my business to know the whys and wherefores of the document set that comes with my aircraft - that's part of what makes me professional. It also entitles me to an opinion that may or may not be at variance with that of the "civilians from outside the Services" of which you speak. I admire the tenacity of the campaigners and sincerely hope they find the peace and "justice" they rightfully deserve. Just remember however, those of us still serving at the "coal face" are professionals and aren't idiots so please do us the decency of treating us as such.
The newspaper article TD refers to has absolutely nothing to do with the tragic accident in 2006 and trying to draw parallels with it just serves to distract from the real issues and to bring individuals objectivity into question. There are real issues to be dealt with and I'd suggest that muddying the water in this way serves no purpose other than to further taint both Nimrod (old and new) and all of Kinloss with the failings of a system as addressed by H-C.
The Nimrod MR2 was scrapped not to save money but because it had become a millstone around the necks of both the MoD and Downing Street. Perhaps it had just opened so many cans of worms that the easiest thing was to jut get rid of it, I don't know. That said, there are still hundreds of decent folk at Kinloss who just want to get back to the business they do best - MRAing - and with the imminent arrival of the MRA4 it is now time to just let them get on with it.
I'm not saying this wipes the slate clean and indeed TD, tuc et al still have a long way to go if they truly want "justice" for the systemic failings that led to the loss of 230. But how about giving the guys and girls at Kinloss a break and letting them move on and start rebuilding the once world-beating maritime patrol capability we once had? Yes, keep hammering away the shower of ****e that oversaw the undermining of our Airworthiness system but give Kinloss a break; every time it's mentioned it's just another slap in the face for the hundreds of servicemen and women up there just trying to do their jobs as best they can. In seeking to bring to account those at fault you risk inadvertently smearing those around them, who are blameless - that is why you get reactions like those posted above.
Chug - there is no "ganging up" on these threads, just expressions of opinions by individuals. Believe it or not, many of us "aviation professionals" serving in the RAF don't possess the "sheer bloody ignorance" you describe nor are we part of the conspiracy to perpetuate "lies and deceit". I fly military aircraft and I (like 99% of my colleagues) make it my business to know the whys and wherefores of the document set that comes with my aircraft - that's part of what makes me professional. It also entitles me to an opinion that may or may not be at variance with that of the "civilians from outside the Services" of which you speak. I admire the tenacity of the campaigners and sincerely hope they find the peace and "justice" they rightfully deserve. Just remember however, those of us still serving at the "coal face" are professionals and aren't idiots so please do us the decency of treating us as such.
DtP, it was not tuc who described you as a disgrace to the Royal Air Force, but I.
StopStart (a Herculaneum expression IIRC), I have no doubt that the expressions of opinion are sincere, my query is whether they are well founded. The reason why the MRA4 has RTS problems is because like many other military fleets it has airworthiness problems. The reason it has airworthiness problems has nothing to do with serviceability, of escape hatches or anything else for that matter BTW DtP, but of the airworthiness shortcomings of such a derivative type. What the "shower of ****e" did to Nimrod and many other fleets can't be simply crammed back into the bottle and stoppered, it goes on infecting the safety and operability of the military airfleets until finally expunged. That won't be done by the MOD, in the guise of the MAA, period.
I don't seek peace, that is the NoK's desperate goal. If I seek justice it is for the best of reasons, not revenge but example so that others will be dissuaded from ever again contemplating such criminal actions. More than anything though I seek airworthiness be reinstated in the UK Military Airfleet so that more avoidable accidents and more needless deaths do not happen due to its lack. To do that we must have a truly Independent and Professional MAA. I hope you as a Professional Military Aviator can agree with and support such a cause. I would thus with respect slightly modify your sentiment; that everyone should understand that all who aspire to do so are:
no matter who the us are, providing they understand and demand military aircraft be airworthy .
StopStart (a Herculaneum expression IIRC), I have no doubt that the expressions of opinion are sincere, my query is whether they are well founded. The reason why the MRA4 has RTS problems is because like many other military fleets it has airworthiness problems. The reason it has airworthiness problems has nothing to do with serviceability, of escape hatches or anything else for that matter BTW DtP, but of the airworthiness shortcomings of such a derivative type. What the "shower of ****e" did to Nimrod and many other fleets can't be simply crammed back into the bottle and stoppered, it goes on infecting the safety and operability of the military airfleets until finally expunged. That won't be done by the MOD, in the guise of the MAA, period.
I don't seek peace, that is the NoK's desperate goal. If I seek justice it is for the best of reasons, not revenge but example so that others will be dissuaded from ever again contemplating such criminal actions. More than anything though I seek airworthiness be reinstated in the UK Military Airfleet so that more avoidable accidents and more needless deaths do not happen due to its lack. To do that we must have a truly Independent and Professional MAA. I hope you as a Professional Military Aviator can agree with and support such a cause. I would thus with respect slightly modify your sentiment; that everyone should understand that all who aspire to do so are:
professionals and aren't idiots so please do us the decency of treating us as such
Last edited by Chugalug2; 22nd Aug 2010 at 12:47. Reason: "enough of that".
Yes, keep hammering away the shower of ****e that oversaw the undermining of our Airworthiness system .
but give Kinloss a break; every time it's mentioned it's just another slap in the face for the hundreds of servicemen and women up there just trying to do their jobs as best they can
That would be hypocritical because the thrust of this evidence has always been consistent - staffs at 1, 2, 3 and even 4 Line have had their ability to conduct their business properly and safely systematically eroded for over 20 years. It may not be obvious from my posts, but long ago in a different life I worked on the Line and know exactly what the problems are. And one of my oldest schoolfriends has worked on Nimrods at Kinloss almost since leaving school and his was the first name I looked for, in trepidation, when news came through.
I openly admit I am unhappy at many aspects of the Haddon-Cave report. In parts it is laughably inaccurate. His most serious failure was not to report the actions of senior staffs when he was given irrefutable evidence of their complicity; while naming and shaming two junior officers in the IPT. Now, they may have been less than competent in that field, but that is not an offence. On the contrary, that has been a pre-requisite to advancement in MoD for many years.
Haddon-Cave concentrated on the IPT's failure regarding the Nimrod Safety Case, but there is another viewpoint. At least they let a contract to do the work; other IPTs considered this a waste of money and the Nimrod 2 Star in MoD(PE)/DPA is on record, in writing, as stating that achieving functional safety is optional if it means reducing cost and time. His 4 Star and successive Ministers for the Armed Forces are also on record, in writing, agreeing with this. I have copies of every single letter I refer to and the References were given to Mr Haddon-Cave. He chose, or was persuaded, not to use them; in doing so diverting attention from the real problem.
Why did the Nimrod IPT have to let a contract/task in the first place? The Safety Management System mandates that continuous contract cover exists to conduct continuous review of aircraft and equipment safety. If Baber and Eagles are to be criticised, why not ask why they inherited the situation I describe? THAT is where the answers lie.
I see a malign influence behind Haddon-Cave. Long ago, when he was first appointed, I stated on the MR2 thread that MoD would agree internally to take a hit, but limit it to a certain level. I was right. One day, perhaps Mr Haddon-Cave will explain himself. Overall, his report has been for the good, but I wonder how many in MoD are thinking "I've done far worse" and, crucially, how many "Thank goodness I was senior enough to escape". I ask again. Are you happy that these people are still in MoD or have got off scot-free? I'm not. Their crimes (and yes, they have committed offences) may or may not catch up with them as a result of Haddon-Cave, but they will someday. It may even be the forthcoming Mull of Kintyre Review. After all, the same names will crop up again.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
That is really heavy. What a pity some of that information did not get leaked to the more responsible members of the national press at the time.
That is really heavy. What a pity some of that information did not get leaked to the more responsible members of the national press at the time.
Champagne anyone...?
Tuc
Never said you did. Reread my post. It was a response to the comments regarding TD's post and an insight into perhaps why posts like TD's elicit the responses they did. A woman breaking her leg in the MRA4 sim has as much to do with airworthiness, XV230 or H-C as me falling off my bike has to do with the loss of XV179. I didn't comment on the IPT or the NSC. 
Nowhere on this forum, in three separate submissions to Mr Haddon-Cave or in evidence submitted to the House of Commons Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee have I ever denigrated anyone at any Air Station.
HR
Agreed, however “press” and “responsible” seldom sit well together.
Also, is it not an indictment of MoD’s senior staffs and politicians that we must even contemplate such action? Our rules are simple, for both Service and Civilian personnel. Any complaint or grievance is dealt with by means of escalation through one’s management. Until quite recently, the (civilian) rules permitted a line manager to judge his own case. That is no longer the case with one’s first LM, but still is for the rest. You have a choice. If you don’t agree, resign; or sit tight and fight from within. Better to keep your enemy close.
So, each time I was instructed to breach my legal obligations to the Secretary of State and PUS, and of course my Duty of Care, all I could do was complain to the very people who were instructing me to commit an offence. Escalation takes years. Despite the regs saying each stage must be dealt with expeditiously, the only time I got a formal rejection or ruling against me was just as that person was leaving post. It took years. Finally, you get to PUS. (He didn’t reply at all but I’m willing to bet it was kept from him).
What if we had gone to the press? (Legally, you can only risk that after exhausting internal means). They’d ask MoD for a statement. We’ve already seen what happened when, in 2005, Adam Ingram was briefed, presumably by his airworthiness “experts”, that the regs were being implemented correctly and I was the only one in MoD who thought otherwise. (Yes, got that in writing as well). What would an editor do? ****can it, no story. The Hercules and Nimrod crashes suddenly made it a national story, but in MoD we’d been waiting for it for 15 years. This is the worst aspect – none of it came as a surprise.
No, in practice it is very difficult to get such a message across. That is why the regs require independent scrutiny from top to bottom. That reg isn’t implemented either. It is only post-Haddon-Cave that the penny has dropped. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a retraction and admission that there is someone else in MoD who agrees with me. (Perhaps there isn’t and the MAA is just for show. Don’t know, never spoken to them). Nor will they amend my service record to reflect what has happened. And they wonder why I don’t let go?
Agreed, however “press” and “responsible” seldom sit well together.
Also, is it not an indictment of MoD’s senior staffs and politicians that we must even contemplate such action? Our rules are simple, for both Service and Civilian personnel. Any complaint or grievance is dealt with by means of escalation through one’s management. Until quite recently, the (civilian) rules permitted a line manager to judge his own case. That is no longer the case with one’s first LM, but still is for the rest. You have a choice. If you don’t agree, resign; or sit tight and fight from within. Better to keep your enemy close.
So, each time I was instructed to breach my legal obligations to the Secretary of State and PUS, and of course my Duty of Care, all I could do was complain to the very people who were instructing me to commit an offence. Escalation takes years. Despite the regs saying each stage must be dealt with expeditiously, the only time I got a formal rejection or ruling against me was just as that person was leaving post. It took years. Finally, you get to PUS. (He didn’t reply at all but I’m willing to bet it was kept from him).
What if we had gone to the press? (Legally, you can only risk that after exhausting internal means). They’d ask MoD for a statement. We’ve already seen what happened when, in 2005, Adam Ingram was briefed, presumably by his airworthiness “experts”, that the regs were being implemented correctly and I was the only one in MoD who thought otherwise. (Yes, got that in writing as well). What would an editor do? ****can it, no story. The Hercules and Nimrod crashes suddenly made it a national story, but in MoD we’d been waiting for it for 15 years. This is the worst aspect – none of it came as a surprise.
No, in practice it is very difficult to get such a message across. That is why the regs require independent scrutiny from top to bottom. That reg isn’t implemented either. It is only post-Haddon-Cave that the penny has dropped. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a retraction and admission that there is someone else in MoD who agrees with me. (Perhaps there isn’t and the MAA is just for show. Don’t know, never spoken to them). Nor will they amend my service record to reflect what has happened. And they wonder why I don’t let go?
StopStart
The paragraph I was replying to started...
I assumed you included me as I was named. Doesn't change what I said but thanks for clarifying your position.
The paragraph I was replying to started...
indeed TD, tuc et al still have a long way to go