MAA MILITARY AIR SAFETY CONFERENCE
squibb
The problem is that MAA's remit is based on implementation of Haddon-Cave's recommendations; or at least those that MoD accepted.
As Haddon-Cave omitted the evidence about the behavior Chug describes, the MAA does not address it. How convenient.
As has been said many times, the senior hierarchy of the MAA is mainly serving RAF officers. Not one of them reported the systemic failures when in previous posts, so either;
a. They have no experience in airworthiness, as anyone involved in the subject over the past 20+ years knows exactly what was going on, or,
b. They made a conscious decision not to report the failings, which is a serious offence (misconduct in a public office).
Which is it to be?
The MAA leader has a clear duty to report this serial misconduct by his fellow senior officers; past and present. He hasn't. How convenient. How illegal.
The problem is that MAA's remit is based on implementation of Haddon-Cave's recommendations; or at least those that MoD accepted.
As Haddon-Cave omitted the evidence about the behavior Chug describes, the MAA does not address it. How convenient.
As has been said many times, the senior hierarchy of the MAA is mainly serving RAF officers. Not one of them reported the systemic failures when in previous posts, so either;
a. They have no experience in airworthiness, as anyone involved in the subject over the past 20+ years knows exactly what was going on, or,
b. They made a conscious decision not to report the failings, which is a serious offence (misconduct in a public office).
Which is it to be?
The MAA leader has a clear duty to report this serial misconduct by his fellow senior officers; past and present. He hasn't. How convenient. How illegal.
You lot are like a giant self licking lollipop. You claim to have all this evidence (which may be true, I don't profess to be an expert) and are outraged by the lack of action, yet you appear to do nothing because you think it will be ignored. You can't have it both ways, introducing an airworthiness aspect to most threads yet doing nothing about it....If you feel that strongly then surely you should be doing something...
downsizer
Are you saying no evidence was presented to Haddon-Cave or Lord Philip by anyone on this forum?
Where do you think they got their evidence? Not from MoD.
What precisely is it you are objecting to or challenging in the recent posts? My last post raised a simple, obvious point.
In the past 25 years (since 13th January 1988, which is the date MoD(PE) found out about AMSO's policy that kicked off the rundown of airworthiness), anyone in MoD familiar with the airworthiness regulations would have known there were serious, systemic failings. Within days, one of MoD's internal auditors reported as such. Other major internal audits saying the same were dated February 1991 and June 1996. All the ART reports of the 90s said the same. The Public Accounts Committee heard similar evidence in March 1999. Since 1988, there has been a long, unbroken audit trail of formal notification to senior staffs of the problem. None was acted upon.
My point is that these notifications should have been coming from everyone involved in airworthiness. They didn't; they came from a few civilian staffs, who were ignored. Actually, their complaints were ignored; the individuals attracted the attention of Director General Support Management (RAF) when, in December 1992, he threatened dismissal for anyone continuing to demand that the regulations be implemented. (He has never made himself public, so it would be wrong for me to name him here, but he's on the plaque in the entrance to Bazalgette Pavilion at Wyton (if it still exists).
Those who knew, but did not notify, committed a very serious offence. Those who ignored the notifications committed, in my opinion, a greater offence. Those two groups of Staffs are part of the problem, not the solution.
The key question today, in my opinion, is what group does each member of the MAA fall in to? If they knew of the problems (and many did), but did not report them, who is to say they have changed this approach? Clearly, to do so would be hypocritical, making the person untrustworthy to hold such a position. MoD itself confirms none of the MAA staffs were in the group who notified the problems in the period January1988 to April 2004 - this has been stated in writing to an AUS and passed to an MP as part of the answer to his PQ.
That leaves those who worked on airworthiness since April 2004. We know that, in June 2007 (after XV230 crashed), Adam Ingram (Minister for the Armed Forces) was advised by MoD's "airworthiness experts" (whoever they may be) that the regulations were being implemented correctly, and always had been. Ingram stated this in writing to the same MP.
In December 2007, when the Nimrod XV230 BoI report was published (which noted systemic failure to implement the regulations) the RAF's Directorate of Air Staffs continued to rubbish claims any aircraft was a unairworthy; thus disagreeing with both the BoI and Des Browne's decision to set up the Nimrod Review.
In February 2008, Bob Ainsworth (Browne's successor) claimed only a few RAF aircraft, but no RN or Army, could be affected; thus ignoring the systemic nature of the failures. Whoever advised him to write this rubbish knew nothing of airworthiness management.
The admission, finally, that those few civilian staffs were right all along came in October 2009 with the publication of the Nimrod Review. Even then, the true breadth and depth of the problem has been concealed; the fact is the truth embarrasses too many senior retired and serving officers.
So, for a mere 3 years there has been general acceptance in MoD of airworthiness failures. One hopes that anyone trained in the subject since then has had this drummed into them; but this remains in some doubt, especially with the current problems the MAA has getting their own regulations issued. I submit that 3 years is not a long time to gain much practical knowledge of managing airworthiness. The MAA's direction and output proves this. There is a lot of hot air but the act of cancelling the only Defence Standard dedicated to maintaining airworthiness was an act of stupefying incompetence. With a bit of luck, those staffs who retain their own copy still secretly implement it, as it remains the bible. If anyone involved in airworthiness is reading this, you do have your copy, don't you? Not just the Def Stan itself, but Part 2 with the 20 Specifications? What? You don't? I didn't think so. D/Stan haven't been able to find a copy of Part 2 since June 1993, when the RAF Chief Engineer broght the final curtain down on the HQMCs. Yet staffs with airworthiness delegation were required to have their own personal copy, issued with their letter of delegation. Does that not tell a story? 19 years without anyone being issued with the definitive, mandated instructions on how to maintain a Safety Case.
Are you saying no evidence was presented to Haddon-Cave or Lord Philip by anyone on this forum?
Where do you think they got their evidence? Not from MoD.
What precisely is it you are objecting to or challenging in the recent posts? My last post raised a simple, obvious point.
In the past 25 years (since 13th January 1988, which is the date MoD(PE) found out about AMSO's policy that kicked off the rundown of airworthiness), anyone in MoD familiar with the airworthiness regulations would have known there were serious, systemic failings. Within days, one of MoD's internal auditors reported as such. Other major internal audits saying the same were dated February 1991 and June 1996. All the ART reports of the 90s said the same. The Public Accounts Committee heard similar evidence in March 1999. Since 1988, there has been a long, unbroken audit trail of formal notification to senior staffs of the problem. None was acted upon.
My point is that these notifications should have been coming from everyone involved in airworthiness. They didn't; they came from a few civilian staffs, who were ignored. Actually, their complaints were ignored; the individuals attracted the attention of Director General Support Management (RAF) when, in December 1992, he threatened dismissal for anyone continuing to demand that the regulations be implemented. (He has never made himself public, so it would be wrong for me to name him here, but he's on the plaque in the entrance to Bazalgette Pavilion at Wyton (if it still exists).
Those who knew, but did not notify, committed a very serious offence. Those who ignored the notifications committed, in my opinion, a greater offence. Those two groups of Staffs are part of the problem, not the solution.
The key question today, in my opinion, is what group does each member of the MAA fall in to? If they knew of the problems (and many did), but did not report them, who is to say they have changed this approach? Clearly, to do so would be hypocritical, making the person untrustworthy to hold such a position. MoD itself confirms none of the MAA staffs were in the group who notified the problems in the period January1988 to April 2004 - this has been stated in writing to an AUS and passed to an MP as part of the answer to his PQ.
That leaves those who worked on airworthiness since April 2004. We know that, in June 2007 (after XV230 crashed), Adam Ingram (Minister for the Armed Forces) was advised by MoD's "airworthiness experts" (whoever they may be) that the regulations were being implemented correctly, and always had been. Ingram stated this in writing to the same MP.
In December 2007, when the Nimrod XV230 BoI report was published (which noted systemic failure to implement the regulations) the RAF's Directorate of Air Staffs continued to rubbish claims any aircraft was a unairworthy; thus disagreeing with both the BoI and Des Browne's decision to set up the Nimrod Review.
In February 2008, Bob Ainsworth (Browne's successor) claimed only a few RAF aircraft, but no RN or Army, could be affected; thus ignoring the systemic nature of the failures. Whoever advised him to write this rubbish knew nothing of airworthiness management.
The admission, finally, that those few civilian staffs were right all along came in October 2009 with the publication of the Nimrod Review. Even then, the true breadth and depth of the problem has been concealed; the fact is the truth embarrasses too many senior retired and serving officers.
So, for a mere 3 years there has been general acceptance in MoD of airworthiness failures. One hopes that anyone trained in the subject since then has had this drummed into them; but this remains in some doubt, especially with the current problems the MAA has getting their own regulations issued. I submit that 3 years is not a long time to gain much practical knowledge of managing airworthiness. The MAA's direction and output proves this. There is a lot of hot air but the act of cancelling the only Defence Standard dedicated to maintaining airworthiness was an act of stupefying incompetence. With a bit of luck, those staffs who retain their own copy still secretly implement it, as it remains the bible. If anyone involved in airworthiness is reading this, you do have your copy, don't you? Not just the Def Stan itself, but Part 2 with the 20 Specifications? What? You don't? I didn't think so. D/Stan haven't been able to find a copy of Part 2 since June 1993, when the RAF Chief Engineer broght the final curtain down on the HQMCs. Yet staffs with airworthiness delegation were required to have their own personal copy, issued with their letter of delegation. Does that not tell a story? 19 years without anyone being issued with the definitive, mandated instructions on how to maintain a Safety Case.
I can't argue about any of that, but my question is far more simple.... What are you, with your (and others) vast knowledge doing about it? Anything substantial or just posting on here in the vain hope that the internet will magic up a solution? Your earlier posts on this thread imply the latter, hence my self licking lollipop analogy.
What are you, with your (and others) vast knowledge doing about it?
(and others).. posting on here
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Oct 2012 at 08:57.
Wind your neck in fella, I never said you were irritating or boring.
The best placed people to start the ball rolling (again) are the SMEs obviously. The same SMEs who post the same posts on here again and again yet don't seem to do much else because they feel there is no point (as posted earlier in this thread). If they feel so strongly they should be doing something further about it and utilising the greater knowledge and depth of understanding that they have over the rest of us average joes....
Or are they too above questioning?
The best placed people to start the ball rolling (again) are the SMEs obviously. The same SMEs who post the same posts on here again and again yet don't seem to do much else because they feel there is no point (as posted earlier in this thread). If they feel so strongly they should be doing something further about it and utilising the greater knowledge and depth of understanding that they have over the rest of us average joes....
Or are they too above questioning?
the greater knowledge and depth of understanding that they have over the rest of us average joes....
As to questioning, downsizer, do by all means. Might I suggest though that this is a problem that affects us all, and the question should be "what are we to do about it" Or are we above questioning ourselves?
I haven't seen the order, have you? I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist BTW. However the person who can prove the order was given should be doing more than posting on an internet forum IMHO.
I guess we'll have to disagree now because it appears to me (and others in my crewroom) that a handful of people here are happy to bang the drum but actually do little else in the hope that others will do their bidding like some kind of puppet master. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed the current campaign to right these wrongs that extends beyond this fora...
I guess we'll have to disagree now because it appears to me (and others in my crewroom) that a handful of people here are happy to bang the drum but actually do little else in the hope that others will do their bidding like some kind of puppet master. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed the current campaign to right these wrongs that extends beyond this fora...
downsizer, specific and detailed evidence has been submitted to the Nimrod Review, the Mull of Kintyre Review, MPs, Ministers for the Armed Forces, Secretaries of State for Defence, HoC and HoL select committees, Chief Constables and the RAF Provost Marshal. It has either been totally ignored and unacknowledged or selectively filleted so that the inedible parts were left undigested. In short the law enforcement, judicial, military high command, government and parliamentary avenues have been tried and found wanting. This evidence has been factual, using much FoI as well as personal sources. If it were just about financial wrong doing I would have packed it in years ago, but lives have been lost and will go on being lost because "there is something wrong with our bloody aircraft". Unless and until the MAA and the MAAIB are released from the thrall of the MOD (and of each other) that will not change.
Don't worry, I know that I am irritating and boring but I see no option but to continue in the same vein. In the meantime some gratuitous advice to you and your crew room colleagues, the only bidding that will work is what comes from yourselves. If you can't bother yourselves in demanding that this scandal be addressed, that has compromised the airworthiness of the aircraft that you fly, then can you wonder that others that are more concerned to protect reputations than safety can't be either?
Don't worry, I know that I am irritating and boring but I see no option but to continue in the same vein. In the meantime some gratuitous advice to you and your crew room colleagues, the only bidding that will work is what comes from yourselves. If you can't bother yourselves in demanding that this scandal be addressed, that has compromised the airworthiness of the aircraft that you fly, then can you wonder that others that are more concerned to protect reputations than safety can't be either?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Oct 2012 at 11:03.
Downsizer
I think I have proven, many times, that I am more than willing and able to do more than "bang the drum".
When Des Browne ordered the Nimrod Review by Mr Haddon-Cave QC, he expressly permitted MoD staffs, past and present, to give evidence. I know many of us here sail a little close to the Official Secrets Act wind when posting; the airworthiness saga is no different. Mr Browne effectively waived the OSA in this case. I later asked Lord Philip if the same applied, and he confirmed I could submit the same evidence to him. While of course he concentrated on the legal aspect, his report makes it very clear he accepted my evidence regarding the illegality of the Chinook Release to Service. That is, the aircraft had no proper clearance to fly operationally. I am unhappy he didn't spell out all my supporting evidence, as that served to protect the guilty, but the fact remains he supported my main conclusion; as did Haddon-Cave who similarly protected the guilty. At least Lord Philip didn't name and shame the innocent.
The matter is further complicated by the Freedom of Information Act - MoD withhold benign information yet, bizarrely, happily release information that you and I would not normally be allowed to discuss here. I asked the question of the Information Commissioner - If MoD release information under FoI, is it deemed to be in the Public Domain? The answer was woolly (I have no time for the ICO, they routinely collude with MoD to agree what answers they give and how complaints will be handled), but they agreed the precedent had been set by the press routinely publishing FoI replies.
Hence, for example, I can state here that on 23rd April 2003, MoD at AbbeyWood briefed PUS that, as of that date, I was the only person in MoD who thought it right to implement mandated airworthiness and financial probity regulations. I received this in 2005 and successive Mins(AF) (Ainsworth, Ingram, Moonie, Caplin) confirmed in writing to my MP that they supported this statement. This single item of background evidence is what demonstrates the Nimrod Review was a simplistic collation of a few well known facts; and not the revelation Haddon-Cave, MoD and now the MAA like to claim it was. Clearly, the statement is a lie as others in MoD demonstrably believe in aircraft being airworthy (although pprune reveals an astonishing number who don't). But it serves to demonstrate the lengths MoD will go to denigrate anyone who disagrees with their policies.
Perhaps THE key event in the weeks leading up to the announcement the Chinook pilots had been cleared was Lord Philip being advised MoD had lied to the widow of one of the passengers. They told her there was no such thing as a Release to Service until 1996, and the only Chinook Release was signed by Controller Aircraft, Sir Donald Spiers. I had discussed his many times on the MoK thread - the fact that MoD never mentioned the "RTS", only ever the "CAR". At first I thought it may be because there wasn't an RTS at all, but investigations revealed ACAS had ignored the mandated CAR and issued an illegal RTS. That was a significant breakthrough.
Clearly, this lie had only one purpose; to protect the signatory to the illegal RTS of November 1993. Min(AF), Nick Harvey, was forced to issue a grovelling letter of apology to the widow. Until that event, Lord Philip may have been thinking about not mentioning airworthiness. But, when you read the report it is obvious the sentence on the (illegal) RTS was dropped in at the last minute, as it is slightly out of context.
On Nimrod, C130 and Chinook there has been a single event like this when I think we all thought "Case won". To me, that was the key event on MoK. It was an extraordinary lie, so easily disproved, but it illustrated the sheer panic in MoD over the evidence the aircraft was not airworthy. And that lie was perpetrated after the MAA was formed. And it exposed a new RAF strategy - close ranks to protect the retired VSOs at all costs, this time at the expense of a named civilian 2 Star, from whom Alcock, Graydon and Bagnall had withheld the 1992 CHART report. It was one thing lying about two junior pilots - that is to be expected - but what would make them suddenly escalate their finger pointing to a 2 Star? The airworthiness evidence. That is, the "new" evidence MoD had always called for. Hoisted, and all that.
I can assure you everything I say on here, plus the detailed background, has been formally submitted to, for example, Mr Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip, both of whom noted the same serious failings I've been "banging on" about on pprune since I joined in January 2003. It has also been submitted to the Provost Marshal, five successive Ministers for the Armed Forces (the Minister who deals with this subject), a former Minister for Defence Procurement, Secretaries of State for Defence, MoD's PUS, Thames Valley Police, numerous MPs and more. And when MoD and the retired VSOs lied to the press, I happily provided the evidence they had lied.
I discuss here the replies I receive, which are the same as others on pprune get. That is, MoD is allowed to judge its own case by briefing the above office bearers and 99% of the time they deny there is any problem. As I said, even after XV230 crashed and the cause was known, Adam Ingram claimed he was personally satisfied the regulations were implemented correctly. The very existence of the MAA gives lie to that yet, and this is my point, no action is taken against those in MoD who knowingly misled in their briefings. That is where the "campaign" is at the moment and why it is important to air as much of the truth as he rules permit.
I think I have proven, many times, that I am more than willing and able to do more than "bang the drum".
When Des Browne ordered the Nimrod Review by Mr Haddon-Cave QC, he expressly permitted MoD staffs, past and present, to give evidence. I know many of us here sail a little close to the Official Secrets Act wind when posting; the airworthiness saga is no different. Mr Browne effectively waived the OSA in this case. I later asked Lord Philip if the same applied, and he confirmed I could submit the same evidence to him. While of course he concentrated on the legal aspect, his report makes it very clear he accepted my evidence regarding the illegality of the Chinook Release to Service. That is, the aircraft had no proper clearance to fly operationally. I am unhappy he didn't spell out all my supporting evidence, as that served to protect the guilty, but the fact remains he supported my main conclusion; as did Haddon-Cave who similarly protected the guilty. At least Lord Philip didn't name and shame the innocent.
The matter is further complicated by the Freedom of Information Act - MoD withhold benign information yet, bizarrely, happily release information that you and I would not normally be allowed to discuss here. I asked the question of the Information Commissioner - If MoD release information under FoI, is it deemed to be in the Public Domain? The answer was woolly (I have no time for the ICO, they routinely collude with MoD to agree what answers they give and how complaints will be handled), but they agreed the precedent had been set by the press routinely publishing FoI replies.
Hence, for example, I can state here that on 23rd April 2003, MoD at AbbeyWood briefed PUS that, as of that date, I was the only person in MoD who thought it right to implement mandated airworthiness and financial probity regulations. I received this in 2005 and successive Mins(AF) (Ainsworth, Ingram, Moonie, Caplin) confirmed in writing to my MP that they supported this statement. This single item of background evidence is what demonstrates the Nimrod Review was a simplistic collation of a few well known facts; and not the revelation Haddon-Cave, MoD and now the MAA like to claim it was. Clearly, the statement is a lie as others in MoD demonstrably believe in aircraft being airworthy (although pprune reveals an astonishing number who don't). But it serves to demonstrate the lengths MoD will go to denigrate anyone who disagrees with their policies.
Perhaps THE key event in the weeks leading up to the announcement the Chinook pilots had been cleared was Lord Philip being advised MoD had lied to the widow of one of the passengers. They told her there was no such thing as a Release to Service until 1996, and the only Chinook Release was signed by Controller Aircraft, Sir Donald Spiers. I had discussed his many times on the MoK thread - the fact that MoD never mentioned the "RTS", only ever the "CAR". At first I thought it may be because there wasn't an RTS at all, but investigations revealed ACAS had ignored the mandated CAR and issued an illegal RTS. That was a significant breakthrough.
Clearly, this lie had only one purpose; to protect the signatory to the illegal RTS of November 1993. Min(AF), Nick Harvey, was forced to issue a grovelling letter of apology to the widow. Until that event, Lord Philip may have been thinking about not mentioning airworthiness. But, when you read the report it is obvious the sentence on the (illegal) RTS was dropped in at the last minute, as it is slightly out of context.
On Nimrod, C130 and Chinook there has been a single event like this when I think we all thought "Case won". To me, that was the key event on MoK. It was an extraordinary lie, so easily disproved, but it illustrated the sheer panic in MoD over the evidence the aircraft was not airworthy. And that lie was perpetrated after the MAA was formed. And it exposed a new RAF strategy - close ranks to protect the retired VSOs at all costs, this time at the expense of a named civilian 2 Star, from whom Alcock, Graydon and Bagnall had withheld the 1992 CHART report. It was one thing lying about two junior pilots - that is to be expected - but what would make them suddenly escalate their finger pointing to a 2 Star? The airworthiness evidence. That is, the "new" evidence MoD had always called for. Hoisted, and all that.
I can assure you everything I say on here, plus the detailed background, has been formally submitted to, for example, Mr Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip, both of whom noted the same serious failings I've been "banging on" about on pprune since I joined in January 2003. It has also been submitted to the Provost Marshal, five successive Ministers for the Armed Forces (the Minister who deals with this subject), a former Minister for Defence Procurement, Secretaries of State for Defence, MoD's PUS, Thames Valley Police, numerous MPs and more. And when MoD and the retired VSOs lied to the press, I happily provided the evidence they had lied.
I discuss here the replies I receive, which are the same as others on pprune get. That is, MoD is allowed to judge its own case by briefing the above office bearers and 99% of the time they deny there is any problem. As I said, even after XV230 crashed and the cause was known, Adam Ingram claimed he was personally satisfied the regulations were implemented correctly. The very existence of the MAA gives lie to that yet, and this is my point, no action is taken against those in MoD who knowingly misled in their briefings. That is where the "campaign" is at the moment and why it is important to air as much of the truth as he rules permit.
Downsizer
So, if what I have outlined is "the least" anyone has done on the subject, pray tell what others have done, including yourself. As many here will testify, I'm quite willing to meet you and compare notes.
As I suspected then, those banging the loudest are doing the least.
Preaching in here isn't going to help though, it's largely the wrong audience and clearly isn't going to get picked up by the necessary figures. Are you thus saying the "campaign" is dead in the water and posts on here are all that is left?
So, if what I have outlined is "the least" anyone has done on the subject, pray tell what others have done, including yourself. As many here will testify, I'm quite willing to meet you and compare notes.
FWIW your "the least" makes interesting reading, but it's where "the campaign" is now that is the rub, and as a mere amateur on this subject it appears somewhat stagnant.
Perhaps it seems stagnant to an amateur because it is being conducted by professionals. 
Please appreciate it is wise to keep powder dry. Anyone is free to post on pprune, and on the MoK thread it became clear to all that a retired VSO (3 Star) was acting as the mouthpiece for the others and continually fishing for strategy hints. He's now retreated, perhaps because he got found out and was identified as the 3 Star under whom the original policy that led to the rundown in airworthiness was developed! He kept challenging us to post evidence and probably got quite a shock when papers from 1987, including those promulgating his policy, were sent to Lord Philip, especially after he and his cronies had denied their existence. That became a common feature in the evidence. MoD denying policy papers existed, followed by them being provided to Lord Philip for the first time. In time, (December 2010), Lord Philip started asked us first for MoD papers, as MoD kept saying they didn't have them. Sooner or later such dissembling works against you, especially with a legal mind such as LP's. The resultant distrust of anything MoD says is ever more widespread.
Please appreciate it is wise to keep powder dry. Anyone is free to post on pprune, and on the MoK thread it became clear to all that a retired VSO (3 Star) was acting as the mouthpiece for the others and continually fishing for strategy hints. He's now retreated, perhaps because he got found out and was identified as the 3 Star under whom the original policy that led to the rundown in airworthiness was developed! He kept challenging us to post evidence and probably got quite a shock when papers from 1987, including those promulgating his policy, were sent to Lord Philip, especially after he and his cronies had denied their existence. That became a common feature in the evidence. MoD denying policy papers existed, followed by them being provided to Lord Philip for the first time. In time, (December 2010), Lord Philip started asked us first for MoD papers, as MoD kept saying they didn't have them. Sooner or later such dissembling works against you, especially with a legal mind such as LP's. The resultant distrust of anything MoD says is ever more widespread.
Perhaps it seems stagnant to an amateur because it is being conducted by professionals.
So we are back at square one where the majority of serving personnel think there is nothing left that can be done bar post on the internet and nothing will change.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite frankly, most on the FL counldnt give 2 sh*ts, are sticking it to hours build and just trying to keep their noses clean until recruitment starts up again.
Most feel its not worth rocking the boat, your line manager wont thank for it, neither will your bosses, neither will the AOCs for getting attention on another "Risk" which they dont have the resources to manage. This is the crux. If nothing changes when issues are repeatedly reported, as they havent been. (other than piecemeal meetings to document evidence that holders are ALARP) then why will people risk falling on their sword when its much safer to stick with the status quo?
All the seniors want is to get the next rank for the pension without ending up on manslaughter charges. All the lower ranks want is to get relevant experience to escape the mad house with a decent salary and conditions on completing their pensionable service.
Can anyone actually blame the above 2 groups? There is nothing new about this, its endemic in a force that is woefully lacking both manpower and now experience. Its the same in the police force, NHS and fire service and its only going to get worse, much worse once the private sector picks up. Until then, I will do my best for the interests of my "customers", my little pink body and the op in that order.
Most feel its not worth rocking the boat, your line manager wont thank for it, neither will your bosses, neither will the AOCs for getting attention on another "Risk" which they dont have the resources to manage. This is the crux. If nothing changes when issues are repeatedly reported, as they havent been. (other than piecemeal meetings to document evidence that holders are ALARP) then why will people risk falling on their sword when its much safer to stick with the status quo?
All the seniors want is to get the next rank for the pension without ending up on manslaughter charges. All the lower ranks want is to get relevant experience to escape the mad house with a decent salary and conditions on completing their pensionable service.
Can anyone actually blame the above 2 groups? There is nothing new about this, its endemic in a force that is woefully lacking both manpower and now experience. Its the same in the police force, NHS and fire service and its only going to get worse, much worse once the private sector picks up. Until then, I will do my best for the interests of my "customers", my little pink body and the op in that order.
Last edited by VinRouge; 1st Oct 2012 at 14:08.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tucumseh's evidence
downsizer
May I say that I, and a number of fellow pilots, have read every word of tucumseh's evidence to all the parties he mentioned. Not only is it a comprehensive and proficient body of work, but every document he made Reference to was sent to Sir Charles Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip. What he says is irrefutable.
His efforts have led to significant improvements in Military aviation safety for which all aircrew should be grateful. It is a pity the MAA are so slow to implement his work.
Capt Ralph Kohn FRAeS
May I say that I, and a number of fellow pilots, have read every word of tucumseh's evidence to all the parties he mentioned. Not only is it a comprehensive and proficient body of work, but every document he made Reference to was sent to Sir Charles Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip. What he says is irrefutable.
His efforts have led to significant improvements in Military aviation safety for which all aircrew should be grateful. It is a pity the MAA are so slow to implement his work.
Capt Ralph Kohn FRAeS
Vin Rouge
I recognise all that you say, which describes very well the culture that was allowed to fester for over 20 years. It emphasises the point I made before. Nothing in what the MAA is doing would have prevented the systemic failures. When people remain scared to meet their legal obligations due to bullying, harassment and withholding promotions by the people responsible for the failures, it is clear where the cull must start. Accepting that it is probably unrealistic to expect Ministers to sack those who still serve, and given these people are the ones who will be determining who is made redundant and not be at risk themselves, the solution in the first instance is to ensure the MAA is truly independent of this system.
Ralph, thanks. And here's me thinking nobody had read it all!
I recognise all that you say, which describes very well the culture that was allowed to fester for over 20 years. It emphasises the point I made before. Nothing in what the MAA is doing would have prevented the systemic failures. When people remain scared to meet their legal obligations due to bullying, harassment and withholding promotions by the people responsible for the failures, it is clear where the cull must start. Accepting that it is probably unrealistic to expect Ministers to sack those who still serve, and given these people are the ones who will be determining who is made redundant and not be at risk themselves, the solution in the first instance is to ensure the MAA is truly independent of this system.
Ralph, thanks. And here's me thinking nobody had read it all!