Just Culture

[whowhenwhy]

Agreed. The MAA concept is sound but severely flawed in that it is manned by people from the front line who are on 2/3 year tours.

[dervish]

manned by people from the front line

And so by definition know the square root of eff all about the problems that caused all this in the first place. Having read the evidence I now realise I knew next to nothing about what makes an aircraft airworthy. I only knew how to make it serviceable.

[Rigga]

Thank you Orgasmic for supporting the need for a good boss.

Just think what a difference that one person makes compared to those that you dont want to work with.

A particular position and/or personality affects any culture - good or bad.

[thefodfather]

Chug raises an interesting dilemma about RAF Flight Safety. If the MAA is the regulator, independent or otherwise, are they not really the equivalent of the airline safety department?

[whowhenwhy]

Now we're getting somewhere. IMO, the next logical step to that argument is to look at the Gp and/or ODH structure. Why do we have so few platforms split across so many masters? Why do all of the ODH insist on assessing and managing Risk in different ways, given that the required output is the same in terms of the Regulatory intent?

To answer the previous poster, the RAF Safety Centre is exactly akin to an airline safety organisation which would report direct to the CEO. Each functional area then has it's own safety specialists. Of course in our case it would help if we had some BM guys doing BM assurance work, rather than an aircrew mate and some engineers. Not knocking the individuals BTW, who are doing some good work.

[Chugalug2]

tff:-

If the MAA is the regulator, independent or otherwise, are they not really the equivalent of the airline safety department?

Definitely otherwise, and like any airline safety department is obliged to do as its employer dictates at the end of the day. "Independence" seems to depend upon no such dictates being made. Given the evidence that dervish refers to, we can have no confidence in such assurances being adhered to in the future.
Independence not only has to work, but be seen to work. A truly independent MAA and MAAIB, separate from the MOD and from each other, sistered with the CAA and AAIB respectively, and headed by civilian DGs will thus work. Then, and only then, can the long long task of rebuilding and restoring UK Military Flight Safety begin.

[orgASMic]

Chug

While I agree in principal, why does the DG need to be a civvy? The RNLAF's equivalent organisation (the closest any other nation has to the MAA) has a serving 1 Star DG but the difference is that the incumbent must be on his last tour of duty so that he is not worried about his promotion prospects. Could that work for us or would people worry that the DG would then not care enough to do a decent job as it would not matter to him?

[airborne_artist]

The RNLAF's equivalent organisation (the closest any other nation has to the MAA) has a serving 1 Star DG but the difference is that the incumbent must be on his last tour of duty so that he is not worried about his promotion prospects.

But what about his chances of getting a good job thereafter in civvy strasse? Comply and be recommended as a good egg by other serving/recent VSOs or fight his corner and be tarred with the "bolshie" brush?

[dervish]

This was discussed a few years ago and one conclusion was a last posting civvy would be ideal as their retirement age is 65 and fewer seek second careers. The stumbling block today is fewer are trained properly, which could also be said of servicemen of course. I'd wager none could write the evidence submitted to Phillip, which I'd also wager the MAA finds embarrassing.

[orgASMic]

But what about his chances of getting a good job thereafter in civvy strasse? Comply and be recommended as a good egg by other serving/recent VSOs or fight his corner and be tarred with the "bolshie" brush?

Or, perhaps, fight his corner and be tarred with the "professional" brush? And then be recognised for having made a genuine improvement to the system? Perish the thought.

The only thing lacking in the current system is moral courage.

[dallas]

Originally Posted by orgASMic

The only thing lacking in the current system is moral courage.

IMO that's been broadly lacking from the junior officer corps since the mid-90s, where achievement has been measured in departmental name changes, fringe and faddy projects and chronic short-termism.

[orgASMic]

Do you mean 'the officer corps of the Junior Service' as opposed to the junior officers of that service, as they don't get to influence the sort of nugatory staff work you cite? In my experience, you are more likely to get the truth from lower down the food chain. Maybe that's why I am never going to be a wg cdr.

[EAP86]

"The RNLAF's equivalent organisation (the closest any other nation has to the MAA) has a serving 1 Star DG..."

Quite a few European nations besides NL have a similar approach to the MAA, e.g. France, Sweden and Finland; and on other continents, Australia and Canada also come to mind. I don't know of any that are as independent as some would seem to prefer. Haddon-Cave made a mini-world tour looking at a few of these MAAs before writing his report.

As an aside, the last incumbent for Director of the NL MAA was Air Commodore Chris Lorraine, a Brit.

[Running_In]

Orgasmic, I agree that a lack of moral courage within the RAF is the problem, although I would blame the Wg Cdr and above level. They are the ones that set the tone for the Sqn and the operators are usually at their mercy.

I was witness to someone committing a few acts of willful gross negligence in the air when I was on a Sqn based at Brize. I told my Flt Cdr and together we told the Boss as a courtesy before reporting it to the RAF Police (as some of the incidents went a bit further than flying discipline) and Stn Flt Safety. The Boss' reaction was a bit out there frankly - he was unashamed in being explicit that his priority was protecting the reputation of the Sqn. I was ordered not to take it any further, but I decided to report it to the Police anyway. It came to head with the Boss phoning me at 8.30pm to tell me he would make sure my next job was in M&S if I didn't with draw my report! He also pulled a reason out of his backside to ground me from flying myself that same evening.

The reaction I'd witnessed scared me and as you said, it demonstrated that on that Sqn at that particular time there was a complete lack of moral fibre and willingness to put the effort into self analysis.

[Chugalug2]

orgASMic:-

why does the DG need to be a civvy?

I'm afraid that the betrayal in the late 80s/early 90s by certain VSOs of their duty, by issuing illegal orders to suborn the Airworthiness Regulations and by sacking those who would not comply, make that quite impossible because those who did comply (thus acting contrary to Military Law) have never been punished for it. In contrast those who did not comply have suffered greatly, much as Running In describes. You either learn the lessons of history or you are doomed to repeat them.
I would guess that the RNLAF has not so been betrayed by its High Command. That is its good fortune. The RAF that I served in was not thus betrayed, as far as I know. That is my good fortune. All that changed post 1987, and that is the reason that we must ensure that it must never happen again. If the MAA DG is civilian, it shouldn't, providing the MAA is outwith the MOD.
I cannot comment about the moral fibre of the present RAF leadership, for that is the business of the RAF, though it is sad to think that it could be wanting. Flight Safety though is my business, I was told that when I served and I still believe it to be true

[dallas]

A predominantly civilianised MAA was something I was going to mention. It's one type of organisation that would benefit greatly from a static staff, independence from the chain of command and, God forbid for a safety/regulatory authority, have the ability to learn.

[dervish]

Civilians in MAA

A predominantly civilianised MAA was something I was going to mention. It's one type of organisation that would benefit greatly from a static staff, independence from the chain of command and, God forbid for a safety/regulatory authority, have the ability to learn.

That point is made here.......

https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-authority-maa


To paraphrase, the failures were spotted and reported by civvies who were hounded by RAF VSOs. (Which I think is accepted now.) Yet none of these civvies are in the MAA and nor has the MAA sought their input. (Can't comment but it is accepted the MAA isn't addressing the failures that resulted in its formation.) The MAA is dominated by RAF officers, whose past and present hierarchy was responsible for the failures and still sees no wrong in what it did. (I think also widely accepted given their outpourings in the press.) IMO, the main point the author makes is that on MoDs own admission no member of the MAA reported failings, which either means they are unsuited or lacking moral fibre. Pretty strong argument IMHO.

[1.3VStall]

There are few people, not many, who have been senior engineering officers in the RAF/MoD and have subsequently gone on to hold executive positions in the airline industry as CAA Nominated Post Holders and even CAA Accountable Managers. These people thus have direct experience of airworthiness regulation and implementation in both the military and civilian arenas.

One might think that such knowledge and experience would be of direct relevance to the MAA, yet I am not aware of any of these people being contacted by the MAA.

Whilst I am sure that Baines Simmons, a respected consultancy, has provided the MAA with good advice (at what cost?) I can't help feeling that the MAA has missed an opportunity to tap into expertise that would have helped the organisation in its early years.

[A and C]

Inward looking ?

1.3V stall, I have found that there is a small but very vocal minority in the RAF who think that there are two ways to fly......... The RAF way and the wrong way.

I suspect that a little of this culture has crept in to the decisions that resulted in the set up of the MAA.

[Splash1983]

There seems to be a misconception that the MAA is solely about Air Safety - It is not, it is the Regulator in the same way the CAA is the national regulatory representative of EASA. In that way it assures airworthiness and audits; application of regulation, management of Risk To Life (RtL) and the individual Duty Holders.
Making it a civilian or civilian led organisation would potentially fall back into the previous traps of malaise that befell certain IPTs in the past.
Military Flight Safety is not the issue, inter-service bickering at the senior levels and individual failings have been.
I do like the suggestion though, that the DG should be at the twilight of his career and therefore not be seeking further promotion.