MAA Article at AIN Online

[hoodie]

From Chris Pocock in an SBAC edition of AIN Online:

Teething Troubles Beset New UK Military Air Safety Regime

[NutLoose]

In his first media interview since becoming director general of the MAA, Air Marshal Dick Garwood told AIN earlier this year, “The Haddon-Cave review called for an independent regulator that fosters continual improvement in safety culture, regulation and practice.”

The MAA was established in early 2010 to put things right. It employs 250 people, 70 who filled new posts created as a result of the Haddon-Cave review (the remainder filled safety positions transferred from elsewhere in the MoD).

MAA technical director Air Vice-Marshal Martin Clark

Garwood emphasized the independence of the MAA. “I report directly to the permanent undersecretary at the MoD, but I have access to the Defence Secretary (for example, the senior defense minister). I’m independent of the service chiefs,” he added.

[B]The Haddon-Cave review called for an independent regulator

Er call me old fashioned, but none of that speaks to me as Independent....

[matkat]

I applied for a position at the MAA was told thanks but no thanks signed by a wing commander retired I really knew then what was going on I have to wonder if any of the regulators/surveyors or whatever they are called are not ex-officers?

[tucumseh]

“We’ve asked some difficult questions. That’s why we were created.” Air Vice-Marshal Martin Clark

No, you were created because the people who asked difficult questions were disciplined and told to shut up, their superiors told lies, unsafe aircraft were released to service, and people died. Then the people who asked the difficult questions posed them again, to Coroner's Courts. MoD again tried to shut them up, told lies and unsafe aircraft continued to be released - and maintain that position despite the formation of the MAA.

“There’s no Crown immunity,” Garwood confirmed.

Knew that. My 1992 letter of delegation tells me so. Please keep up.

Now the MAA is reviewing the regulations “to make them better,” he added. There is broad agreement that they already read much better than before, Clark claimed.

That's sod all use if they start by getting the basic definitions wrong. They may read better, but they don't say the right thing. There is a difference.

In the annual report, the MAA warned that “the lack of suitable qualified and experienced personnel…is a strategic risk to a self-sustaining safety system and culture.” It painted a rather alarming picture of “air safety being undermined by work that is left incomplete; safety modification work not being progressed; poor supervision; latent risks that remain unqualified, and inappropriate normalization of low standards and behaviors.”

And, like Haddon-Cave, it simply repeats 24 year old reports containing the same warnings, but doesn't acknowledge this.

The MAA then audits this work. “We mark their homework,” AM Garwood said.

But who teaches them? And have they the necessary pre-requisite experience and competence to be successfully taught?

Garwood emphasized the independence of the MAA. “I report directly to the permanent undersecretary at the MoD, but I have access to the Defence Secretary (for example, the senior defense minister). I’m independent of the service chiefs,” he added.

And yet, DE&S policy section continues to speak for the MAA when confirming it remains an offence to refuse to disobey an order to make a false declaration on airworthiness, but it is not an offence to issue that order. The elephant, Dick.

[Roadster280]

And yet, DE&S policy section continues to speak for the MAA when confirming it remains an offence to refuse to disobey an order to make a false declaration on airworthiness, but it is not an offence to issue that order. The elephant, Dick.

If this is true (and assuming you meant "refuse to obey"), then heads should roll. Write to the PM. The leader of the opposition. Shadow SecDef. The Queen. The appropriate Coroners. I can't believe that this situation exists.

"Go and shoot those prisoners"
"Sir, I will not, it would be illegal"

It's no different than that, essentially.

[NutLoose]

From the MAA website

Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems.
As the single regulatory authority responsible for regulating all aspects of Air Safety across Defence, the MAA has full oversight of all Defence aviation activity. Through independent audit and continuous surveillance of military aviation, the MAA aims to provide the Secretary of State for Defence (SofS), through the Permanent Under Secretary of State for Defence (PUS), the necessary assurance that appropriate standards of Air Safety are maintained in delivering operational capability.
The MAA draws the authority to discharge its regulatory role from a Charter signed by SofS. The Charter also specifies the MAA’s high level governance arrangements and broad responsibilities.
The MAA, which is located at MOD Abbey Wood (North), Bristol, is led by a 3* Director General (DG) who is based in Level 6, Zone L, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB.
DG MAA is supported by two 2*s, Director (Operations) and Director (Technical), who collectively form the MAA Executive.

Independent huh, how can you have independence if it is part of the "company" you are regulating?? the first 6 words in the quote shoot that down in flames.

[tucumseh]

If this is true (and assuming you meant "refuse to obey"), then heads should roll. Write to the PM. The leader of the opposition. Shadow SecDef. The Queen. The appropriate Coroners. I can't believe that this situation exists.

Sorry, yes, "obey"! Thank you.


All done, except Her Majesty.

PM - no reply, except from lackey acknowledging receipt.

Leader of Oppo - Done; and his Shadow SofS for Defence. (Good reply from latter). Ditto when Labour were in power, which says much about duplicity and blind obedience to MoD briefings.

Coroners - Done; Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. Lots of correspondence from them and their investigators; of course, both accepted related evidence. (Plus Procurators Fiscal and Crown Office in Scotland).

Civil Service Commissioners - Done; nice reply saying misconduct in public office is of no concern to them. (They also agree with MoD that if a person has retired or even just moved post, no retrospective action may be taken. Didn't know that. Rolf would be interested in such a concept! Balls of course, but it tells you what you're up against).

Parliamentary Standards Ombudsman - Ditto. Latest reply just last week.

Information Commissioner - Interesting to discover that, while one can complain if information is untruthful (as opposed to mistaken), there is no obligation on the part of the holder or provider to ensure that the information provided is truthful, and no obligation to correct it. As long as they provide it.

Invited to brief two former Mins (AF). One was replaced shortly thereafter; the other was more intent on seeing BAeS in court. He made good coffee though. MAA were present at the former meeting, and the verbatim transcript demonstrates they know all this and (obviously) continue to condone it. And aforesaid DE&S Policy Branch continue to quote MAA attendees when lying about what was said and agreed.


Not one has ever disagreed that this ruling was made. To be fair, that would be difficult as both DGAS2 and CDP (2 and 4 Stars) placed it in writing, many times. (DGAS2 - Chinook, Nimrod etc). And the Head of Personnel upheld it at a fully recorded meeting. And late last year DE&S Policy Branch confirmed, in writing, they continue to use these rulings as the basis of current rulings and policy; even quoting the MoD file references of the original MoD(PE) rulings. (So, not one of the missing files then).

But not THE original rulings, because they were made in December 1992 by DGSM(RAF) (2 Star) when threatening to dismiss his airworthiness staffs for this offence (refusing to make a false declaration on airworthiness and financial probity). In that case, Director Internal Audit (MoD) investigated and issued a report confirming the "offenders" were innocent, and DGSM wrong. (Funnily enough, the only Directorate that got a clean bill of health was Tornado). He was ignored and his report binned (information confirmed in a FoI reply). Not that I needed confirmation, because if the recommendations had been implemented, the MAA would not exist and many aircrew would, probably, still be alive.

[Roadster280]

I think maybe you need to find an MP with an axe to grind and get a question asked in the house. Then it becomes official, and the press will run with it.

[tucumseh]

MPs? Too many to list. But an honourable mention to Roger Gale and James Arbuthnott, who approached ME.



Back to reality..... and something the MAA will recognise


What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

And K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But, A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T 2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far asskissing will take you. A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G 1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bull**** and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.

Now you know why some people are where they are!

[John Blakeley]

Tuc,

Even better SMOKE AND MIRRORS = 192

Problem solved!

JB

[Rigga]

tut-tut Tuc...your frustration is showing!

From my experience we should not read the words of MAA regulations and expect actions to spring forth from there. We should wait to see how they are being manipu....interpreted!

Did anyone look up what "Independent" means in MAA Speak? I think the OED may be surprised that it now means an office with a semi closed door and a one-way direct line from the boss of the organisation.