New military aviation 'body' to set up.
 

BBC News - New military aviation body set up after Nimrod crash

Could this be another quango or is it a way of controlling events as they occur?

Wouldn't a staff of 250 give them enough people to assign one to every single aircraft in the UK military?

P

I'm a thick sootie - are we talking about a MAA to control stuff like airworthiness?? and making sure things are done or does this look to be another job creation for graduates??

Air Safety Authority - More detail from MoD press release
 

MOD announces new Air Safety Authority


Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has today announced the creation of a new military airworthiness authority to ensure aviation safety standards are of the highest order at all times.

The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) has been created as part of the MOD's full response to the Nimrod Review by Charles Haddon-Cave QC following the deaths of 14 service personnel onboard Nimrod XV230 on 2 September 2006. The MAA will include an independent body to audit and scrutinize air safety activity. The MAA will be in place by 5 April 2010.

The creation of the MAA was one of two key strategic recommendations of Mr Haddon-Cave's report which have both been accepted by the MoD. The other key recommendation is a revised arrangement of safety responsibilities for those personnel charged with ensuring the safe operation of military aircraft.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said:

"My thoughts and condolences continue to be with the families of the 14 service personnel who tragically lost their lives in this incident. On behalf of the MOD and RAF I again apologise for the mistakes that were made. I also pay tribute to the Nimrod crews for their continual skill and professionalism. What we must do now is learn all the lessons from Mr Haddon-Cave's report and take all the actions necessary to implement them.

"I share Mr Haddon-Cave's view that we must ensure our future management of military air safety is of the highest order. I am grateful for the detailed proposals the Nimrod Review has made. We have examined these proposals thoroughly for the past seven weeks and we are already taking action to implement them, including the creation of the Military Aviation Authority to provide the leadership needed to deliver the highest safety standards. This is the most radical reform to MOD's airworthiness procedures since military aviation began. Mr Haddon-Cave's principles and his proposals regarding safety culture have a resonance beyond aviation and we are now looking at their applicability more widely across the MOD."

Air Marshal Kevin Leeson, Chief of Materiel (Air), said:

"The Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force is committed to learning from this tragic accident. Mr Haddon-Cave confirmed that the Nimrod aircraft remain safe to fly. He commended the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry and the technical actions we had taken to restore integrity.

"In his recommendations, Mr Haddon-Cave proposed a number of improvements to safety processes that we had already made in our own immediate response to the crash, a number of which he recognises in his report. However, he goes further with the need for greater independence of regulation and audit from those who deliver aircraft day to day to operations. I believe these are sound recommendations and we already have a team working to bring the new Military Aviation Authority into effect."

words of less than one syllabul please,

Cornish Stormrider,
I think he means going back to what we had in the 80's that worked. I'm just not sure where we lost it. :}

The Chief of Materiel (Air) says "we already have a team working to bring the new Military Aviation Authority into effect."

Would this be a team from within the MoD, or an independent team capable of bringing fresh ideas and practices into play within an organisation that will, inter alia, perform independent audits on the MoD? I think we all know the answer to that!

Thanks Willum, That giveth me a little more confidence, not much but a little.

New statement from Charles Haddon-Cave
 

Issued this evening 16 Dec 2009

Sorry, but I'm a little confused by the apparantly contradictory statements. Are we talking about the Military Aviation Authority (something that was bashed around about 5 years ago when I was a very lowly SO3 staff officer) where Airworthiness is one of the five(?) pillars are is this just going to be an Airworthiness Authority?

CGB:
Only if we are very very lucky, CGB. Personally I won't be holding my breath based on the SoS's "Speech" which can be watched here in all its oratorial splendor:
BBC News - Military aviation body set up after fatal Nimrod crash
Trying to analyze what exactly is proposed is not made easier by the finger licking stumbling delivery with its idiosyncratic trailing off of emphasis and volume let alone placing emphasis within a phrase where you might not normally expect it. So what did he say? As usual more in ad-lib response to questions rather than in the prepared piece. Within that though is the curious explanation of what will make the independent Military Aviation Authority independent and of whom it will be independent. It will not it seems be independent of the SoS nor of the MOD which it will essentially be a part of. No, it will be independent of:
"Those who fly and maintain military aircraft".
Now given that this is the considered response to Mr Hadden-Cave QC's Nimrod Review, which as its name implies dealt principally with why XV230 crashed killing all 14 of its occupants, one might be forgiven for assuming the responsibility for that tragedy lay with "Those who fly and maintain military aircraft". However I seem to recall that he placed the blame fairly and squarely with the MOD's dysfunctional system of Airworthiness Enforcement which involves many very senior officers rather than those way down the food chain doing the flying and maintaining. So much for independence. The CAA is independent of all Civil Air Operators, this mongrel will not be independent but be a part of the Military Air Operator that Procures, Releases to Service and Supervises all UK Military Aircraft. Saying that it will mirror the CAA is rather like saying that Night Club Bouncers mirror the Police Service on account they both deal with drunks! If the MAA has any chance whatsoever in turning around the parlous state that the MOD has reduced UK Military Airworthiness to it will all be down to one man (or woman?) that commands it. That the position will be filled by a 3* is of some comfort. It would perhaps be of even more comfort if that person never subsequently gets made up to 4*!

Is anyone else getting strange filing times on this thread?

My last post shows as 0949, but was actually filed about 1749. Chugs shows as 1220, but actually filed around 2020.

I notice when I scroll down while writing here, the times are correct. but on the thread itself, 8 hours out. Wtf?

airsound

Its a PPRuNe thing. Been going wonky for some time now - sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. :ugh::sad:

To answer the question in Post 1
QUANGO!

This is a declared transfer of the old mentality into (presumably) a new building with an old Dept name on it.

The intent of H-C was to have a completely independant body consisting of non-military staff. This one is to be headed by a 3-star and is "already" populated by probably the same drongoes that caused the issue in the first place!

Given the size of the CAA in relation to the UK fleets of approx 1300 aircraft - this MAA has an assumed size of 250 before it even knows what it's going to do?

Smacks of a huge money-sucking QUANGO to me!

Chugalug 2 and Rigga, I am with you.

Appointing a 3*, who will then recruit his cronies from within into key positions will not provide the independent Authority that H-C envisaged and that most of us see as an imperative.

The new Authority must have senior people who can bring fresh ideas and radical thinking to the new organisation. I can think of many people who were serving in the military (at all levels) when we had an effective and accountable airworthiness chain. They have since gone on to forge successful careers in the commercial aviation sector and thus experienced a different regulatory regime.

Surely we should be looking to these people transfer their skills and experience into a new MAA and not just looking to the MoD to reorganise itself from within?

It will be filled with people from the very Service that H-C so heavily criticised - the RAF - so no change eh! Be bold - put RN, Army or civilian in charge for the first 3 - 5 years.

I am in total agreement that the independence of this new MAA needs to be absolutely uncompromised. But the fact that the MoD have undertaken to form a MAA at all is to be applauded. I truly expected the MoD to completely ignore the main recs of H-C. So, this is more than I would have expected. Nonetheless, all the MoD have done is to say that they will actually implement the already-mandated regulations contained in JSP553 (and all other related docs and Def Stans etc) but which had been ignored for some time by PE/DLO/DPA/DE&S. That, at least, is a blessing. But I can't really comment in full, as I have not yet found the complete Aintworth/MoD statement - anyone got a copy/link? eg What 4 H-C recs are the MoD not implementing?

flipster

Oh look, another 3*, who would have thought :ugh:. Would an individual within the CAA not have been more appropriate and independant?

Patronage
 

Serving officers on the MAA will be subject to the pressures of patronage and promotion. I doubt that they will be able to be perceived as independent.

At the bottom end of the tree, the only people who are likely to be appointed will be the no-hopers. It would be the kiss of death to the careers of most of those below Gp Capt. So lots of people looking for a quiet life will not tend to make good things happen.

NUFC1892 - if you think that the CAA is a repositry of airworthiness best practice, I fear you have not had much to do with them over the years.