tuc:
All roads it seems lead as ever to Rome.

Courtney mil:
Sounds to me like you've grasped the very point that the MOD doesn't wish you to grasp. By stove-piping each BoI, each Inquiry, each Review, each Inquest they try to make them seem like unconnected events. They are on the contrary all connected by the Gross Negligence of the MOD and VSO's.

Chugs,

Thank you. I always thought I was being cynical as one the "wasn't in the know". My experience of just one major project/programme made me see how shambolllox (good word, eh?) the whole thing was. But I'm only now starting see how right my suspicions were. And you're right, as are so many others here, the connections were well concealed.

I'm getting there.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Defence, Dated 27th July 2006

"The Inquiry was delayed considerably between May and August 2003 when the Board adjourned whilst awaiting the results of a QinetiQ report into the aircraft Indicator Friend or Foe (IFF) system".


Guess what? Neither MoD nor QinetiQ can find a copy of the IFF report.

DV

IFF
 

DV,

Do you think they would have more success if they looked under "Identification" rather than "Indicator"? Or is this just another "indication" of MOD's poor staff work?

Just a thought.

JB

DV

Strange they can’t find the report. It would be necessary before one could issue an update of the Safety Case, which MoD claims was done; both for the original Special Trials Fit 189 and the subsequent DA Mods 2228 and 7246. Why, then, having (allegedly) complied with the requirement to do all this work, would one destroy the report – which the regulations require to be retained to support the Safety Case? The RTSA is required to have a contractual vehicle to access this information at any time. Did the RTSA reply, or the Tornado office?



The aircraft office may have got rid of it (after all, they were advised to check failure warning integration in 1998/9 and didn’t, which is pretty damning), but I doubt if Boscombe did – especially if they reported a problem. And the Aircraft DA, charged with doing the actual safety case work, would be both contracted and obliged to retain it.



Something stinks. In my opinion, post-crash the penny dropped that they (some combination of MoD, QQ and BAeS) had screwed up and the usual cull of incriminating evidence ensued. And it is routine for BoIs to be kept in the dark over such events.

BAES held records aren't covered by FOIA.

EAP86

Contractors are routinely paid by MoD to hold and maintain MoD-owned documents; primarily under Design Authority or Design Custodian arrangements. MoD have a long history of ignoring this in FOI requests, taking the simplistic view that if the document is not to hand in the project office, then it doesn't exist.

There is a perfectly simple, mandated process for obtaining any MoD-owned documents from DAs or DCs (and this IFF report clearly falls into that category). The only question one needs to ask is - Do I want a maintained copy or an unmaintained copy? (Different form to fill in, which takes all of a minute to complete and e-mail). If the DA isn't sufficiently organised that he can't lay his hands on any given document in an hour or so, then he's in breach of contract! (If there is no contract, MoD are in breach of their own regulations, which is more likely). An infinitely cheaper way of managing FOI requests than refusing requests > managing appeal > claiming it doesn't exist > another appeal > ICO involvement > etc.

During the Philip Review into the Mull of Kintyre crash, Lord Philip resorted to seeking official MoD documents from retired staffs and people who had never even been MoD employees! AP3207 being one example (source of the Beyond Any Doubt Whatsoever regulation). There is no more easily understood example of systemic airworthiness failings than MoD being unable to produce such basic source documents! Also, MoD completely denied the existence of a Release to Service, the Master Airworthiness Record. Again, supplied by an outsider. In that particular case, Minister for the Armed Forces was forced to issue an abject apology to a widow. Given the multitude of similar examples, I think DV has a right to be slightly cynical.

Tuc
I'm not sure whether MoD having paid for them or not is really relevant under the act. AIUI the act requires MoD to hand over copies of documents they hold, although some categories of documents (usually commercially sensitive) have a degree of protection.

I wouldn't deny that there may be some shenanigans involved when there's a reluctance to release documents but my statement; "BAES held records aren't covered by FOIA.", was intended merely as a statement of fact, albeit poorly worded. I meant "BAES owned records..." Apologies.

The shenanigans work both ways. I recall being told of a BBC FOIA request made for copies all ABW emails containing the word "embarrassing" over a five year period – pure fishing.

I think the question you need to ask is
 

smithmr

Now and again we see some stonking first posts but this trumps most. I'm pretty sure it complements this assessment of the existing evidence.

https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-zg710-22-3-03

Amen to that dervish, and congratulations on posting a "hold the front page" maiden post, Mr Smith (if I may call you that). Coincidentally the business of receiving illegal orders along the lines of "No matter, sign it off anyway" is currently being discussed on the "theft" thread here:-
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...rkplace-4.html
It seems that we are unblocking a few stovepipes at last. Stand-by for clouds of soot. They'll take a very long time to settle, methinks.