Nimrod Inquiry.

[observer]

A report into the Nimrod explosion, which killed 14 servicemen has condemned the cost cutting culture of the MoD and their civilian contractors. It's surprising to learn that, in the name of fiscal "efficiency", aircraft safety and maintainanced was outsourced to the PRIVATE sector - one is of course thankfull that this wasn't the case in 1940. But the relatives of the 14 dead personel, can take satisfaction in the knowledge that the Minister, on behalf of the Government has apologised - well, that makes everything OK then. Perhaps it's time we adopted some incentives for senior management and politicians, not to drop such clangers - EG; the ancient Carthaginian reward for Generals who failed, of sitting them on a wooden stake (painfull!) or the Japanese option for failiure and shame.

[Paul Kennedy]

Worth noting I think that some of the maintenance was outsourced to the aircraft manufacturer.

[asperity]

Here is the official Board of Enquiry report into the loss of the Nimrod, only the 4th casualty in 36 years. I can't see any mention of blame being attached to the use of private contractors for maintenance, it seems to be done by RAF Kinloss

 

http://tinyurl.com/yfcura5

 

Enjoy a long read

[asperity]

And here is the independent report by Charles Haddon-Cave QC. It's only 587 pages long so shouldn't take long to skim through

 

http://tinyurl.com/yhu53jp

[observer]

tut, tut; BBC News got it wrong again? including an interview with an ex-RAF fitter!

[asperity]

The BBC news got it wrong? Quelle suprise If you read the official reports you will find that the media, as usual, have cherry picked them to find snippets that they hope will be "newsworthy". A good rule of thumb is not to take everything the news media tells you as the gospel truth. In fact what happened to this aeroplane could have happened at any time during it's lifetime if the same set of circumstances had come together. By the same token it could have been avoided had other events happened, or decisions made. Unfortunately that's life I'm afraid.

[observer]

Somehow, I doubt that the BBC (plus all the other channels) would dare defame BA Systems etc; and leave themselves open to litigation - "the report" blamed certain RAF officers and the contracting companies AND the Government that outsourced air maintainance as a cost saving exercise in the first place, where the profit motive surplanted airworthiness safety - alas, if you want cheap, you get cheap.

[asperity]

If you read the reports you will see that it wasn't the maintenance of the aircraft that was at fault but rather the original design and the design of the modifications, both of which are outside of the RAF's remit and would have to have been done by a specialist company i.e. BAE. The fault lay in the failure by BAE to recognise the hazards built in to the craft from day one, the failure to recognise the additional hazards introduced with the modifications and the failure to perform an adequate hazard assessment. It's easy to blame budgetary constraints but they don't cover corporate failure.

[observer]

"corporate failiure" on the part of private contractors, who strangely did a safety audit on their own equipment (conflict of interest or what?). This quest for outsourcing to cheapen costs is now rife, and one would have thought our Defence would be a little more self reliant and self sustaining?

[asperity]

The mindset appears to have been that, as the Nimrod had such an outstanding safety record, the safety audit was a mere formality - a tick box exercise if you like.