The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review
512
will also maintain the Safety Case and make RTS recommendations to the RTSA for endorsement/sign-off. Whilst the RTS and
the Safety Case will be owned by the RTSA, a copy would be ‘presented’ to the AOA Duty Holder, together with any associated
technical/operational risks. The PT will be responsible to the Duty Holders for ensuring that they were made aware of emerging
Airworthiness risks and issues concerning the operation of a platform.
C. Proper training in Airworthiness Management and Regulatory skills
Current position
21.45
21.46
21.47
Responsibility for Airworthiness of Equipment is delegated from the Chief of Defence Material (CDM), through
the Chief Operating Officer (COO) to three 2-Star Directors in DE&S responsible for Combat Air, Air Support
and Helicopters. These individuals in turn delegate their platform specific responsibilities to their IPTLs or, in
some cases, Project Engineers (PE). In the AOAs, Airworthiness responsibilities are assumed on appointment
with authority for each rank clearly defined in Joint Airworthiness Publications (JAPs). The majority of junior
personnel are individually assessed to determine their Airworthiness competence. Engineering officers are
authorised to defer corrective maintenance and to authorise Capability limitations. However, increasingly,
Industry (Depth) organisations will not recognise the RAF Engineering officer’s decisions unless they are
supported by approved data as they are deemed by Industry (Depth) not to have the authority to make such
decisions.
Airworthiness in the Equipment and Operating authorities is governed by self-regulation, with Quality
Assurance the main tool used to provide assurance that maintenance support is compliant. STANEVAL is the
principal means by which assurance is provided in respect of aircrew regulatory and procedural compliance.
IPTs are funded through Front Line Commands to provide support to the Forward domain who operate the
aircraft. IPTs undertake Airworthiness management and act as the Airworthiness authority for the platform.
In this respect, each IPT is charged with ensuring continued Airworthiness for its platform. To undertake
this role, each IPT has to have a range of specialists and Service experts. In addition, IPTs sub-contract
Airworthiness functions to an Industry Design Authority (such as BAE Systems) and, increasingly contract
specialist organisations (such as QinetiQ) to undertake independent assessment or to provide specialist advice
on a wide range of matters including Airworthiness.
21.48 Candidates for senior Airworthiness appointments ( i.e. those who are granted LOD) are currently reviewed by
the Military Aircraft Release (MAR) which looks at past experience and competencies before recommending
that the respective 2-Star Director issues an Airworthiness delegation. For those in Airworthiness management
positions, training is provided in the form of an ‘Airworthiness Awareness’ course, with professional and
type-specific training providing the foundation for those in the Forward domain.
Problems with the current position
21.49
21.50
21.51
There is a lack of regulatory training. Personnel in Airworthiness appointments do not undergo Airworthiness
regulatory training; nor are they taught acceptable means of compliance for their particular responsibilities;
nor are they examined or re-certified to ensure they remain current.
The process of accreditation is slow and unsatisfactory. The process for assessing an individual’s competencies
to undertake the role of an IPTL can take several months, with little or no value-added by the MAR which
considers past experience and assesses its application against the competencies required for a particular
appointment.
Professional status is not axiomatic. Under the current construct, engineers in DE&S and the AOAs who bear
Airworthiness responsibilities are not required to hold professional status or to be authorised by the relevant
Regulator. This is unsatisfactory and, in any event, makes their authority in, or with, an approval-based
organisation untenable. This is a problem that will be compounded as the Services begin to operate aircraft
which have to be maintained and operated by an approved maintenance organisation.