Request for information regarding the Mk10B Ejection Seat

The request was partially successful.

Dear Military Aviation Authority,

I would be grateful if you could provide Parts A and B of the Mk10B ejection seat Certificate of Correctness of Engineering Data. (Or equivalent).

To assist you, the Certificate forms part of the cover sheet of the Master Design Index.

If you are not permitted to do so, perhaps because of confidentiality, could you please confirm the Certificate exists, and when it was first issued.

Yours faithfully,

David Hill

DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER), Military Aviation Authority

Thank you for contacting the Defence Safety Authority

Your enquiry will be forwarded to a DSA Staff Officer who should respond
to you within twenty working days.

In the unlikely event that you do not receive a response within this time
please re-send your email clearly labelled second request.

Please note that if your enquiry relates to the MAA MRP it should be sent
to the DSA-MAA-MRP enquiries mailbox.

If you are trying to contact The Disposal Services Authority, they can be
contacted at the following address [1][email address]

If your query relates to Low Flying, please contact the Low Flying
Complaints and Enquiries Unit at [email address] - Telephone - 01780
417558 - Address - RAF Wittering, Peterborough, PE8 6HB or visit Gov. UK
at the following link

[2]https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-ar...

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email%20address]
2. https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-ar...

DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER), Military Aviation Authority

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hill,

Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request to the Ministry
of Defence. Unfortunately, we do not recognise the title of document
requested (Certificate of Correctness of Engineering Data). We are aware
of a document called the Certificate of Design. I would be grateful if you
could please clarify whether this is the document your request refers to?

Yours Sincerely,

DE&S Secretariat

DE&S Secretariat

Ministry of Defence

Maple Level 0a #2043 | MoD Abbey Wood South | Bristol | BS34 8JH

cid:image004.png@01D196F1.32DEC500

From: David Hill <[FOI #539703 email]>
Sent: 16 December 2018 10:44
To: DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER) <[MAA request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Request for information
regarding the Mk10B Ejection Seat

Dear Military Aviation Authority,

I would be grateful if you could provide Parts A and B of the Mk10B
ejection seat Certificate of Correctness of Engineering Data.  (Or
equivalent).

To assist you, the Certificate forms part of the cover sheet of the Master
Design Index.

If you are not permitted to do so, perhaps because of confidentiality,
could you please confirm the Certificate exists, and when it was first
issued.

Yours faithfully,

David Hill

Dear DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER),

Sirs,
Thank you. To confirm, I do not require Certificate(s) of Design.
The description I gave is accurate, and on (e.g.) electronic equipment is called a Form D1/PDS. The purpose is to provide two-way assurance between MoD and the contractor that engineering data is accurate. MoD signs Part A and offers it to the contractor who, if satisfied, signs Part B. The Certificate becomes part of the airworthiness audit trail. Its distribution is as directed by the MoD person responsible for maintaining the build standard - so someone in the seat project team.
I appreciate different parts of MoD use different terms for the same thing, so cannot say it is called a Form D1 on the ejection seat.

I hope this helps.

Yours sincerely,

David Hill

Dear DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER),

Sirs,
Thank you. To confirm, I do not require Certificate(s) of Design.
The description I gave is accurate, and on (e.g.) electronic equipment is called a Form D1/PDS. The purpose is to provide two-way assurance between MoD and the contractor that engineering data is accurate. MoD signs Part A and offers it to the contractor who, if satisfied, signs Part B. The Certificate becomes part of the airworthiness audit trail. Its distribution is as directed by the MoD person responsible for maintaining the build standard - so someone in the seat project team.
I appreciate different parts of MoD use different terms for the same thing, so cannot say it is called a Form D1 on the ejection seat.

NB This seems to be a duplicate request. I sent the same reply on 9 January. If it helps in any way, I could scan the pages from the Defence Standard (specimen certificate and accompanying instructions).

I hope this helps.

Yours sincerely,

David Hill

Yours sincerely,

David Hill

DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER), Military Aviation Authority

Dear Mr Hill,

Thank you for your email below.

Unfortunately the department has been unable to locate a document matching the title or description you have given.

If you could provide us with some further information relating the Defence Standard that you mention below, that may help us to locate the document requested.

Many thanks,
DE&S Secretariat

Ministry of Defence

Maple Level 0a #2043 | MoD Abbey Wood South | Bristol | BS34 8JH

show quoted sections

Dear DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply. The Defence Standard is 05-125/2, which was mandated in all aviation contracts until its demise in (I believe) 2015. Chapter 8.2 refers - 'Form D1/PDS: Certificate of Correctness of Engineering Data'. But the principle of certifying correctness is universal, and different methods may be employed.

While 125 may ostensibly be about 'Electronics', it is a Sea/Land/Air Standard and routinely applied, and adapted where necessary, to non-electronic contracts.

Hope this helps.
David Hill

Yours sincerely,

David Hill

DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER), Military Aviation Authority

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Hill,

Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request. An official
response is attached.

Yours Sincerely,

DE&S Secretariat

DE&S Secretariat

Ministry of Defence

Maple Level 0a #2043 | MoD Abbey Wood South | Bristol | BS34 8JH

cid:image004.png@01D196F1.32DEC500

Dear DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply and the effort you have spent. I have no further questions, but if you don't mind I have an observation.

Not referencing 05-125/2 as a 'legacy' document post-formation of the MAA is rather like writing a book about the Bible and leaving out God. If any technical officer in Air Systems does not know 125 backwards, he/she is at an immediate and lasting disadvantage. It is unique, and most of its contents appear nowhere else - especially the 20 accompanying Specifications which form 'Book 2'.
That aside, my query related to the period 1976-84 (approx) and the new regulatory set has no bearing on it. But perhaps it should ensure what used to be the airworthiness audit trail is either the same today, or differences explained in the new regulations. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is written. If one were to collate the technical and procedural 'recommendations' from innumerable military accidents, 90% amount to 'implement 05-125/2'. In this case, I was researching the loss of Hawk XX177 in 2011 for a book. Flt Lt Cunningham would be alive if 125 were followed; especially Spec 13.
Thank you again.
David Hill

Yours sincerely,

David Hill