Old 31st Jan 2019, 20:59
  #45 (permalink)  
Donkey9871
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by tucumseh View Post
Donkey

Good first post! Unfortunately, MoD confirms it doesn't hold the 1992-3 (un)airworthiness documents I mention. Luckily, we have two letters signed a few weeks after the accident confirming the Air Staff knew beforehand it wasn't airworthy. MoD and Ministers (esp Adam Ingram) denied their existence, but Lord Philip chose to believe the physical evidence.

As you've worked in an aircraft IPT (as have I) can you ever recall the concept of a time-limited Release to Service? The Chinook HC Mk2 one ran out two weeks after the accident. It was for ground training and familiarisation only, and this was to be extended because Controller Aircraft had stated it was not airworthy. To me, the very notion is barking but someone else might say it was common practice.
Thank you!
I wasn't implying that the aircraft were fit to fly, only that all documentation should, by MoDs own rules, be retained and not destroyed. I don't see how any other organisation can claim that their rules are different, as I recall it is a flow down from CAA/EASA regulations.
I was actually on HEIPT but the same rules apply to airframe as engines.
Donkey9871 is offline