Originally Posted by
Abbey Road
Did Day and Wratten's coveting of Honours influence their willingness to pervert the course of justice, following 'orders' from elsewhere, even though so many could clearly see they had exceeded their remit? I am not excusing Day and Wratten's behaviour with this theory, because they are both self-seeking 🔔🔚's, I am merely musing about some of the motivations.
Thank you AR.
As Flipster mentioned above, a key event in the campaign was the uncovering of the complete Chinook Airworthiness Review Team report in early 2011, issued by the Director of Flight Safety (RAF) to the RAF Chief Engineer (Alcock) and Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Bagnall) on the latter's first day in post in 1992. Importantly, the author came forward, one of the RAF's most qualified engineers, and Lord Philip asked to see him personally.
CHART is dissected elsewhere, but a telling effect is seldom commented on. Hitherto, the only very senior officers we heard of were Wratten and Day.
Day didn't say much after the Lords confirmed his approach, that it was for the deceased pilots to clear themselves. (A not dissimilar approach to that taken post Sea King ASaC mid-air in 2003, when MoD rejected the evidence of technical problems with 'the (deceased) pilots didn't report any failures after the flight' - therefore there weren't any). He retired and Tony Blair waved the rules and allowed him to take up a senior position in industry.
Wratten of course continued to speak out at every opportunity, always ignoring the known facts.
But when CHART was revealed, we heard not a word from either. Suddenly, ACMs Alcock and Graydon were pushed forward. Apparently they were now the God-given experts, yet had never been mentioned in any inquiry or hearing.
I cannot speak for Day or Wratten, but I am prepared to admit the possibility, even probability, that the detail of CHART came as an almighty shock to both, as it fully backed (a) MoD's airworthiness specialists, (b) Boscombe Down and (c) the likes of Air Cdre John Blakeley, who had written a superb paper in 2003, only to be denigrated by the VSOs and MoD. It also provided supporting evidence that Sqn Ldr Rob Burke, the Odiham Unit Test Pilot, was correct about UFCMs, when MoD and Ministers had persisted with very personal attacks, calling him a liar. All the while, sitting on CHART knowing here was independent evidence he was 100% right.
Alcock and Graydon. The new Wratten and Day. What was the common denominator between them? CHART, and its subject matter.
Wratten later admitted he was aware the Mk2 wasn't airworthy. A post-crash letter to Bagnall demanding it be formally declared airworthy is a bit of a giveaway; although he later claimed a temporary predecessor, Johns, wrote it. Another one with a vested interest who dissembled.
I just don't think Wratten realised the scale of its immaturity. If Alcock and Bagnall could conceal CHART for all those years, and take no action on DFS's recommendations, it's easy to see how Wratten and Day wouldn't know the detail. Certainly Controller Aircraft, Sir Donald Spiers, didn't, and put this in writing during the Review; despite the RAF claiming it was HE who issued the authority to fly the Mk2, not Bagnall. When someone does the dirty on you like that, to protect the Air Staff , and you still support them, then you're deeply involved. There is something else you know about that all of you want to remain hidden.
When Dr Fox spoke in August 2011, clearing Rick and Jon, what did he lie about? CHART, saying it never mentioned the 'Mk2'. It did, 284 times. Hardly an easily overlooked footnote Liam. He was inundated with complaints and quite quickly retracted; but not publicly, only in letters to MPs. So Hansard still says CHART is all about Mk1. You only have to read to Terms of Reference.
And then of course there's the Chinook Project Director, who in February 1999 threatened senior MoD(PE) and Army staff 'I'll publish my book telling the truth about Mull of Kintyre'. I was there when he said it. Please do. He didn't know of CHART either.
.