Originally Posted by
JFZ90
It seems like many of you disagree with the 2011 report (that cleared the pilots) that I quoted.
Their take on most likely cause is quite clear.
I recall the programme mentioned some of the families did not disagree with that either.
JFZ90
The Review got its main point correct, because it was given irrefutable evidence. A 'mandate' was placed upon the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff - that being the RAF was forbidden from relying on the Mk2 in any way whatsoever.
But it was factually inaccurate on the point used by the Government - poor legal advice meaning the Reviewing Officers didn't fully understand standard of proof. MoD and the Government had, before the Review, stated many times, over a number of years, that they fully understood. As the Shadow Defence Minister said, what's not to understand about 'no doubt'. As ever, you have to take a step further and read their remarks in other reports from the same period. And the evidence from the officer who developed the legal test, saying very senior officers understood it straight away, and fought tooth and nail against its adoption as it would take away their power.
The Review did not have a take on cause, as it was not within its remit. It simply noted the RAF's position.
The programme omitted that it was the Air Staff who, later, admitted the UFCM scenario was plausible, having spent nearly 20 years denying this. That admission was brought about by the discovery, in December 2010 during the Review, of the UFCM Special Flying Instruction mentioned above. Sqn Ldr Burke promptly gave evidence to Lord Philip that he'd never seen it before, even after the accident, but that it described perfectly what he'd experienced, and reported, a number of times in 1993/4.
And it was DE&S who later admitted that the Mk2 was 'not to be relied upon in any way whatsoever' on 2 June 1994. This was a rare occasion when MoD admitted the existence of documents that it has previously denied the existence of, so kudos to the DE&S Helicopter Secretariat for breaking ranks at a time when retired and serving VSOs were serially lying to the media. It is very clear they conducted an internal investigation into the evidence presented to Lord Philip, and a decision made to accept it unconditionally.
In fact, a brief extract of their analysis of the 1992 CHART report was released, when they fact-checked a key piece of evidence to the Review, that CHART had mentioned the Mk2 284 times. The retired VSOs had claimed it didn't mention it at all, and this had been repeated in the House by Liam Fox. Fox promptly wrote to an MP admitting he was misled.
Neither admission proves cause. But both confirm acceptance of considerable, even overwhelming doubt. And that was the argument all along.
Yes, the programme mentioned that some families wished to move on. But that is not the same as accepting the original findings. It would appear the producers couldn't find anyone to say the SROs were right. No-one in their right mind who has read the evidence would think that.