Hi again, everyone.
My final post on the subject of the book is the response from the author Tim Slessor:
I’ll go round that track again….! Even those of us who disagree with the official verdict of ‘gross negligence’ would, I think, have to agree that Steuart Campbell’s thesis of faulty navigation certainly represents a possibility. Who knows – maybe a probability? But he, of course, argues that possibility/probability up to the level of a cast-iron certainty. Therein lies the whole problem – which he just does not seem to recognise. It is simply not good enough to claim – no matter how well the claim is argued - that faulty navigation was, as a sure and certain fact, the cause of the crash. At best, it is a reasonable
thesis. But we certainly don’t know ‘beyond absolutely all doubt whatsoever’. It is not enough to be 95% (or even 99.5%) certain; under the RAF’s own ‘rule’ one has to be 101% certain. It was/is the arrogance of the two Air Marshals in supposing that they
know what happened that lies at the core of the whole dispute. They are now joined by Steuart Campbell. The fact is that any number of experts in the field feel that there are sufficient doubts that, at the least, the pilots must be given the benefit of those doubts.
A couple of quotes from the book….
The absence of any evidence for such a malfunction has not deterred many from assuming that such a malfunction existed. No, incorrect. It has not deterred many from assuming that the possibility of a malfunction existed. And if there was a possibility (nothing more) the official verdict cannot stand.
…the refusal of many to accept official explanations and/or their failure to understand the complex issues involved. That’s a bit rich – it means that Robert Burke and Malcolm Perks (to name but two of several dozen) don’t understand the complexity of the issues as well as Steuart Campbell. Actually, as I have already stated (twice -above) the basic issue is not complex at all: do enough Chinook experts hold enough doubts to make the Air Marshals unequivocal verdict ‘unsafe’?
Lastly, no one on the Air Marshals ‘side’ (least of all Mr Campbell) has ever explained why the three men in the cockpit, having just changed their GPS to give a heading for the next leg (to the Coran Wpt), should unanimously
and within seconds change their minds and continue on their current heading into cloud. Why bother to change the GPS? It just doesn’t make sense.
Another ‘lastly’! He hardly touches on the backing, filling, dissembling and even lies with which the MoD have smoke-screened almost since the beginning. The fact that the MoD has found it ‘necessary’ to do so is, in itself, a persuasive reason why one should regard almost every statement coming out of that organisation with the deepest suspicion.
As I said, it is an impressive piece of work. What a pity that he doesn’t examine the basic (and rather simple) nub of the whole debate. Or does he truly think that all the doubters are totally ignorant?
END
As I say, I won't post any more on the subject of the book. If you are still unsure, read the book and reach your own conclusions.
I'm off to write another letter to the MoD
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook