Sangiovese,
the report was noted by the House of Lords Select Committee. On 28 September 2001, Lord Brennan raised this very issue with Mr Wratten. Lord Brennan asked, "With that in mind, the paper you issued (I think it was early in 1995, as best our researches can establish) headed "Disciplinary Proceedings in Aircraft Accidents ", appears to have followed the Chinook disaster. Was it provoked by it? - provoked by experience, but particularly provoked by this disaster?
A lengthy reply is then given by Mr Wratten (although I can't work out whether it is a 'yes' or 'no' reply). For the full transcript, please go to the link on the campaign web site.
Therefore, Ark, it can't be classed as 'new evidence'. However, Wratten may have painted himself into the proverbial corner by issuing this directive prior to the findings of the BoI.
I mean, how could he not find the pilots guilty of a disciplinary matter, having issued such a directive only one month earlier.
30 Jan 1995 - BoI formally completed.
16 Feb 1995 - Directive from ACM Wratten
02 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Wedge (OC Aldergrove)
03 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Crawford (OC Odiham)
20 Mar 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from AVM Day - Negligence appears for the first time.
03 Apr 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from ACM Wratten - Negligence endorsed.
The Reviewing Officer's comments follow that directive just 32 days later and (although I have no evidence) the directive was presumably drafted at the same time that Mr Wratten was being kept updated about the Chinook crash investigation.
There's nothing like decisive leadership eh!
More updates as and when.
Thank you to everyone for your continued support.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook