Hi Mr Purdey,
I regret to point out that your recollection of Mr Holbrook's recollection is inaccurate. What he actually said, (in respect to your claim), was this:
Seven years have now passed since the accident however, and therefore in order to refresh my memory I have had to now review the papers sent to me by Mr Makower, and in that review I have been surprised and distressed to understand from the evidence to this inquiry from Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten that the nub of the issue as far as the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the two pilots turns on the flight rule regime that the aircraft was in at the time that I, as the last eyewitness, saw it.
The reason I am surprised, my Lord Chairman, is that throughout the last seven years I have always felt that my evidence was nothing other than corrobatory - confirming what had already been gleaned from other witnesses and events. It now seems to me however, if I have understood Sir William's evidence correctly, that the direction, altitude, attitude, speed and visibility that the aircraft was experiencing at the time of the last sighting is central to a determination if the crew had an option available to them to continue under visual flight rules or alternatively had to make a transition to instrument flight rules.
Against that yardstick of relevance to the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the aircrew, my Lord Chairman, I have to tell you and your Committee that I feel my evidence was not collected with either the diligence or professionalism that the aircrew or their families have a right, from my perspective as a layman, to expect.
There are a number of issues that I have with the way that I have been debriefed which, my Lord Chairman, you may wish to question me about, however the chief amongst these is that my sighting of the aircraft was limited to a five-second view since I was involved in a difficult situation on my boat at the time. I am by training however a research worker, I have been trained to observe a situation which in itself may very well be outwith my ken.
I had, at the time, a vivid mental picture of the aircraft which if I had been debriefed fully would surely have yielded more information about those fateful last minutes than you have in front of you today. To this day, My Lord, despite having asked repeatedly, I have never seen photographs of the aircraft at different heights and ranger, never mind had the opportunity of seeing one of the aircraft flying at differing speeds or climbing.
As you will appreciate, when I saw the aircraft it subtended a particular angle, it occupied a portion of my field of view, if you will, and my interpretation of range and height is therefore totally reliant on my knowledge - or lack of it- of the size of the aircraft itself.
So, as you see, Mr Holbrook, himself is unclear as he feels he was never properly debriefed. He made comment that the helicopter was, by his estimation (and he stressed that it was just that - an estimation), of between 200-400 feet. He gave an estimated speed of 60-80 knots, butpointedout that it would have been useful to have had the opportunity to observe an aircraft flying at those speeds. He further commented:
The aircraft was travelling sufficiently slowly that I remarked to my crewman that "here's an aircraft come down here to have a look at us" and we had thought it may have been involved in a search and rescue operation, it was travelling that slowly, and in fact I asked my crewman to go and listen to the radio to pick up signals about there being any activity of that type.
I hope that clears up to all, what Mr Holbrook said in his evidence to the HoL Select Committee.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook