Twinact
I do not wish to get into an argument over what I remember from being there and what you have apparently gleaned from other sources, other than to use this exchange to highlight what I consider to be both baffling and very sad about this whole affair.
Whilst replying to my question about the availability of an aircrew manual at the time of the accident in post 2111 you selectively quote from John Blakeley’s post 2103:
“At the House of Lords Committee hearings, Witness A, a very experienced and highly decorated Special Forces Chinook pilot who was at the time based at Odiham………..contained in the aircrew manual”
The original text of 2103:
“At the House of Lords Committee hearings, Witness A, a very experienced and highly decorated Special Forces Chinook pilot who was at the time based at Odiham, in answer to a question as to how much the unforeseen malfunctions occurring in the Chinook Mk 2 since its introduction were a matter of discussion among helicopter pilots, answered,
"They occupied our minds to a great degree, crew room talk was of little else at the time. The crews felt extremely uneasy about the way the aircraft had been introduced into service. This perception was reinforced by the lack of information contained in the aircrew manual, the poor state of repair of the flight reference cards and such like as well" (Q 852).”
Through selective collection of facts you achieved a black and white answer to a grey subject. The original manual was at best weak, worst misleading and thin on information throughout. This lead to a virtual ‘swap shop’ trade in various photocopies from whatever sources could be found which appeared to match the aircraft sat on dispersal. To compound the situation we found ourselves out of the ‘underground/crewroom’ loop through our isolation in NI. Email was not widely used and free talk on telephones about such matters was forbidden due to the nature of the theatre. I could ‘Google’ some pictures and diagrams of a Typhoon, string them together with some text and write Aircrew Manual on the front; would that make it one?
This leads to what I find so baffling and sad; what motivates people to so easily damn two aviators on flimsy evidence. You appear endorse the charge of Gross Negligence and yet are “Not sure what I was expected to provide 13 years later.” You seem to accept the final version of the board yet don't research/listen to opposing evidence to support the not proven (notice I didn’t say anyone was wrong) argument.
In aviation it is recognised that we should all learn from accidents. To achieve this we investigate them thoroughly and publish the findings; perfectly correct and professional. What must be remembered is that blame does not have to be apportioned for this process to be effective. What is lost or what harm is done if Jon and Rick were cleared of these charges?
W 5
Twinact; I know this will read like a personal dig at you but it honestly isn't. Please take it as a sign of my frustration at people taking tiny fragments of a huge picture in isolation and using them to besmirch two airman.