jayteeto
.
Further to Cheapseat 16th April 2001:
<<John Tapper and I sat under the tigers head in 230’s crewroom WEEKS before the crash looking at a ˝ mil map trying to find a way to use this fateful task as another reason not to allow the Mk2 Chinook into NI.>>
.
A posting by Ben Leice 12Apr2004:
<<… JATOC claimed that on May 31 he had recommended the use of two Pumas for the transit but this was changed on June 1 to one Chinook.>>
.
Answered by Shy Torque 13Apr2004:
<<Two Pumas would have made infinitely more sense, especially in view of the importance of the pax.
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft. The statement was probably supposed to show that the Mk2 was perfectly safe in spite of what was being said by the people that flew them, including Boscombe Down's test pilots.>>
.
You may be “talking straight” but you do not give the whole picture – my previous post to Meadowbank was meant to explain why I cannot take some apparently simple answers at face value. By now, the history of this flight should be much less ambiguous than it is – as I have suggested before, perhaps you guys in the business could have got together off the thread and compiled, say, a timeline of decisions, events etc, all that could have been known – getting your story as clear as possible and making public what is suitable (ie not classified). It should not be necessary to “fish” for such basic info and when a scenario is put forward as a catalyst for debate I am often amazed at the inconsistencies in the rebuttals.
.
Now, anybody out there with something constructive to say about the introduction into service of this very interesting system? (PRC etc.)
