JP
As you will know, this is how you responded to my question:
Post:3853
Tandemrotor. Apologies for not replying to your much earlier question, I must have been away, which was "May I just ask cazatou (K52), and john purdey: Was this aircraft fit for purpose?"
If we assume, purely for the purposes of this discussion, that the a/c was not fit for purpose, then please say exactly what mods were incorporated after the accident to so successfully prevent a repetition over the past 15 years.
You
KNOW you avoided answering, and simply posed ANOTHER question!
Do we HAVE to play these infantile games?
I ask
AGAIN, in view of the following:
6. RWTS has carefully monitored the progress of this trial and has put tremendous effort into ensuring that it progresses safely to provide timely CA release recommendations. These recommendations with respect to FADEC have, to date, been ignored. Until RWTS is provided with a clear, unequivocal and realistic explanation of the faults described at references B through H, with corrective action, further Chinook HC2 flying shall not be authorised. A statement of 'No Fault Found' will no longer satisfy this requirement.
7. As a trials organisation, A&AEE has always been keenly aware of the risks associated with operating the Chinook HC2 and has tailored sortie profiles accordingly. Crews of the RAF have no such luxury and are likely at higher risk than the A&AEE crews. As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions established in paragraph 6 are satisfied
May I just ask cazatou (K52), and john purdey: Was this aircraft fit for purpose?
Do you believe this aircraft, at this time was fit for purpose?
Thank you.