Caz
I’m sure you are aware that if anyone placed in the position I describe wishes to complain or bring it to the attention of higher authority, the process involved is one of escalation; not running to the Police or press.
That process has been followed, but is not yet exhausted. (We have recourse to the Cabinet Secretary). What I describe has been consistently ruled as admissible behaviour. Bear in mind that, until about 2003, the MoD rules permitted the “accused” to judge his own case. The rules changed but only in minor detail. Ones immediate line manager is not allowed to judge himself now, but if the order came from anywhere above that, they are still allowed. So, you have a ludicrous situation whereby a officer is permitted to say “Yes, I told him to (e.g. commit an offence), but I’m allowed to, even though the regs say I’m not” and that is accepted by the complete MoD hierarchy.
I have a different opinion, which I am entitled to. Pprune is not a court of law and I am under no obligation to provide anyone here with evidence. However, if I chose to, the burden of proof would be far less than that required when condemning the pilots. If MoD thought for one minute they could prove me wrong, then I’m sure they’d come knocking. They don’t, because the evidence I cite exists, and MoD has happily placed its rulings in writing. Yes, I express a certain frustration here, but I try to do it constructively by drawing the linkages to the cause of accidents, with a view to preventing it happening again. I also do it because people I knew have died. MoD doesn’t want to go there but, increasingly, they are being exposed in courts of law.
I must say I like your summary – “needlessly sacrificed because of poor engineering management”. Needlessly certainly, sacrificed is perhaps too strong, but poor engineering management is a simple statement of fact, reiterated and emphasised by recent Coroners’ rulings. However, I would say that the reputations of the pilots have been deliberately sacrificed, and in doing so those responsible have been exposed as cowards.
Talking of burden of proof, I read your post carefully and the emphasis seems to have changed somewhat. I find it interesting that CAS, CinC and AOC were merely "putting their names" to support the Odiham Staish that Tapper was negligent and then simply extended that to Cook! A new slant, but I admit I’m not overly familiar with the RAF process so perhaps others will confirm this is not rewriting history.
Regards