TD
Graham, I can only echo what has already been said, firstly, my continuing condolence for your loss, as ineffectual as that condolence may be.
Secondly my congratulations on your determination and tenacity in pursuing the matter, in getting the inquiry conducted and the report published and thirdly, but not least, the dignity that you and your whole family have shown throughout, for what it's worth, all of you have my respect.
I was in the fleet for some 20 years, on MR1s and MR2s (including a tour on 120) and I loved the aircraft, loved the job and trusted both my aircrew colleagues and the people who serviced the aircraft, I never knew Ben, he came to the fleet long after I had left but I suspect that he felt pretty much the same.
Had I known the design flaws that the report has highlighted would I have wished to continue doing the job? The answer is an almost unequivocal YES, but that is purely my feelings about the job that I did and the era in which I did it.
Am I surprised at the ostrich mentality of the military/political/MoD/industrial consortium? Not in the least - I am reminded of a phrase that one of my early day mentors used "Those that have the bottle don't have the power and those that have the power don't have the bottle, just make the best of it - never forget that".
That those who have been named and shamed are not the ones solely responsible is, to a large extent, irrelevant, the problem goes way back beyond their tenure BUT, if you were to ask a Very Senior Officer/Senior Civil Servant/Minister/Captain of Industry what their job is he (or she) would likely reply "Well, I'm responsible for.....", (I know because I've asked that question - the damage to my career was short lived, after all they're only in post for 2 years).
OK, well, it happened on their watch so time for them to accept the responsibility for which they have been so well paid all these years, just as I and my colleagues and many others accepted the risks of military aviation at their behest, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.
If you follow the profession of arms, you accept that there is risk, but unnecessary risk, uncaring risk, thoughtless risk, greedy risk, is simply unacceptable, it's nothing new, it's just unacceptable.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, Crew 3 paid the price for the pernicious penny-pinching of a government who would rather spend OUR money on political correctness training, allied to a promotion system that has, all too often, rewarded the "yes" men - consider this (I'm sure you have), faced with a choice of promotion to a senior or very senior position, who is more likely to get it, the person who stands up and says "we can't do it like that" or the person who says "my men will cope"? Hmm difficult eh?
The fact is that most "leaders" are leaders purely by virtue of the sheer professionalism of those that they "lead" and that is true of the military, the MoD and industry.
The final blame must lie with the Scrooges in the Treasury, successive Governments who willingly bend the knee (as long as it doesn't compromise their expenses), the LMF of the majority of the senior armed force hierarchy, senior civil servants who, at best don't understand the question and at worst are only interested in a knighthood, and a defence industry that has grown up thinking that it can milk the system for all it's worth and never take the consequences.
US President Harry S Truman clearly defined where the buck stops, who in the British political system will stand up and be counted? Is that an eerie silence I hear?
If I sound cynical, well, one man's cynicism is another man's reality check, I make no apologies.
TPD