caz:
A very interesting post with which I cannot argue as I was not involved in at all with the introduction of the Chinook Mk2 into Service.
I don't think that tucumseh ever said that you were involved with the Chinook Mk2 introduction into service caz, and that certainly wasn't the point he was making. What he says is that there was no authorisation for most of the avionics fitted, probably because they had not been fully tested for ECM, an absolute sine qua non for CAR let alone RTS. Do you accept that or not? If what tuc is saying is true then the aircraft was not airworthy and CAR and RTS were acts of Gross Negligence. So let's just sort than one out before going on your interminable airmanship roundabout, which I just know will get us back to the topic of breakfast! Is tuc right or wrong caz? If wrong, why?