2Shy2Torque
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash, I can see no reason for this.
Walter, I despair. I can only wonder if you actually
read and
understand anyone else's posts! I have not "dedicated my life" to any "system". I left the RAF in 1994, after just under twenty years of service, on
my say-so, despite being cordially invited to serve as Specialist Aircrew for another 17 years. Most of my RAF time was spent flying and instructing on SH. But
that was over fifteen years ago, for goodness' sake!
Since then I have spent the last fifteen years, fully and gainfully employed as a
civilian pilot, in a variety of helicopter roles.
If you
read and understood my posts here you will note that I have been
highly critical the RAF's dealing with this issue. I am certainly not here protecting "the system".
You have falsely accused me of being part of some sort of "cover up" before, which I
very strongly resent. I read the abridged version of the BOI report in 1995, after I had left the RAF, and immediately wrote to Flight International, accusing the RAF of a whitewash over this accident. That was well before this thread and Brian's campaign started.
So why the hell do you deduce that I am part of that same cover up, simply because I point out your errors in assumptions you have made, and continue to make? Believe me, if I thought you were correct with your theory, I would be right in there, backing you up. But I can't because you are WRONG! So wrong that you tend to divert away the campaign from its true path.
So,
again, take note of these
facts and think on before you write such ignorant and patronising twaddle about me. I helped train one of the two pilots involved in the Mull accident. RC was was one the most pleasant, polite and competent students I had flown with. I had met his father and his good lady and I am
very well aware of the impact aircraft accidents have on those left behind; I lost enough friends and colleagues to very quickly learn all about it. I was an "A" category RAF support helicopter instructor. I was more experienced in SH than either of the two pilots involved. I served in the NI theatre not long before (I have the record of service and the medal to prove it). RAF SH crews were NOT, I repeat, NOT trained, nor expected, to use DME as a primary navigation aid. We used a combination of map to ground visual techniques and Decca TANS (Doppler and Decca based) and later, "SuperTANS" (GPS based). We did not have radar The last thing an RAF crew (or any other, be it RN or AAC) would do is rush towards high ground at high speed if they were intending to land.
If a trial of a new portable DME equipment was being run, (I'm certain it wasn't) it would not have been run in this way, in marginal weather, towards high terrain, with high value passengers, who could neither contribute to the trial, nor gain anything from it by being on board. I say this from my own personal experience of being involved in RAF trials of other new equipments during my time.
Again, I ask
you (you totally ignored this question last time I asked you; I presume because you filed it in your "not compatible with the WK theory" bin) -
WHY did JT ask for a completely different airframe for the flight, if only this Mk2 airframe had the DME equipment on board and this trial was the real reason for the flight?