Graydon Letter
I must have missed something somewhere - how did the RAF blame itself? I believe it accused, and without any defence, found guilty of Gross Negligence, two relatively junior pilots - a verdict based on opinion and speculation. This is not, I suggest, a case of the RAF blaming itself - it is a case of the RAF diverting the blame from itself. If the BoI or even the review process had properly looked at the reasons why a technical or airworthiness issue might have come about and obtained satisfactory answers then maybe Graydon and Alcock's letter might be credible - however as we now know those answers would almost certainly have been far from satisfactory, particularly as far as the RAF bringing the Mk2 into service was concerned. As it is I am more than "gobsmacked" that as Chief Engineer Alcock thought the BoI had done anything like a thorough investigation, and that he should support Graydon's letter. I am even more "gobsmacked" at the inconsistency of RAF senior management thinking and the dispensing of justice between the Chinook verdict where there was no ADR/CVR and that on Tornado crash in Glen Ogle when the ADR/CVR showed exactly what happened.
JB