The Chinook negligence verdict is riddled with doubts
SIR – As chairman of a working party on Boards of Inquiry into RAF flying accidents I was responsible for the words: “Only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent.”
Following clearance at all levels by the RAF and the Ministry of Defence, the words were incorporated in the manual by order of the Air Force Board in 1983.
Not surprisingly, I am appalled by the negligence verdicts made by the reviewing officers in the Mull Chinook inquiry (Leading article, January 5). The case is riddled with doubt, in particular the evidence on the weather.
I understand the pilots’ families are not seeking compensation, but solely that the honour of the two deceased pilots be restored by setting the verdicts aside without further inquiry. This now seems extremely unlikely following the letters in your columns last week from the Chief of the Air Staff (January 6) and his predecessor (January 7) who was in post at the time of the accident.
These letters misjudge the public mood and determination that this type of perceived injustice should be fleshed out in a full legal inquiry. This is now the only way ahead.
Air Commodore Derek Hine (retd)
Cambridge
SIR – Having lost a son in a flying accident which, after a year’s investigation by the MoD, was proved to be the result of a fatal flaw in the aircraft, I have always had the greatest sympathy for the families of the Chinook pilots.
It is indescribably painful to lose a son, but to have him then labelled as negligent (particularly when, as in this case, they were praised as “the best of the best”) must be beyond pain.
Surely the recent revelations warrant the reopening of the case, however many air chief Marshals object.
Carolyn Hill
Burbage, Wiltshire
Remembering the winter of 1947 – when frozen Britons showed true grit - Telegraph