Mull of Kintyre Review
Thank you Chugalug 2
I regret to see that some seem upset by your helpful words to me on how to correct typos, such as the one that slipped into my last post captioned Mull of Kintyre Review. I have to get used to posting memos in this new and strange on-line environment for me and I obviously need to be more careful with my one fingered typing and near-octogenarian editing.
We “Three Fellows” consider it unfair to see two deceased pilots accused with Gross Negligence in the circumstances surrounding the accident. However, further research has now brought to light a number of Airworthiness factors regarding the state of the new converted from Mark 1, termed HC2 at initial certification, which are of import and that indicate that the pilots were given an immature aircraft to operate.
The Macdonald report Appendix 4 – Airworthiness (2010) covers our findings in a letter sent to MoD last December. It was not acknowledged, let alone answered. You and others may find it interesting. Please refer to my previous posting on the matter for the link.
We hope that our contribution will help to right a situation we consider to be wrong, that is, we do not find that deceased pilots should be accused as they have been, against the RAF’s own Regulations of No Doubt Whatsoever among other reasons. Indeed, they may have been given the wrong tool to work with which, I suggest, may point the finger in other directions regarding negligence.
Please accept that we are looking for the truth and nothing more. No one really knows what happened. On that basis alone, the verdict of gross negligence should be overturned.
Ralph Kohn