Yes to a Judge
Thank you again Chugalug2, also Beagle, Vertico and Brian Dixon for your welcoming words following my recent arrival on this thread of the Military Aircrew forum. They were most appreciated by one who values civilised debate and exchanges of thoughts, where all are given the opportunity to speak sensibly on a given subject, be it pro or con; and without unnecessary animosity or snide comments, in the absence of logical arguments.
I totally agree with Brian about preferring to see the ACMs’ views aired before a Judge and not just having them talking to Ministers on their own as in the past, where we too can offer our findings on the matter; particularly on the Airworthiness aspects of the HC2 introduction. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in any such re-run of the inquiry.
My last unpublished letter to the Telegraph tried to indicate that all the evidence we have recently uncovered with the help of our researchers, should be aired; quote:
“… provided that all available evidence is heard this time. That would, of course, include previously withheld evidence about MoD's failure to implement airworthiness regulations; the same failings highlighted last year by the Haddon-Cave report.” unquote.
I should have spelt it out more clearly. So it is probably better that it was only aired on PPRuNe for the moment, thus giving me a chance to redraft my next letter to the Media in clearer terms when the time comes, indicating that we want to present our side of the Airworthiness story for consideration, at the same time the knights have their day.
Ralph Kohn