Chinook crash questions continue
Because I expect that only few PPruners have seen a copy of my local newspaper, The Camberley News and Mail, I beg to offer hereunder the very slightly edited version of our ‘3 Fellows’ response to an article on RAF Chinooks that was published in last week’s edition. This response to the article was printed in to-day’s newspaper (5 February 2010).
The Editor - Camberley News and Mail
I refer to your recent article Chinook crash questions continue (Friday 29 January edition) which was a marvellous piece of reporting. I wish to support what Messrs Arbuthnot and Howarth said, but I am unable to agree with Armed Forces Minister Mr Bill Rammell’s statements about there not being any new evidence to lead the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to revisit the original RAF’s Board of Inquiry (BoI) findings. The aircraft was manifestly not ‘Airworthy’ and should not have been used for that final flight. This may not be "new" evidence to MoD, but only because it was withheld from successive inquiries; each of which, I suspect, would have found it damning confirmation of gross negligence in issuing the Military Airworthiness Certificates (Controller Aircraft Release (CAR) & Release to Service (RTS))and an abrogation of “Duty of Care" on the part of Senior Officers.
The unanswered questions are, why were the pilots charged with Gross Negligence based upon pure supposition with no actual facts, by the two senior reviewing officers who overturned the RAF’s own Board of Inquiry that could not apportion blame? Secondly, why was the aircraft released to Service whilst still not fully Airworthy?
Captain Ralph KOHN FRAeS
Regulatory Authority inspector and compiler of the Macdonald report (April 2000)
Captain Ron MACDONALD FRAeS
Qualified aircraft accident investigator (co-author)
Captain Richard KJ HADLOW FRAeS
Retired RAF Squadron Leader (co-author)
As an aside, I wonder why the Daily Telegraph did not print our reply to the letter written by the 5 Knights?
All we asked for was an airing before an impartial judge of all the evidence known, including some previously withheld.
Ralph Kohn