tuc:
Why did H-C not reveal far more damning evidence that, from 1991-94, around 28% had been cut EACH YEAR, from the budget whose sole purpose was to maintain airworthiness? A budget that serviced a legal requirement which was not volume related. That is, unlike most of the General's 20% cut, it could not be justified by the argument that numbers/fleets were reducing. THAT fact was far more pertinent to his brief. And it is that volume related issue which is at the heart of many of our airworthiness problems, because so few understand it.
He won't answer the question (a common trait it seems) but it conveniently allowed his report to omit a period crucial to the introduction of Chinook HC Mk2; which of course relied heavily on the airworthiness of the Mk1 being maintained in the preceding years, and a stable and maintained build standard being presented for trials and conversion.
JP:
Tucumseh. As you say, all this has no direct bearing on the Chinook crash, which is the subject of this thread.
That is exactly what he is saying! The aircraft was grossly unairworthy when it crashed thanks to the cuts and consequent actions described by tucumseh.