John Purdey
Posters such as Dalek (5301), Chugalug (5216), and others have in the past alleged that:
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
Perhaps all those who hold that view will now be prepared to make themselves available to the forthcoming Inquiry, under their real identities of course, and produce their evidence.
I cannot wait. Regards John Purdey
As I have said before to you,
You will be aware 1. and 2. are now established facts following MoD's (perhaps inadvertent) release of key documents which they had withheld from all previous inquiries. (A serious offence).
On point 3. there is no doubt the RAF hierarchy blamed the pilots. It is also beyond doubt that, if the above documents and facts had been known to the inquiry teams, said senior officers would have faced severe censure, if not legal action. Deliberately misrepresenting the facts and issuing a fabricated CAR and RTS, thereby knowingly endangering aircrew, is a serious offence.
On point 4, I cannot speak for all these departments but, for example, the record shows the MoD(PE) Project Director pleaded with his bosses to take heed of Boscombe's advice that the aircraft should not be declared airworthy. I also understand the formal legal advice was against the gross negligence verdict. If "Flight Safety" or "Engineering" signed up to a decision to ignore Boscombe's "positively dangerous" advice, then I would describe that as criminal. It is far more likely that they were not told; just as the BoI, HofL, HofC, Sheriff and, most importantly, the aircrew, were not.
I say again, so that you are absolutely clear on this point, the documents demonstrating this have been freely released under Freedom of Information by the MoD - they have not been "leaked" in any sense. Many were referred to at every inquiry but, for whatever reason, their significance was not understood or explained. As stated by flipster, many are now eagerly anticipating ensuring this evidence is heard in a proper forum. Some very fine legal minds will now be well aware of the issues resulting in the Haddon-Cave's report, whereas before it was rather assumed MoD met their legal obligations.
Equally, those MoD staffs called to give evidence will now be very hesitant about lying to protect those few responsible for the above; primarily because a significant precedent has been set whereby legal and disciplinary action is being taken against those who ignore their Duty of Care; but also because discussion forums such as this have readily disseminated the available evidence making it more difficult for MoD to dissemble. The argument is essentially that which won the day on both Nimrod and Hercules.
Again, thank you for reminding us of the facts. May we look forward to YOU offering YOUR interpretation of the regulations? That, indeed, would be a pleasure because, so far, you have only rubbished the long experience of individuals here without offering an alternative view on how these senior staffs (CA and ACAS) should have exercised their delegated authority.