You see, informing pilots of range from a quite hard object wasn't considered important enough by AMSO.
Which
particular AMSO would that be, tuc?
I note from the
Argyll News (see
Argyll News: Independent Review of evidence in 1995 Kintyre Chinook crash to be held in private? :Argyll,Kintyre,Chinook crash,independent review, | For Argyll ) that a certain former Air Member for Supply and Organisation had the following to say on 8 Sep 2010:
Nick Clegg today announced an independent review, to be undertaken by a barrister; which differs somewhat from the previous announcement that Lord Philip would conduct it.
Nevertheless, one hopes he is tasked with assessing ALL the evidence, not just that which received a casual glance in 1994 or, very importantly, that which was suppressed by ordering the senior test pilot not to speak.
In particular of course, he must assess the impact of the Assistant Chief of the Air Staffs stating (to the RAF) the aircraft was airworthy, but at the same time withholding the fact that MoD’s own airworthiness experts at Boscombe Down had stated, categorically, it was NOT airworthy. That, in fact, the Safety Critical Software that managed the engine fuel computers was “positively dangerous”.
This act of omission is a very serious offence.
To quote Hansard “ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C B****ll”.
(The ACAS in question is referred to by many as 'The Scottish Officer'.....)