JP
The facts are clear. By challenging what I am merely reiterating, you are denying parts of the ZD576 BoI report, the existence of Boscombe correspondence that has been extensively quoted by the FAI, HofC and HofL, and the content of official reports available under FoI and by download.
I am sure Lord Philip will be most interested in your submission denying these events and take a balanced view of the evidence before him. I'm equally sure he will seek clarification on what parts of the official record (above) you agree with and ask himself why you are being so selective.
But, as ever, you are entitled to your opinion, which I would never seek to deny you.
The root problems centre on AMSO / RAF Chief Engineer (two appointments which were sometimes combined). As you have stated many times you have no knowledge of or interest in airworthiness, one assumes you have no links to these posts. So, I am at a loss to understand your sudden interest, but would invite you to consider this;
Haddon-Cave claimed airworthiness was fine and dandy prior to 1998, linking its demise to the disestablishment of the RAF Chief Engineer post. (ACM Alcock, who can be named here as he has written to the press supporting the gross negligence verdict). If Haddon-Cave was correct, and the CE carried the authority to resolve airworthiness problems (and responsibility to prevent them in the first place), what precisely did he do when confronted with the long list of failures revealed in the ZD576 BoI report or the notification of severe problems in the first place (a notification he would have inherited in 1991)?
Not an awful lot, if anything. Something confirmed by Sir Robert Walmsley (CDP) when giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 1998 (when he confirmed long standing airworthiness problems on Chinook, that were only just being addressed 2 years after Alcock left post, 4 years after the crash and 9 years after being notified to AMSO). Perhaps therein lies the reason for his belated interest. Are you saying Sir Robert is also wrong? Senior staffs routinely try to outwit and deceive these committees. Why would he readily concede such a point? (Because his briefing revealed far worse!).
Sorry, when someone has a vested interest, they're not exactly neutral.