Tandemrotor
You must ask the BBC what prompted them to contact family members at this time. I will not discuss private messages or confidences, but you know I have stated the BBC did not initiate any contact with me, nor I them. Full stop. Therefore, I find your post unnecessarily personal and misdirected. You are under a misapprehension which I merely seek to correct, as I respect your position on this matter.
I do not know if the Campaign group are interested. I am not and never have been privy to any of their discussions. That is why I asked if they have played this significant card before. 13 years is a long time to sit on such crucial information which, as one eminent contributor stated correctly on TV, would probably have made the ROs think twice about overturning the BoI. Having overturned the BoI and blamed the pilots, it became imperative, to them and the RAF, that this report be buried.
That is why the questions asked by Dervish above are so crucial. Who knew of this report at the time and were they linked to the decision making chain of command that accused the pilots? It is this aspect which makes the report, and the general subject of MoD knowingly compromising airworthiness, far more than “possibly significant background information”. If there is a link, then it is not background, it is front and centre and a smoking gun.
For example, did Director Flying Safety know of it? Did it influence his advice to the ROs and CAS? (It is common knowledge the ROs and CAS were advised against their stance).
If so, in one small step you have a situation whereby those whom you directly target KNOWINGLY ignored both this report and the FACT that previous Chinook losses and fatalities had been SOLELY attributed to SYSTEMIC airworthiness failings. I did not say this, the RAF did, in an official report.
In the years since 1994, MoD have constantly trotted out the argument that Chinook has had a good safety record since 1994. But, have the Campaign Group pointed out that,
in November 1993 (when Spiers and Bagnall signed their respective Releases) it had the most APPALLING and deadly record and for SEVEN years the RAF had been sitting on various reports which offered the reason why and the solution (implement mandated policy, while rescinding destructive and contradictory policies) yet done NOTHING? As I said, this report is just one of many.
I ask again. When did the Campaign Group first receive this report and submit a detailed analysis? And what say you if it can be proven the ROs and CAS ignored advice based on this report?
My apologies for airing this in public but, as you know, my e-mails and PMs go unanswered. I think other contributors and interested parties need to know what is, or isn’t, going on.