Airworthiness and BBC debate
Forgive this long post, but I cannot be the only one puzzled by the recent exchange of posts following the BBC broadcasts. (I receive BBC Ulster here and they put out a quite different interview, in content and tone).
What puzzles me is the attitude of the Mull Campaign Group to Tecumseh’s statements on airworthiness. Let me get two cast iron facts out of the way first of all. The Mk2 was not airworthy, as defined by MoD’s regulations. According to the RAF report unearthed by the BBC, nor was the Mk1.
What the report said about Mk1 automatically applied to Mk2. The reporter was asked this on BBC Ulster and replied that the report mentioned “Mk2” over 40 times, which is not exactly a “Mk1 only” report as MoD would have us think.
The only alternative is that in the 15 months following the report all the problems were fixed. As Tecumseh says, they weren’t, because the Chief of Defence Procurement admitted it to the Public Accounts Committee in 1998 and is published in Hansard. I took time to read this and it explains just about every concern we express on this forum. What I found amazing is that its recommendations were basically repeated by Haddon-Cave, 10 years later.
So, I have thought about Why, When, What, How, Who.
Why, I think, is obvious. The aircraft should not have flown and even if the pilots made a mistake there is a large degree of shared blame. As John Blakeley said on the programme, if known to the BoI this would probably have prevented the gross negligent verdict because there would be no choice but to include senior officers’ maladministration.
When. Brian Dixon confirmed the report is common knowledge, saying it has been in the House of Commons Library for at least 2 years. It was obviously known to the 1998 Committee, otherwise where did they get the question to CDP from? This probably means they’d discussed it before. Tecumseh says the content of the report has been known since the late 80s, which I’m sure he would not claim without proof. Haddon-Cave said the problems started in 1998. Some may have thought it a jump for Tecumseh to claim late 80s, but this Chinook report sets the problems at that period, as it was prompted by the crashes of her late 80s. I lend credence to his posts because he was 100% right about Nimrod and C130, on the same subject. Therefore, the question “Why now” from Tandemrotor is puzzling. Why not? It was in the public domain. As Brian says, Lord Philip has the information and as Dalek says, he is bright enough to ignore any BBC agenda. Public interest I’d say. Not an issue.
What. Tecumseh, the BBC and those it interviewed point out establish fact. I have dug around the various links provided by the Mull Group and see they have submitted prominent sections on “airworthiness” in each submission, the last only a few years ago. So, I cannot understand Tandemtotor’s “hobby horse” comment to Tecumseh and that airworthiness should be treated as a separate subject, by a separate review or inquiry. Tandemrotor has been consistent with this view for a few years, not just in the last week. He has stated he was an advisor to one of the families so assume he was party to the previous submissions. Having presumably agreed with these submissions, why complain about Tecumseh also mentioning it? If he disagrees with the submissions, then say so and clarify.
How. Tandemrotor was unhappy about the BBC being engaged, saying the Mull Group / families (I am not sure to what extent they are one and the same) should have been consulted. From what has been posted here, what would the reply have been? Yes, by all means add to the body of evidence in our submissions supporting the pilots. Or, no, we don’t want new evidence to be heard. I’m confused. The answer would appear to depend on who the BBC contacted. Maybe they did and got the go ahead. There is another factor here. The Group concentrate on clearing the pilots. But 27 other people died and their families have a right to a voice.
This gets me to Who. Long ago I would have read the Mull Group’s submissions and thought, yes, that’s hit airworthiness on the head. But, as I read Tecumseh’s work I see there is far more to it than discussing the actions of maintainers at front line. The Group’s submissions are entirely valid but take a narrow and shallow view. That is probably due to the authors’ perspective and area of expertise. It is now pretty obvious there was no procurement input to these submissions. Does the Group not welcome the input of someone who can add flesh to this, from the procurement angle? Apparently not.
What is so different about the Mull Group and Tecumseh’s versions? Having eliminated Why, When, What and How, that leaves Who.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that someone is upset at who is exposed by the systemic failings reported by Tecumseh. I hesitate to say this, but the Group’s submissions on the subject are, intended or otherwise, aimed at low-level maintainers. A mistake made by the ZD576 BoI and on Nimrod as well, which rightly upset many at Kinloss. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense because I was one myself but if you read the various submissions and inquiries, I know that as a junior tech I wouldn’t have known how to solve them, but having followed the Nimrod and C130 threads I now have a better idea. This misdirection of “blame” is consistent with the common confusion between airworthiness and serviceability. It happens too often to be coincidence. It seems very clear that now Tecumseh has exposed the actions and contributions of very senior officers there is a reluctance to speak on the subject. He has often said here, ask who the decision protects. To paraphrase Chugalug, this silence and acceptance that senior officers are always right is what led to many deaths.
Sorry for the length. Just thinking out loud and there is no need to reply if you don’t want to. It is just an opinion but one based on many facts with only one assumption made at the end.