Chug
There has to be open recognition of the corruption and negligence that has brought us to this pass,
Coincidentally, I was asked to give some thought to a prime example of this the other day (in the context of MoD’s behaviour over aircraft crashes). Quite the worst and most blatant example I could think of occurred in the Mull of Kintyre case. One has to remember that the aircraft had no operational clearance whatsoever for ANY Nav or Comms. Unknown to them, because the information had been withheld, the pilots were not permitted to rely on these systems in any way whatsoever. This was confirmed by Lord Philip, who referred to these as ”mandated restrictions” (para 2.2.8). (He omitted the fine detail, so one has to read the Release to Service separately to find out precisely what was “mandated”. MoD denied it's very existence, until Lord Philip put this in his report!).
On 28th January 1997, upon broadcast of a Channel 4 TV programme, the retired and highly distinguished Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir John Grandy wrote to the current Chief of the Air Staff, ACM Sir Michael Graydon seeking views.
In his reply dated 4th February 1997, Graydon offered a few gems;
1. The President of the Board of Inquiry “carried out a barely adequate job” because he avoided “attribution of negligence to the pilots”. Nothing illustrates better the fact the case was prejudged in the minds of senior officers.
2. That the analysis of the “Farnborough scientists” (i.e. the AAIB) showed aircrew error “must have been the primary factor”. This is a gross misrepresentation of the AAIB’s position and wholly refuted by their lead investigator, Mr Cable.
However, by far the worst was this;
3. He states the aircraft “was off course by some MILES” when it hit the ground. He confirms that he and Wratten briefed Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Defence, of the above.
Never can a single statement have better illustrated the systemic corruption and concerted efforts to brief against the pilots.
One wonders what the original letter from Sir John said, but the intent of Graydon’s is perfectly clear. It served to foster an image of grossly negligent, and even incompetent, pilots being “miles” off course in such a short time, and clearly designed to rebut any notion they were not negligent. One assumes it would have been highly inconvenient had the distinguished Sir John Grandy written to the press questioning the verdict. Worse, Rifkind would have considered such a "fact" pretty damning and he has since confirmed he'd have taken a different view had he known the truth.
This evidence was presented by the Mull Group who, perhaps due to legal advice, opined CAS had been misinformed or misunderstood. That is too polite – I think it was an outright lie which served to suborn the entire process, and entirely typical of MoD’s behaviour at the time and since.
Corruption? Yes. These actions were a gross perversion of the integrity required of any officer, but set the tone for entire generations. You only have to consider how long the MoD maintained these lies, despite knowing the truth. People have lost knighthoods for less. And anyone involved is tainted and has no place in the current regulatory system.