nice castle
The example you relate regarding H-C is absolutely true; as are your other comments.
But the enduring problem H-C created, which has facilitated the MAA taking the approach they have, is that he flatly refused to criticise certain senior officers (in fact, praised them), when all the irrefutable evidence he was shown demonstrated the systemic failures commenced in the 1980s, not 1998. And that, far from being caused by the demise of the Chief Engineer’s post, were caused by his very existence and his policies (also provided to H-C).
If you have the opportunity, ask him why he didn’t mention any of the Airworthiness Review Team reports. (He no longer replies to those of us who gave evidence). If he saw them, it was a criminal omission not to mention them. (They wholly contradict many of his conclusions). If he did not see them, he should ask his friends Alcock and Graydon why they didn’t mention the reports when they spoke to him. And he should ask Sir Donald Spiers (ex Controller Aircraft) what he would have done had he been shown the early ARTs. (Answer – withdraw CA Release, which would require ACAS to ground the aircraft). If the latter is the case, it is incumbent upon him to submit an addendum to his report outlining this concealment of evidence, recommend criminal charges and a review of recommendations rejected by MoD. The inevitable outcome would be an independent MAA.
He’ll ignore you. But if by some chance he's interested, invite him to e-mail me.