Downsizer
I think I have proven, many times, that I am more than willing and able to do more than "bang the drum".
When Des Browne ordered the Nimrod Review by Mr Haddon-Cave QC, he expressly permitted MoD staffs, past and present, to give evidence. I know many of us here sail a little close to the Official Secrets Act wind when posting; the airworthiness saga is no different. Mr Browne effectively waived the OSA in this case. I later asked Lord Philip if the same applied, and he confirmed I could submit the same evidence to him. While of course he concentrated on the legal aspect, his report makes it very clear he accepted my evidence regarding the illegality of the Chinook Release to Service. That is, the aircraft had no proper clearance to fly operationally. I am unhappy he didn't spell out all my supporting evidence, as that served to protect the guilty, but the fact remains he supported my main conclusion; as did Haddon-Cave who similarly protected the guilty. At least Lord Philip didn't name and shame the innocent.
The matter is further complicated by the Freedom of Information Act - MoD withhold benign information yet, bizarrely, happily release information that you and I would not normally be allowed to discuss here. I asked the question of the Information Commissioner - If MoD release information under FoI, is it deemed to be in the Public Domain? The answer was woolly (I have no time for the ICO, they routinely collude with MoD to agree what answers they give and how complaints will be handled), but they agreed the precedent had been set by the press routinely publishing FoI replies.
Hence, for example, I can state here that on 23rd April 2003, MoD at AbbeyWood briefed PUS that, as of that date, I was the only person in MoD who thought it right to implement mandated airworthiness and financial probity regulations. I received this in 2005 and successive Mins(AF) (Ainsworth, Ingram, Moonie, Caplin) confirmed in writing to my MP that they supported this statement. This single item of background evidence is what demonstrates the Nimrod Review was a simplistic collation of a few well known facts; and not the revelation Haddon-Cave, MoD and now the MAA like to claim it was. Clearly, the statement is a lie as others in MoD demonstrably believe in aircraft being airworthy (although pprune reveals an astonishing number who don't). But it serves to demonstrate the lengths MoD will go to denigrate anyone who disagrees with their policies.
Perhaps THE key event in the weeks leading up to the announcement the Chinook pilots had been cleared was Lord Philip being advised MoD had lied to the widow of one of the passengers. They told her there was no such thing as a Release to Service until 1996, and the only Chinook Release was signed by Controller Aircraft, Sir Donald Spiers. I had discussed his many times on the MoK thread - the fact that MoD never mentioned the "RTS", only ever the "CAR". At first I thought it may be because there wasn't an RTS at all, but investigations revealed ACAS had ignored the mandated CAR and issued an illegal RTS. That was a significant breakthrough.
Clearly, this lie had only one purpose; to protect the signatory to the illegal RTS of November 1993. Min(AF), Nick Harvey, was forced to issue a grovelling letter of apology to the widow. Until that event, Lord Philip may have been thinking about not mentioning airworthiness. But, when you read the report it is obvious the sentence on the (illegal) RTS was dropped in at the last minute, as it is slightly out of context.
On Nimrod, C130 and Chinook there has been a single event like this when I think we all thought "Case won". To me, that was the key event on MoK. It was an extraordinary lie, so easily disproved, but it illustrated the sheer panic in MoD over the evidence the aircraft was not airworthy. And that lie was perpetrated after the MAA was formed. And it exposed a new RAF strategy - close ranks to protect the retired VSOs at all costs, this time at the expense of a named civilian 2 Star, from whom Alcock, Graydon and Bagnall had withheld the 1992 CHART report. It was one thing lying about two junior pilots - that is to be expected - but what would make them suddenly escalate their finger pointing to a 2 Star? The airworthiness evidence. That is, the "new" evidence MoD had always called for. Hoisted, and all that.
I can assure you everything I say on here, plus the detailed background, has been formally submitted to, for example, Mr Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip, both of whom noted the same serious failings I've been "banging on" about on pprune since I joined in January 2003. It has also been submitted to the Provost Marshal, five successive Ministers for the Armed Forces (the Minister who deals with this subject), a former Minister for Defence Procurement, Secretaries of State for Defence, MoD's PUS, Thames Valley Police, numerous MPs and more. And when MoD and the retired VSOs lied to the press, I happily provided the evidence they had lied.
I discuss here the replies I receive, which are the same as others on pprune get. That is, MoD is allowed to judge its own case by briefing the above office bearers and 99% of the time they deny there is any problem. As I said, even after XV230 crashed and the cause was known, Adam Ingram claimed he was personally satisfied the regulations were implemented correctly. The very existence of the MAA gives lie to that yet, and this is my point, no action is taken against those in MoD who knowingly misled in their briefings. That is where the "campaign" is at the moment and why it is important to air as much of the truth as he rules permit.