The disproportionate severity of this iniquitous sentence is truly shocking. I sincerely hope that the case will go to appeal.
Thank you for the kind comments of those who've contacted me - I will try to pass them on to Andy.
tubby linton asked who had provided the initial TR training. I am told it was Thomas Cook Airlines. However, when that was and what levels of refresher theoretical knowledge training and simulator sessions were given since then, I do not know. The MoD spokeswoman stated that training had been reviewed - as the lawyers acting for the injured will no doubt wish to know, specifically
what training and why did it need to be reviewed.
- What SOP was in place concerning one pilot off the flight deck? Was it followed?
- Why did the co-pilot spend so long making a cup of tea and "chatting with an old mate"?
- What guidance existed regarding the placing of objects on the sill panels?
From British Forces News:
Prior to sentencing, prosecutor Mr Nigel Lickley QC told the court of the consequences of Flt Lt Townshend's actions.
Mr Lickley QC raised the costs of the Voyager fleet being grounded for 13 days after the incident from the 9th to the 21st of February.
He told the court, according to information from Air Commodore Lushington, that several million pounds were paid to Airtanker for Service Defence, despite the fleet being grounded.
The repairs to the affected aircraft cost £207,000 including a new side and new ceiling panels.
In order to backfill the scheduled Voyager flights, £827,000 was paid for civilian aircraft to replace services.
As Lushington knows very well, AirTanker costs the taxpayer at least £1M
per day, whether their rented aircraft fly or not. This is a consequence of the absurd PFI contract. Thus the true figure is probably the cost of damage to the aeroplane and for the civilian charters.
As others have stated, the severity of this sentence will simply ensure that no-one ever cooperates with a service inquiry without the presence of a solicitor. Errors and mistakes will go unreported, putting back Flight Safety (or is that now 'Air' Safety') several decades.
After his Bf109G accident, ACM Sir John Allison told us that he recognised that "People do make mistakes - I did", but that flagrant disregard for rules wouldn't be tolerated. Quite right too. But on this occasion, there was no flagrant disregard of rules and no intent to cause danger and distress. Andy was cleared of any accusation concerning his integrity, so when he said that he didn't know what caused the event, he was speaking the truth.
As someone said to me last night, "This is MoD being vindictive - we couldn't get him on perjury, so we'll give him the sentence he would have received if we'd won our case over the other charges".
It might have cost MoD around £1M plus the costs of this case, but when the lawyers acting for the injured lay into them, it'll undoubtedly cost them a whole lot more.
Every time I fly on an airliner these days, the safety brief mentions that turbulence can occur at any time, so whenever you are seated, you should keep your seatbelt loosely fastened. Does the RAF brief the same?