Originally Posted by
Hebog
The maintenance companies contributed by stating the aircraft met CAA requirements to fly when it clearing didn't when they signed the compliance statement to the CAA. This basically states that they confirm the aircraft has meet the AAN requirements and all MPDs have been adhered to. This was obviously not the case - had they been honest and said no it doesn't as items are out of date, MPDs have not been complied with etc then the aircraft would not have been flying.
Yes, that's more or less what you said before.
But the fact that the aircraft was flying out of compliance was not judged by either the CAA or AAIB to have been a cause or contributory factor in the accident, as a number of posters have already pointed out.
Yes, if the Hunter hadn't been flying there would have been no crash, but you could equally make that comment in respect of pretty well every aircraft accident.