New book - 'Red 5' - An investigation ...

[Lordflasheart]

....
‘Red 5 - An investigation into the death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham’

A new book by David Hill, author of “Their Greatest Disgrace” (Chinook ZD576) and more recently “Breaking the Military Covenant” (Who speaks for the Dead ?)

Now available on Kindle for £3.99 (or similar in $US) from the usual watercourse. All proceeds to charity as usual.

The book explains in compelling detail, how this fatal accident came to happen and how Martin-Baker came to be prosecuted. It tells how the MoD allowed maintenance techniques to develop, that were specifically prohibited by Martin-Baker. It shows that the MoD declined to acquire simple seat modifications that would reduce or remove risk to aircrew. It shows the long trail of evidence (from 1952) which the MoD denied ever having received, which proved M-B was in the clear.

The rest of this sorry ‘judicial process’ dismissed or ignored the evidence, and Martin-Baker and their defence lawyers inexplicably failed to use it. To nearly everyone’s benefit there was thus no trial to expose and record these repeat mis-deeds by the MoD.

There are as usual, no explanations so far forthcoming from the many agencies complicit in diverting attention from the truth and perverting the course of justice, after yet another tragic and avoidable service death.

I respectfully suggest ‘Red 5’ should be compulsory reading for everyone who bravely risks their valuable backsides on any Martin-Baker ejector seat that has been procured and ‘serviced’ under the auspices of the UK Ministry of Defence.

LFH
....

[Chugalug2]

Good post LFH. That the MOD lies, obfuscates, and misleads should come as no surprise to those who have read the numerous fatal air accident threads on this forum. That other agencies and services should render themselves complicit in the MOD's misdeeds raises questions that go far beyond the lack of airworthiness of Sean Cunningham's aircraft and ejection seat.

There is something rotten in the state. If it can pervert justice to the extent that David Hill's book indicates then anyone can be its next target. MBA may be content to take this hit. After all, they remain at Chalgrove selling their ejection seats. Does that make it right?

[Martin the Martian]

I'd still like to know why M-B were happy to take the rap when everything pointed to them being in the clear.

[Hueymeister]

Guaranteed future military contracts, possibly?

[orca]

Were they not guaranteed anyway? Does anyone know what proportion of the global off take goes to the RAF/ MoD?
I would have thought that failure to stick up for oneself was pretty risky.

[Lordflasheart]

.........
Orca - Does anyone know what proportion of the global off take goes to the RAF/ MoD ?

From the M-B website ... News & Events - Martin-Baker (http://martin-baker.com/news-events/)

"Martin-Baker has over 17,000 ejection seats in service around the world today, fitted to 54 different aircraft types in 84 different countries. These programmes have consisted of both newly designed seats as well as seats already in production being fitted to brand-new aircraft, but also being fitted to existing aircraft."

500th F-35 seat delivered in March. 2000th seat for JPATS (T-6) last December

I don't think MoD gets a look in with those numbers. They could always try sulking and buy elsewhere - I'm told the Russians do very good ejector seats these days.

So it's still a mystery - or a conspiracy ....

LFH
........

[Blackfriar]

.........
Orca -

From the M-B website ... News & Events - Martin-Baker (http://martin-baker.com/news-events/)

"Martin-Baker has over 17,000 ejection seats in service around the world today, fitted to 54 different aircraft types in 84 different countries. These programmes have consisted of both newly designed seats as well as seats already in production being fitted to brand-new aircraft, but also being fitted to existing aircraft."

500th F-35 seat delivered in March. 2000th seat for JPATS (T-6) last December

I don't think MoD gets a look in with those numbers. They could always try sulking and buy elsewhere - I'm told the Russians do very good ejector seats these days.

So it's still a mystery - or a conspiracy ....

LFH
........

Even more mysterious why they wouldn't defend their reputation of the MoD is a minor customer. Waiting to see if a gong or seat in the House of Lords is announced.

[weemonkey]

Reputational damage is a BIG thing in the corporate world. Today, with the impact of social media, it can be highly damaging commercially when the tales hit the www.

It would seem that this was not an issue for MB nor its legal representatives.

As has been said before, quite odd indeed.

Perhaps they are happy to sit back on the "lessons will be learnt" mantra and keep the $$$ coming in?

[Chugalug2]

Chalgrove Airfield was planned to be given over completely to residential development for 3500 homes prior to the HSE v MBA court case. Subsequent to the case this has been modified to 3000 homes and MBA can remain on site.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/chalgrove_release_of_the_land_at

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17486138.contentious-homes-plan-for-chalgrove-airfield-to-be-submitted/

https://www.slideshare.net/Chalgroveairfield/hca-newsletter-a-new-future-for-chalgrove-airfield-october-update

[langleybaston]

Now thrive the armourers.

[Chugalug2]

lb, I would strongly advise such armourers to double check the length of the spoon handle with which they might have supped when reaching any solemn and binding undertakings, as well as the material it was made of. Wooden spoons don't count, and hence would render any such agreement null and void.

[Lordflasheart]

....
Martin-Baker and London Chalgrove Airport ?

Blackfriar - Waiting to see if a gong or seat in the House of Lords is announced.

In 2016 (as Chugalug kindly observes above) ownership of Chalgrove transferred from MoD to the Homes & Communities Agency who seemed set to evict Martin-Baker in favour of 3500 homes. On 1st Jan 2018, right in the middle of the trial, the HCA was re-titled Homes England, with the same address, Chairman and CEO etc.

By March 2018 after M-B unexpectedly reversed their plea and were fined £1.1m, Homes England were publicly consulting on their new (ie modified) plan. This included Chalgrove New Market Town, reduced to only 3000 homes and three schools on part of the airfield.

More relevant to this thread, Martin-Baker would be allowed to keep part of the airfield, and someone would build an entirely new runway (26 – approx 5400 ft) on the north side of the field.

So there might be no gongs or peerages for a year or so, but Martin-Baker would get the benefit of security of tenure for their long-established factory and a brand new runway. Perhaps spitting up £1.1 mil and keeping schtumm was a small price to pay.

https://www.chalgroveairfield.com/en/homepage.php

For more detail - https://estatecreate-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/site_14500/control_1191173/k29haz95bk?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22Chalgrove_Airfield_Exh ibition_Boards_180718_LT.pdf%22&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIBTGJZEGNHOU3BEA&Expires=1565985943&Signature=cupk4xSM19xnCUU7vD2h384xFrE%3D

Caveats - As far as I can see, all this ‘development’ is still only at proposal and consultation stage. No actual planning application has yet been submitted and it’s currently stalled while the ‘emerging’ South Oxon DC Local Plan is with the Housing Minister for approval - Its ‘progress’ is shown here - Local Plan 2034 - South Oxfordshire District Council (http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy/local-plan-2034)

Would a brand new runway get past the public (who don’t seem to have noticed it yet) or past the South Oxfordshire Planning Committee or even a public inquiry ? Would the Minister dare to call it in and give it forced approval ?

If there were to be no new runway, Martin-Baker would presumably want to retain use of the current runway 31, not just for their two Meteors, but for their corporate operations and for customers. What leverage then ?

LFH
.......

[Chugalug2]

While we await the outcome of the ponderous machinations of Local Government, as featured above in LFH's post, a reminder of the OP and an unapologetic plug :-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RED-investigation-Flight-Lieutenant-Cunningham-ebook/dp/B07VTN8NVZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=red+5+David+Hill&qid=1566387977&s=gateway&sr=8-1

[Homelover]

Does David Hill credit the service inquiry (SI) report of the same accident anywhere in his book (available to read on the Gov.uk website)? I ask this because the introduction in his book is, more or less, a word-for-word copy of paras 1.3.1-1.3.4 of the SI report (Narrative of Events]. And without Hill’s acknowledgement of that source, he is committing plagiarism and possibly in breach of copyright law.

[tucumseh]

Homelover

In fact, of the 5-page Introduction (available to view free in its entirety on Amazon), only the first three short paragraphs paraphrase the SI report. It is essential scene-setting information, which must be factual. None of the following 4 pages remotely resembles anything in the report - it is a narrative on the approach to the book, it's structure and a brief summary of the issues raised.

The Service Inquiry is cited as the ‘main public record’. If one were to deviate from this, it would risk misrepresenting the factual events of 8 November 2011; so it is ‘fair use’. The Panel is described as having done an ‘excellent job’ and having produced a 'notable work'. A link is provided to the report, and the reader encouraged to read it. On the other hand, one theme in the book is MoD misrepresenting the facts to courts, the Prosecution, police, family and media; and refusing to correct itself in the face of written, verbal and video evidence. (This applies more so to the Prosecution; the book is relatively kind to MoD and acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Panel).

Across the trilogy, MoD placed only one caveat. That, to cite/quote an investigation and report arising from the Sea King ASaC Mk7 mid-air of 2003, the report must first be sought and provided under Freedom of Information. (Letter D/Min(AF)/AR MC03390/2013, 4 September 2013). The request was made, and MoD denied all knowledge of both investigation and report. Legal advice was sought, which was that one was free to quote from the report. The legal sources are acknowledged. Presumably, if MoD wanted to object to this it would have done so when the book was submitted; but that would mean having to acknowledge the events and the content of the report, opening itself to the possibility of legal action.

I hope this allays your fears.

[weemonkey]

lb, I would strongly advise such armourers to double check the length of the spoon handle with which they might have supped when reaching any solemn and binding undertakings, as well as the material it was made of. Wooden spoons don't count, and hence would render any such agreement null and void.


Damn beat me to it.

[Chugalug2]

So this is what the apologists are reduced to? Complaining of plagiarism? Tuc has spelled out the literary and legal issues, so I won't repeat them other than to suggest that the apologists club together and raise four quid to read the whole book rather than just the first few free preview pages on Amazon.

That raises a wider question, the motivation of those who have consistently opposed those seeking reform of UK Military Aviation Regulation and Accident Investigation on each and every fatal accident thread on this Military Aviation Forum of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. Ours is to prevent avoidable accidents. What's theirs?

[tucumseh]

Plagiarism - Clearly and obviously the words are not passed off as the author's own. The Service Inquiry report is referenced on page 2, as the first of 150 citations. One would have to be pretty dense to attempt plagiarism while in the same breath providing a download link to the source document.

Copyright - Is dealt with by the concept of 'fair dealing' (or 'use' - when dealing with Amazon one has to use their terms). For example, the 'reporting of current events' is an exemption to copyright. (Source - UK Intellectual Property Rights Office). The question becomes; at the time of writing was the issue 'current'? Yes, if one measures currency by media reporting, public interest/comment on the matter, legal proceedings, the ongoing links to other accidents or societal risk.

Would a fair minded person resort to such an attack when the real issue is why Sean Cunningham died in an accident that would have been avoided by simply following the instructions issued by Martin-Baker? Which, as I said, MoD denied the existence of, despite verbal, written and video evidence. As a past Service Inquiry President Homelover, you will know you have an enduring duty to report the emergence of evidence which would have affected your report. (Source - MoD). And did MoD pass this 'new' evidence to the CPS, HSE or police? That question has been asked of all concerned, and none will answer it. However, the HSE did reply to a FOI request earlier this year, confirming it had no evidence whatsover to support its allegations.

£4 to charity, and you could read all about it. Or I dare say the author might be persuaded to provide a free copy - pdf, Kindle or paperback?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Homelover

You might want to familiarise yourself with the concepts of 'fair use' and 'reporting of current affairs'. As for referencing, unless he's writing for academia, WGAF what standards he uses? It's clear what his source is, and no reasonable person is going to argue that he's plagiarised anything.

Tucumseh

Surprised to hear that you submitted a draft copy to MoD. To what end?

[Homelover]

Tuc. No thanks. And I wasn’t a SI president. Get your facts right, otherwise your credibility begins to suffer. I would’ve thought facts were pretty important for someone who crusades to ‘uncover the truth’ or ‘speak for the dead’ or whatever tag line you are working to this week??

[dervish]

I've read the book and it is a well written and researched. It doesn't ram opinions down your throat, but leaves readers to think for themselves. It avoids criticising groundcrew and aircrew, even when the BOI did, although provides direct quotes from APs giving warnings which MoD said they never had. You're left wondering why the BOI didn't look at the pubs to check their facts. He is critical of Martin Baker's decision to plead guilty and the official reason is shocking. The insight into what was happening in MoD is an eye opener. That one page is sufficient to persuade me the prosecution was ill conceived. But the video evidence is the killer. As he says, we've all sat through training films, so who missed that?

I didn't think of it until Holelover commented, but it was obvious straight away what the source of the brief explanation of the accident was. What else could it be other than the BoI report. Totally uncalled for posts. Should the mods not be policing this? Play the ball, man.

BZ, David. You've done aircrew a favour. Required reading.

Edited now I've seen Homelover's reply. What a piece of work you are. Obviously not interested in the truth. Seen in your true colours.

[tucumseh]

Ewan Whosearmy

Thanks for your comments. PM sent. The answer is a little convoluted, but essentially it is an obligation.

[SASless]

It's clear what his source is, and no reasonable person is going to argue that he's plagiarised anything.

Ah....there is the caveat...."reasonable person".:uhoh:

[biscuit74]

A shame the book is only available on Kindle so far - it sounds most interesting I'd rather have a paper copy - or a Kobo readable version if pushed. Later maybe!

[Chugalug2]

A shame the book is only available on Kindle so far - it sounds most interesting I'd rather have a paper copy - or a Kobo readable version if pushed. Later maybe!

Not sure if and when another format might be available, biscuit. In the meantime it is possible to convert Kindle files to pdf (for PCs etc). The results can be variable I suspect, but should be readable at least. There are a number of tools for doing this, simply Google Kindle to pdf converter. Which you choose is up to you, though hopefully those more tech savvy than I might offer some advice.

A popular one is Calibre, another epub as here :-

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-to-convert-kindle-to-pdf

Alternatively, Amazon provide a free Kindle App for PC (Apple and Android versions also). Download that onto you PC etc and read Kindle content there :-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/kindle-dbs/fd/kcp

[Distant Voice]

Seems strange that the 'lack of a safety case' issue for the Mk10 seat was never read across to the Moray Firth Tornado accident. Both SIs were taking place at the same time, under the same heads of the MAA and Mil AAIB.

DV

[Easy Street]

Seems strange that the 'lack of a safety case' issue for the Mk10 seat was never read across to the Moray Firth Tornado accident.

Why is that strange? The Moray SI panel may well have been aware and not considered it germane; frankly it was miraculous that even one person survived given the nature of the impact. An investigation report does not need to include every piece of knowledge to which the panel was exposed. As for the convening authority and MAAIB, they knew that the Cunningham SI would report on the issue, forcing it to be addressed, so what’s the problem?

[tucumseh]

From an XX177 perspective, the relevant issue regarding Moray Firth is that (as DV says, at the same time) the Tornado Board (and hence the MAA) was aware of the Gas Shackle mod to the Mk10A seat in Tornado, which eliminated the risk of shackle jamming. This was designed in 1984, but rejected by MoD until adopted in Tornado in 2007.

But during the later XX177 court cases the Prosecution, acting with MoD, denied all knowledge of this. This evidence was presented to the HSE before the trial last year, but it maintained its position that MoD didn't have it. One of two prominent examples where it was denied MoD had the content of reports which it had signed off. On the other, the Judge actually named the MoD official who signed it; effectively pronouncing M-B innocent. (Something she did no fewer than eight times).

Had the XX177 Service Inquiry seen the same papers their Tornado counterparts cited, their report would have had to say: While the 1990-92 warning cannot be found (the warning M-B were accused of not providing), there is direct evidence of MoD’s prior and subsequent knowledge of the risk, and its elimination by Martin-Baker.

The MAA, having oversight, knew the XX177 report and the case against M-B was flawed, lacking this vital evidence.

That would have presumably stopped the HSE in its tracks.

[Distant Voice]

The Moray SI panel may well have been aware and not considered it germane; frankly it was miraculous that even one person survived given the nature of the impact. An investigation report does not need to include every piece of knowledge to which the panel was exposed. As for the convening authority and MAAIB, they knew that the Cunningham SI would report on the issue, forcing it to be addressed, so what’s the problem?
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10553202)

I am advised that the SI panel was not made aware of the safety case issue, nor were the made aware of the incident involving Mike Harland in Nov 2007, and the issues with post mod 02198 seats. I suggest that flying with seats that do not have a safety case (not airworthy) is a point of some relevance and should have been mentioned in the Tornado SI report.

Easy Street, you should also realise that the Tornado SI report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal and the Scottish Crown Office who decided, yet again, not to hold Fatal Accident Inquiry because it contained all the relevant information. They knew nothing about the Cunningham case and the importance of safety cases.

[Chugalug2]

I am advised that the SI panel was not made aware of the safety case issue, nor were the made aware of the incident involving Mike Harland in Nov 2007, and the issues with post mod 02198 seats. I suggest that flying with seats that do not have a safety case (not airworthy) is a point of some relevance and should have been mentioned in the Tornado SI report.

Easy Street, you should also realise that the Tornado SI report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal and the Scottish Crown Office who decided, yet again, not to hold Fatal Accident Inquiry because it contained all the relevant information. They knew nothing about the Cunningham case and the importance of safety cases.

Here DV is at the nub of the issue. An Air Safety System that presumably (?) proselytises CRM evidently doesn't practice what it preaches. If evidence is withheld from an Accident Investigation then that Investigation is compromised, findings are skewed, and more accidents result. That sequence has been seen time and time again within the fatal accident threads of this forum. It seems that lies, omissions, and an appalling corporate memory is the stock in trade of the MOD and its Apparatchiks.

This cannot go on. The MOD is an unsafe pair of hands for Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation to be in. Both must be removed from its maw, and become independent of it and of each other.

Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!

[Distant Voice]

If evidence is withheld from an Accident Investigation then that Investigation is compromised, findings are skewed, and more accidents result. That sequence has been seen time and time again within the fatal accident threads of this forum. It seems that lies, omissions, and an appalling corporate memory is the stock in trade of the MOD and its Apparatchiks.

Good point Chugalug2, I missed it at the time. For the record twenty points of new evidence was submitted to the Lord Advocate and Crown Office of Scotland as a CONFIDENTIAL document. All were rejected after the document was handed over for review by the MoD without approval, No opportunity given to respond.

DV

[oldmansquipper]

In the current climate, (locked down at home and fed up to the teeth) what could be a better time for all on here to read David’s excellent investigative work. Proceeds go to charity after all.

It certainly opened my eyes..

[charliegolf]

MOD and its Apparatchiks

The MOD is an unsafe pair of hands for Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation

Is the term 'MOD' being used here instead of, 'senior officer' or 'civil servant' or 'politician'? Or all, obviously.

CG

[Chugalug2]

Is the term 'MOD' being used here instead of, 'senior officer' or 'civil servant' or 'politician'? Or all, obviously.

CG
The term 'MOD' is being used as the body in whom Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is vested, via its various subordinate (oh, and 'independent'!) authorities. Of course it entails all three of the human components of which you speak. My point is that Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation must be outwith the MOD and independent of it and of each other. These new bodies can retain their existing titles if so needed, what they can no longer retain is their subservience to those who have compromised military airworthiness and accident investigation, as witnessed in the sad series of fatal accident threads that litter this forum. That compromising was of course done by those of whom you speak (though I would add the word 'very' before 'senior officer'), simply because they could. We have to ensure in future that they cannot.

[ancientaviator62]

On page 223 of my copy of David's book I see that the MOD denied the existence of HEART. If that denial was of the team and not just the report then I wonder what else they have conveniently 'forgotten'. I was one of the two aircrew members of the four man HEART in 1997. Our start was delayed by a progressive restricting of our TOR no doubt as a result of previous reviews especially the in house Canberra review.

[Rigga]

In the current climate, (locked down at home and fed up to the teeth) what could be a better time for all on here to read David’s excellent investigative work. Proceeds go to charity after all.

It certainly opened my eyes..

I’m also locked down and going through a second read of David’s trilogy. The scope and size of MODs skullduggery is even more amazing the second time around. Better (for want of another expression) than a really good spy thriller. The mentality of double dealing seems amazing and saddening at the same time.
I learnt the basics of flight safety through my years in the RAF and after 10 years of managing it in civvy aviation went back to military work expecting some quality time - which, I now realise, only happens at Station levels.

[The B Word]

Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!

This always makes me chuckle... As an overused and alarmist strap line, it just doesn’t work for me. Why? Because there are literally thousands of self-regulated aircraft flying in the world right now in civil hands and they aren’t killing people any faster than any other? :cool:

You would be far better to quote “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.”

[tucumseh]

If I may:

ancientaviator62 - From memory, MoD denied having the report. It was sought by another ppruner who was directly involved in the XV179 Inquest. Like other Coroners, Mr Masters wasn't amused when the public provided copies of documents MoD denied the existence of. MoD also denied the CONTENT of the CHART (Chinook/Puma/Wessex) report, claiming only 53 pages existed (which had been withheld from Inquiries). The author came forward with just under 400, plus early drafts and covering letters proving who'd seen it. Lord Philip was not amused. MoD then maintained the lie to Ministers, and Dr Fox misled parliament. He was later forced to retract, but did not apologise in the House. Similarly, MoD stated to a Mull of Kintyre widow that there was no such thing as Releases to Service in 1994 - that it was Controller Aircraft who signed the only release. The Air Staff copy of the Chinook Mk2 RTS was sent to Lord Philip. Again, not amused. Things like that win cases.

Edit: You are right about restrictive TORs (set by the RAF Chief Engineer). He also delayed CHART in 1992, specifically prohibiting the team leader from speaking to MoD's airworthiness specialists or Fleetlands, who were preparing Mk1s for induction. You may recall that he (Alcock) and CAS (Graydon) denied CHART or its TORs mentioned the Mk2, again repeated by Ministers. It was referred to 373 times, and when the TORs were later uncovered they revealed, at para 4(f), a directive to address the Mid Life Upgrade. The Director of Flight Safety reported the failure of Configuration Control (a major component of airworthiness, and a pre-requisite to a valid safety case), and that it must be regained for the 'Mk2'. In 1999, the Chief of Defence Procurement confirmed to the Public Accounts Committee that the situation remained, although omitted that this had been RAF policy since 1991. Something he had known since at least June 1996. I couldn't possibly comment on why he withheld this, but revealing it would have destroyed the RAF's case against the Mull pilots.

Rigga - There may be a fourth part to the trilogy. Viruses permitting.

B Word - While you are of course correct about many other users, the issue with MoD is that it flatly refuses to learn lessons or, in many cases, implement recommendations from previous fatal accidents. Seven years after Sean Cunningham died, 12 of the recommendations, which MoD claimed in 2014 to be addressing, were factors in Jonathan Bayliss's death. Most, if not all, were mandated anyway. And most of the Cunningham ones were repeated from previous accidents. For example, the main failure (not conducting disturbed systems testing) repeated that of the Simon Burgess case in 1996. It is the alarming number of recurrences that is the problem; and that is down to the user/regulator. 'Independence' is a cornerstone of airworthiness. There is none in MoD.

[Chugalug2]

This always makes me chuckle... As an overused and alarmist strap line, it just doesn’t work for me. Why? Because there are literally thousands of self-regulated aircraft flying in the world right now in civil hands and they aren’t killing people any faster than any other? :cool:
You would be far better to quote “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.”

I must be losing my touch. I wasn't intending chuckles with that strap line, rather perhaps irritation amongst the apologists. Ah well, you can't win them all. As to your suggestion, there is a lot of truth in it I admit, but it's less of a strap line and more of a ramble wouldn't you say? Nonetheless, neglect, indeed gross neglect, led to many of the avoidable deaths featured in so many of the fatal accident threads here. The Gross Neglect of Very Senior RAF Officers that is, and the subsequent cover up of their Gross Neglect by succeeding RAF Very Senior Officers. You can learn a lot about it in David Hill's Kindle Book 'Red5', £3.99, as mentioned in previous posts:-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RED-investigation-Flight-Lieutenant-Cunningham-ebook/dp/B07VTN8NVZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OMOQTK5UZ5U7&dchild=1&keywords=red+5&qid=1586851094&s=digital-text&sprefix=red+5%2Cdigital-text%2C167&sr=1-1

[The B Word]

:ok: D’accord...

[cafesolo]

Tuc: Yours above: delighted to read that there may be an addition to your trio. Please,pse,pse.may it be issued in print on paper ? I'm still hoping that the Red case will appear in this format,one day. Best wishes.

[tucumseh]

Tuc: Yours above: delighted to read that there may be an addition to your trio. Please,pse,pse.may it be issued in print on paper ? I'm still hoping that the Red case will appear in this format,one day. Best wishes.

cafesolo

PM me. I can post one. No money involved. Donation to a hospice or H4H at your discretion. Limited stock.