Chinook - Still Hitting Back
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be good if the Inquiry called John Cooke and asked him the specific question -
'Exactly who ordered you to order Sqn Lr Burke to stop assisting the BOI and why?' I know JC and will never believe he would issue this order off his own bat - he has far too much integrity for that.
Then call that individual and so on up the line until we find out exactly who it was who originated the order and for what reason. Their Lordships on the Inquiry are in a prime position to probe this line and clear up the muddied waters.
This is a very significant point in this whole sorry affair.
'Exactly who ordered you to order Sqn Lr Burke to stop assisting the BOI and why?' I know JC and will never believe he would issue this order off his own bat - he has far too much integrity for that.
Then call that individual and so on up the line until we find out exactly who it was who originated the order and for what reason. Their Lordships on the Inquiry are in a prime position to probe this line and clear up the muddied waters.
This is a very significant point in this whole sorry affair.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Collective groan - Brians back!)
Air Marshal Day has been recalled to appear before their Lordships this Wednesday. Perhaps they could ask him if he knows where the order started from. He may know, but then again, he may not.
Nice little article about the campaign web site in the Nov issue of Flyer mag - Thanks. Nearly up to 300 names. Please keep 'em coming.
Updates after Wednesday.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Air Marshal Day has been recalled to appear before their Lordships this Wednesday. Perhaps they could ask him if he knows where the order started from. He may know, but then again, he may not.
Nice little article about the campaign web site in the Nov issue of Flyer mag - Thanks. Nearly up to 300 names. Please keep 'em coming.
Updates after Wednesday.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian is back! What would we do without you Brian!
I think it is most interesting that Day has been summoned before their Lordships once again. Does it perhaps, send a signal that they are unhappy with his 'evidence'? Such as it was - especially since there has been other evidence that appeared not to have been noted, or taken notice of, but was very important indeed? It just makes Andy Pulford right all along in my humble opinion.
If they damn Day, and I hope they do, I would just love to see him forced to retire for dereliction of duty.
I think it is most interesting that Day has been summoned before their Lordships once again. Does it perhaps, send a signal that they are unhappy with his 'evidence'? Such as it was - especially since there has been other evidence that appeared not to have been noted, or taken notice of, but was very important indeed? It just makes Andy Pulford right all along in my humble opinion.
If they damn Day, and I hope they do, I would just love to see him forced to retire for dereliction of duty.
Just a numbered other
I too welcome you back, Brian. Hope the hols were good.
Infine. I'd love to see that too. I'll be in the chamber tomorrow to see the man squirm...But I really don't care what happens to him, only that Jon and Rick are vindicated.
Day and Wratten will know that they were wrong to blame others for their shortcomings...and so will we.
Infine. I'd love to see that too. I'll be in the chamber tomorrow to see the man squirm...But I really don't care what happens to him, only that Jon and Rick are vindicated.
Day and Wratten will know that they were wrong to blame others for their shortcomings...and so will we.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey! Thanks for the welcome back Infin & Ark. Hols were great and I am now in possession of fully recharged batteries ready for (what may be) the final push.
I have heard that Mr Wratten may also be recalled on Wed 7th Nov, although this is unconfirmed at the moment.
I wonder if there will be another slide show!! I could bring my holiday ones along.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I have heard that Mr Wratten may also be recalled on Wed 7th Nov, although this is unconfirmed at the moment.
I wonder if there will be another slide show!! I could bring my holiday ones along.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Well, it was the final day of the Lords' inquiry yesterday and a good turn out by ppruners!
Air Cdr Crawford repeated exactly what he said in his comments on the BOI but did admit that some of it was conjecture.
The AAIB was asked a series of technical questions which culminated in a couple of very interesting quotes -
Tony Cable admitted that it was a very difficult case and that "evidence was very thin on the ground".
Ken Smart, head of the AAIB, interupted the questioning at one point to rightly point out that it is not an exact science - he also said that those parties that used the AAIB report to dismiss any technical failure out of hand were wrong.
Bob Burke returned to the stand to explain further problems with the reconstruction of the final seconds of flight. He was also challenged by a letter from Wg Cdr Cooke - the OC Ops Bob had said told him not to help the AAIB. The letter was from Wg Cdr Cooke to the MOD saying that the conversation didn't take place. An interesting one that.
Finally Wratten & Day (resplendent in his tight fitting No 1s) had the last word. They started by churning out their first statements again which just had everyone dying of boredom. Even the committee began to chat amongst themselves on a couple of occasions and Day was spouting to himself. Interestingly their argument is now that the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change and clear of cloud. So, although no rules or regulations were broken in any way, the 2 pilots were gulity of gross negligence because, in the AM's opinion, the aircraft was under control before the WP change and hence should have been steered away from the Mull before it became a factor in any subsequent emergency.
Hmmm, I fear the are getting desperate!
[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
Air Cdr Crawford repeated exactly what he said in his comments on the BOI but did admit that some of it was conjecture.
The AAIB was asked a series of technical questions which culminated in a couple of very interesting quotes -
Tony Cable admitted that it was a very difficult case and that "evidence was very thin on the ground".
Ken Smart, head of the AAIB, interupted the questioning at one point to rightly point out that it is not an exact science - he also said that those parties that used the AAIB report to dismiss any technical failure out of hand were wrong.
Bob Burke returned to the stand to explain further problems with the reconstruction of the final seconds of flight. He was also challenged by a letter from Wg Cdr Cooke - the OC Ops Bob had said told him not to help the AAIB. The letter was from Wg Cdr Cooke to the MOD saying that the conversation didn't take place. An interesting one that.
Finally Wratten & Day (resplendent in his tight fitting No 1s) had the last word. They started by churning out their first statements again which just had everyone dying of boredom. Even the committee began to chat amongst themselves on a couple of occasions and Day was spouting to himself. Interestingly their argument is now that the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change and clear of cloud. So, although no rules or regulations were broken in any way, the 2 pilots were gulity of gross negligence because, in the AM's opinion, the aircraft was under control before the WP change and hence should have been steered away from the Mull before it became a factor in any subsequent emergency.
Hmmm, I fear the are getting desperate!
[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I'm still curious about - the transponder code which was found to be set at 7760. What code would you expect the Chinook to be using - 7000? A specifically assigned code?
Fascinating show yesterday, well worth the numb arse from four hours on a wooden bench!
Fascinating show yesterday, well worth the numb arse from four hours on a wooden bench!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had almost forgotten quite how reptilian Wratten was until his camp, sibillant tones slithered across the airwaves last night on 'Today in Parliament'.
To those wishing to see their Lordships rub their Airships' faces in it: I fear you will hope in vain. As commented previously, there will probably be some formulaic get-out: "The reviewing officers understandably based their conclusions upon evidence which has subsequently been found to have been incomplete and gathered subjectively. In the light of this, their original conclusion cannot be sustained." In any event, the aim is to clear Jon & Rick, not to scupper Day and Wrotten, however much they deserve it.
If JN's assessment of the last day is right, and if their Lordships do decide to do the decent thing: It will be interesting to see if Day will carry out his threat to resign. For resettlement, in days of yore, the brick-laying course was exceedingly popular among senior officers. Perhaps he should get his name down pronto.
We could also collect, via pprune, a list of volunteers willing to assist His Airship to pack!
To those wishing to see their Lordships rub their Airships' faces in it: I fear you will hope in vain. As commented previously, there will probably be some formulaic get-out: "The reviewing officers understandably based their conclusions upon evidence which has subsequently been found to have been incomplete and gathered subjectively. In the light of this, their original conclusion cannot be sustained." In any event, the aim is to clear Jon & Rick, not to scupper Day and Wrotten, however much they deserve it.
If JN's assessment of the last day is right, and if their Lordships do decide to do the decent thing: It will be interesting to see if Day will carry out his threat to resign. For resettlement, in days of yore, the brick-laying course was exceedingly popular among senior officers. Perhaps he should get his name down pronto.
We could also collect, via pprune, a list of volunteers willing to assist His Airship to pack!
I have to agree with Mr Ploppy, this case is far from won. Day is a very powerful figure and in the past he has always had the backing of the Defence Minister. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the inquiry.
The most important thing is to see the 2 pilot's names cleared. Though I have to admit, it was nice to see him squirm when the flaws in his argument and his conclusions to the BOI were pointed out!
The most important thing is to see the 2 pilot's names cleared. Though I have to admit, it was nice to see him squirm when the flaws in his argument and his conclusions to the BOI were pointed out!
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had a holiday so my packing qualification is current. I'd be happy to volunteer!
Much has already been said about the last public session so here's one or two points that I picked up on.
Air Cdr Crawford commented that the crews were dealing on an almost daily basis with the problems of FADEC and FRCs.
Sqn Ldr Burke again gave a strong account of himself.
The AAIB were put under some pressure by their Lordships but maintained their stance that pre impact unserviceability could not be discounted.
The two Air Marshals - The negligence now moves to just prior to the waypoint change "because we know that there were no problems". Sorry, were you there then?
Air Chief Marshal Day stated that he flew the route a few days before this final meeting and that the weather was "remarkably similar" to that of the 2 June.
Sorry, were you there then?
Air Marshal Day commented again that the lighthouse keeper had not heard a change in engine noise. He was then asked why the lighthouse keeper did not hear a change in noise when the aircraft flared. Long pause, no answer forthcoming.
Air Marshal Day then made a comparison of a motorist driving at speed down a foggy motorway and rapidly approaching the rear of an articulated lorry. As he braked, the brakes failed and the driver crashed into the lorry. He said the driver would have been negligent for his actions by going too fast in limited visibility.
Two points.
First, the chance of a lorry being in your path is random - approaching land mass isn't. If you know something is there would you knowingly hurtle towards it?
Second, I think that in such circumstances if the brakes failed, you would have a good chance of suing the manufacturer for a faulty product. But then again, the Government knows about suing manufacturers already. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Mister P. I agree with your comments regarding a formulaic get-out. I personally believe that it was offered to the Air Marshals yesterday but they either could not recognise the offer or were too arrogant to accept.
Again, their Lordships were extremely fair. I can do no more than wait with the rest of everyone interested in this injustice for their decision.
Thanks also to everyone who was able to attend and show their support for Rick and Jon and their families.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for layout and podgy finger syndrome.
[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
Much has already been said about the last public session so here's one or two points that I picked up on.
Air Cdr Crawford commented that the crews were dealing on an almost daily basis with the problems of FADEC and FRCs.
Sqn Ldr Burke again gave a strong account of himself.
The AAIB were put under some pressure by their Lordships but maintained their stance that pre impact unserviceability could not be discounted.
The two Air Marshals - The negligence now moves to just prior to the waypoint change "because we know that there were no problems". Sorry, were you there then?
Air Chief Marshal Day stated that he flew the route a few days before this final meeting and that the weather was "remarkably similar" to that of the 2 June.
Sorry, were you there then?
Air Marshal Day commented again that the lighthouse keeper had not heard a change in engine noise. He was then asked why the lighthouse keeper did not hear a change in noise when the aircraft flared. Long pause, no answer forthcoming.
Air Marshal Day then made a comparison of a motorist driving at speed down a foggy motorway and rapidly approaching the rear of an articulated lorry. As he braked, the brakes failed and the driver crashed into the lorry. He said the driver would have been negligent for his actions by going too fast in limited visibility.
Two points.
First, the chance of a lorry being in your path is random - approaching land mass isn't. If you know something is there would you knowingly hurtle towards it?
Second, I think that in such circumstances if the brakes failed, you would have a good chance of suing the manufacturer for a faulty product. But then again, the Government knows about suing manufacturers already. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Mister P. I agree with your comments regarding a formulaic get-out. I personally believe that it was offered to the Air Marshals yesterday but they either could not recognise the offer or were too arrogant to accept.
Again, their Lordships were extremely fair. I can do no more than wait with the rest of everyone interested in this injustice for their decision.
Thanks also to everyone who was able to attend and show their support for Rick and Jon and their families.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for layout and podgy finger syndrome.
[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
Just a numbered other
Brian, Chocks, John
You've said it all really. My favourite memories of yesterday must be, from sitting close behind Day during his repeated Mantra (If you repeat it enough, you may even convince yourself), was noticing a slight hesitation in his delivery. On looking up, Their Lordships were sharing a private joke, and ignoring him completely
And more telling, Lord Brennan (Star performer) to Day (and I paraphrase) 'To continue your logic, that the negligence was committed before waypoint change, then even if disaster had been averted, the pilots would still have been guilty of negligence?' Day: 'Yes'
'And, if subsequent to waypoint change, some mechanical failure had occurred, then the negligence would still have been committed?'
Silence
'Bit Harsh?'
Mumble
edit for digit trouble
[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]
You've said it all really. My favourite memories of yesterday must be, from sitting close behind Day during his repeated Mantra (If you repeat it enough, you may even convince yourself), was noticing a slight hesitation in his delivery. On looking up, Their Lordships were sharing a private joke, and ignoring him completely
And more telling, Lord Brennan (Star performer) to Day (and I paraphrase) 'To continue your logic, that the negligence was committed before waypoint change, then even if disaster had been averted, the pilots would still have been guilty of negligence?' Day: 'Yes'
'And, if subsequent to waypoint change, some mechanical failure had occurred, then the negligence would still have been committed?'
Silence
'Bit Harsh?'
Mumble
edit for digit trouble
[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny! Something keeps reminding me of the film "A Few Good Men" - perhaps it's the title which seems very apt in regard to Jon, Rick and all the others.
What springs to mind is when Tom Cruise asks Jack Nicholson for the "truth!" Jack Nicholson replied, "the truth? You can't handle the truth!".
I see it as not one, but two AM's in that position, who have been interrogated and have not been able to give the truth as to their findings, making up one reason after another without the grounds to do so, and perhaps, telling others to keep their mouths shut.
A further line followed from TC which said "you are going to jail, you son of a bitch!" I hope that means that Day must resign and join his mate who escaped having to do so.
Bit dramatic perhaps, but you gotta admit it does have a nice ring to it.
What springs to mind is when Tom Cruise asks Jack Nicholson for the "truth!" Jack Nicholson replied, "the truth? You can't handle the truth!".
I see it as not one, but two AM's in that position, who have been interrogated and have not been able to give the truth as to their findings, making up one reason after another without the grounds to do so, and perhaps, telling others to keep their mouths shut.
A further line followed from TC which said "you are going to jail, you son of a bitch!" I hope that means that Day must resign and join his mate who escaped having to do so.
Bit dramatic perhaps, but you gotta admit it does have a nice ring to it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding timescale, Lord Chalfont suggested (immediately following the latest hearing) that the report of the Select Committee is liable to be delivered to the House of Lords "in about a month".
Tony Cable and Ken Smart (both AAIB) said several things to indicate to their lordships (beyond any doubt whatsoever(!)), that the AAIB's conclusions cannot be considered gospel:
"it is not an exact science" TC
"without a Flight Data Recorder ..... you cannot be sure" KS
"[the wreckage] presents evidence in a scrambled form" KS
TC also stated that analysis of the wreckage was complicated by the fact that there were 3 or 4 separate impacts "over a few seconds" and that "the evidence was remarkably thin".
Perhaps most vitally, he went on to say, "it's not possible to prove serviceability".
When the AM's stood by their finding of negligence, I particularly liked Lord Brennan's question: "If the negligence was so obvious, why did the other [Board of Inquiry] investigators miss it".
I suppose it's not surprising that the 2 old RAF men stuck to their guns. What would they have said otherwise ..."Do you know my Lord, you may have a point there, perhaps they weren't negligent after all"?
I strongly believe that the negligence ticket will be dropped. Let's hope that their lordships find a suitable put-down for their airships. I think that Day only went for negligence because he was aware of Wratten's views and wanted to score points with his boss. For the record, Wratten's letter to his senior commanders includes the following words:
".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"
These words were written in February 1995 (ie following the crash, but before Day & Wratten added their comments to the BoI).
These two AM's are a disgrace and should be disgraced. Let's hope that the Lords can find a good way to do this.
Tony Cable and Ken Smart (both AAIB) said several things to indicate to their lordships (beyond any doubt whatsoever(!)), that the AAIB's conclusions cannot be considered gospel:
"it is not an exact science" TC
"without a Flight Data Recorder ..... you cannot be sure" KS
"[the wreckage] presents evidence in a scrambled form" KS
TC also stated that analysis of the wreckage was complicated by the fact that there were 3 or 4 separate impacts "over a few seconds" and that "the evidence was remarkably thin".
Perhaps most vitally, he went on to say, "it's not possible to prove serviceability".
When the AM's stood by their finding of negligence, I particularly liked Lord Brennan's question: "If the negligence was so obvious, why did the other [Board of Inquiry] investigators miss it".
I suppose it's not surprising that the 2 old RAF men stuck to their guns. What would they have said otherwise ..."Do you know my Lord, you may have a point there, perhaps they weren't negligent after all"?
I strongly believe that the negligence ticket will be dropped. Let's hope that their lordships find a suitable put-down for their airships. I think that Day only went for negligence because he was aware of Wratten's views and wanted to score points with his boss. For the record, Wratten's letter to his senior commanders includes the following words:
".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"
These words were written in February 1995 (ie following the crash, but before Day & Wratten added their comments to the BoI).
These two AM's are a disgrace and should be disgraced. Let's hope that the Lords can find a good way to do this.
Just a numbered other
Meadowbank.
".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"
This extract crystalises in a few lines why we find ouselves at this juncture. The 'wheel in the guilty b@stard' approach to military discipline was alive and well in the Wratten/Day era. That coupled to their Airships feeling that a robust finding would be required due to the scale of the disaster, the importance of the deceased pax; and the need to cover their own shortcomings in management and leadership.
Were their Lordships in possession of this document?
".... I will not tolerate shortcomings of concentration or personal discipline in aircrew. It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever....clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing evidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach ... is no longer appropriate....Formal disciplinary action has always been an option open to us and we should not steer away from it"
This extract crystalises in a few lines why we find ouselves at this juncture. The 'wheel in the guilty b@stard' approach to military discipline was alive and well in the Wratten/Day era. That coupled to their Airships feeling that a robust finding would be required due to the scale of the disaster, the importance of the deceased pax; and the need to cover their own shortcomings in management and leadership.
Were their Lordships in possession of this document?
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark,
great to finally meet in person the other day.
To answer your question about that particular document, I seem to recall that it was brought to their Lordships attention during Mr Wratten's first hearing.
I also recall that there Lordships were somewhat interested in it's content. The question was asked of Wratten, "Was that the frame of mind in which you looked at the facts of the Chinook inquiry: sternly, to see whether you could establish failures by the aircrew? There then followed a long vague answer, which is of course available from the Hansard.
Infin - I'm not sure about A Few Good Men - perhaps the two old guys in the balcony off the Muppet Show?
The jury, as they say, is out.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
great to finally meet in person the other day.
To answer your question about that particular document, I seem to recall that it was brought to their Lordships attention during Mr Wratten's first hearing.
I also recall that there Lordships were somewhat interested in it's content. The question was asked of Wratten, "Was that the frame of mind in which you looked at the facts of the Chinook inquiry: sternly, to see whether you could establish failures by the aircrew? There then followed a long vague answer, which is of course available from the Hansard.
Infin - I'm not sure about A Few Good Men - perhaps the two old guys in the balcony off the Muppet Show?
The jury, as they say, is out.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Day and Wratten
You must read this forum given the circumstances, if you don't then you really are oxygen thieves. It's a fair cop, times up! ministers have resigned for less. We don't want you, you have no credibility. The remaining one of you should collect your pension and go. As for both of you, I hope you sleep at night, knowing how much suffering you have caused the respective families, simply for your political & career aspirations!! You were wrong!! We know- admit it and be done.
You must read this forum given the circumstances, if you don't then you really are oxygen thieves. It's a fair cop, times up! ministers have resigned for less. We don't want you, you have no credibility. The remaining one of you should collect your pension and go. As for both of you, I hope you sleep at night, knowing how much suffering you have caused the respective families, simply for your political & career aspirations!! You were wrong!! We know- admit it and be done.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all that’s now in the public domain I cannot imagine anything other than the removal of gross negligence from Jon and Rick’s otherwise impeccable reputations. This will be a wholly righteous conclusion to this dreadful situation; a situation brought about by two men; Day and Wratton.
There are an increasing amount of posts portraying these two as rogue guns, bent on a crusade to feather their own nest through the death of 29 people.
I feel a bit of a turncoat, as I can’t let this pass without comment.
Sadly both Wratton and Day are nothing more than products of the RAF system, a system that will pick ten to twenty young officers, say 25 years old, and put them on the greasy pole. Those who make the next gate kiss of any future involving a practical, hands on knowledge of flying (and fighting) and start to get groomed to be the movers and shakers of the RAF ie; politics and admin! By the time these guys are 40 they’re already five years behind their old sqn oppos. From there on in it can only get worst. Hit air rank and your decisions go unquestioned, bar a polite “but sir” which, I assume, is easily ignored. These guys must really start to think that they really do have all the answers.
This injustice will forever be a stain on the history of the Royal Air Force, however to lay the blame solely at the feet of these two men will only lead to similar crass management in the future.
There are an increasing amount of posts portraying these two as rogue guns, bent on a crusade to feather their own nest through the death of 29 people.
I feel a bit of a turncoat, as I can’t let this pass without comment.
Sadly both Wratton and Day are nothing more than products of the RAF system, a system that will pick ten to twenty young officers, say 25 years old, and put them on the greasy pole. Those who make the next gate kiss of any future involving a practical, hands on knowledge of flying (and fighting) and start to get groomed to be the movers and shakers of the RAF ie; politics and admin! By the time these guys are 40 they’re already five years behind their old sqn oppos. From there on in it can only get worst. Hit air rank and your decisions go unquestioned, bar a polite “but sir” which, I assume, is easily ignored. These guys must really start to think that they really do have all the answers.
This injustice will forever be a stain on the history of the Royal Air Force, however to lay the blame solely at the feet of these two men will only lead to similar crass management in the future.