Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal
I am sure you are right, in as much as, we all have pretty similar ideas about the accident, the subsequent Board of Inquiry, and the difficulty of proving technical malfunctions.
All I would say is please don't fall for the hearsay that suggests that we KNOW the aircraft was flown at the Mull, under control at high speed, low level, and in poor weather.
We (in fact no-one) KNOWS any such thing. But that is precisely the point.
There was no flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder, no eye witnesses, tragically, no survivors, no radar traces, and no radio calls. (Incidentally, anyone who tries to imply that absence of a mayday call PROVES normality in the cockpit, hasn't looked at many a/c accidents!)
Everything is assumption.
All that was left was a smouldering heap of wreckage on a deserted Scottish hillside. (20% of the a/c was completely destroyed by the post impact fire.) The AAIB said it was impossible to verify the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft.
No information retrieved from the wreckage proves anything.
Would you like your reputation to be trashed in such circumstances?
Would you like people repeating inaccurate hearsay about the circumstances of the accident?
Would you like those you left behind to be wrestling with this situation?
I,m guessing the answer is no.
In that case, and on behalf of our colleagues who died on 2nd June 1994, I ask you to do what Brian Dixon has frequently requested. That is, contact your MP, to support Lord Chalfont and his campaign group.
I promise you, we can make a difference.
I hope you and your family never need someone in your life to do the same for you.
To everyone reading this posting, Jon Tapper, and Rick Cook need our help.
They deserved better.
I am sure you are right, in as much as, we all have pretty similar ideas about the accident, the subsequent Board of Inquiry, and the difficulty of proving technical malfunctions.
All I would say is please don't fall for the hearsay that suggests that we KNOW the aircraft was flown at the Mull, under control at high speed, low level, and in poor weather.
We (in fact no-one) KNOWS any such thing. But that is precisely the point.
There was no flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder, no eye witnesses, tragically, no survivors, no radar traces, and no radio calls. (Incidentally, anyone who tries to imply that absence of a mayday call PROVES normality in the cockpit, hasn't looked at many a/c accidents!)
Everything is assumption.
All that was left was a smouldering heap of wreckage on a deserted Scottish hillside. (20% of the a/c was completely destroyed by the post impact fire.) The AAIB said it was impossible to verify the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft.
No information retrieved from the wreckage proves anything.
Would you like your reputation to be trashed in such circumstances?
Would you like people repeating inaccurate hearsay about the circumstances of the accident?
Would you like those you left behind to be wrestling with this situation?
I,m guessing the answer is no.
In that case, and on behalf of our colleagues who died on 2nd June 1994, I ask you to do what Brian Dixon has frequently requested. That is, contact your MP, to support Lord Chalfont and his campaign group.
I promise you, we can make a difference.
I hope you and your family never need someone in your life to do the same for you.
To everyone reading this posting, Jon Tapper, and Rick Cook need our help.
They deserved better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captains Shytorque and Tandemrotor
I am fairly new to the military threads, and only came here because ofmy feelings that justice had not been served over the Chinook crash.
We really are on the same side, and I am sorry if my postings have given the inpression that I have made up my mind about the cause. I haven't, and as we all agree, nobody ever can, due to the lack of evidence.
The spineless b'stards who condemned your colleagues are below contempt, and I will take up your suggestions and write to my MP, who I know is ex Royal Marine and air minded, having had a night's aquaint at a police ASU at which I was a pilot.
My only thrust was that when the innocent man stands accused of murder, he may go for a plea of manslaughter if he sees that as the only alternative to being found guilty of murder.Not perfect, not justice, but maybe practical
If total exoneration cannot be achieved, then the very least we should accept is removal of the slur of negligence. This is not the same as admitting to error either.
I'm with you tandem, we can make a difference.
I am fairly new to the military threads, and only came here because ofmy feelings that justice had not been served over the Chinook crash.
We really are on the same side, and I am sorry if my postings have given the inpression that I have made up my mind about the cause. I haven't, and as we all agree, nobody ever can, due to the lack of evidence.
The spineless b'stards who condemned your colleagues are below contempt, and I will take up your suggestions and write to my MP, who I know is ex Royal Marine and air minded, having had a night's aquaint at a police ASU at which I was a pilot.
My only thrust was that when the innocent man stands accused of murder, he may go for a plea of manslaughter if he sees that as the only alternative to being found guilty of murder.Not perfect, not justice, but maybe practical
If total exoneration cannot be achieved, then the very least we should accept is removal of the slur of negligence. This is not the same as admitting to error either.
I'm with you tandem, we can make a difference.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
Hope you got the E-Mail with attachment. It is probably too long to put on the site but if you can enter a decent link to help others I'd be grateful. I'm OK at campaigning, but pants at computing!
Tandemrotor,
Don't forget only one engine survived enough to be examined. I recall that it was deemed to be in working order but with a 'E5' fault code in the surviving DECU. There was an asumption that if one engine was working correctly (how could they say that with an E5 error code?) then the other engine must have been. Speculation!!!
(E5 Code - A difference in the signals from the two sensors that measure engine turbine speed)
Arkroyal
I don't think anyone doubts that you are in agreement with the rest of us, but it took a while for you to get your point across. Thank you for contacting your MP regarding the Mull of Kintyre Group (Lord Chalfont - Chair). All support is greatfully received.
I must, however, point out that there will be no plea bargaining. Rick and Jon should never have been accused, let alone found guilty, of negligence. There will be no compromise.
"Justice has no expiry date."
Hope you got the E-Mail with attachment. It is probably too long to put on the site but if you can enter a decent link to help others I'd be grateful. I'm OK at campaigning, but pants at computing!
Tandemrotor,
Don't forget only one engine survived enough to be examined. I recall that it was deemed to be in working order but with a 'E5' fault code in the surviving DECU. There was an asumption that if one engine was working correctly (how could they say that with an E5 error code?) then the other engine must have been. Speculation!!!
(E5 Code - A difference in the signals from the two sensors that measure engine turbine speed)
Arkroyal
I don't think anyone doubts that you are in agreement with the rest of us, but it took a while for you to get your point across. Thank you for contacting your MP regarding the Mull of Kintyre Group (Lord Chalfont - Chair). All support is greatfully received.
I must, however, point out that there will be no plea bargaining. Rick and Jon should never have been accused, let alone found guilty, of negligence. There will be no compromise.
"Justice has no expiry date."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a thought with regard to the news that two Fairey Battle WWII aircrews' remains are to be recovered from Iceland. They crashed into the top of a hill, as did many other unfortunate aircrew from that era.
How many of them were accused of gross negligence? None. They will probably be buried with honours.
How many of them were accused of gross negligence? None. They will probably be buried with honours.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look, John, I know that you have to earn a living like the rest of us but you know you really are flogging a dead horse with this story. Wratten was absolutely right. There is no way that this accident was caused by anything other than crew negligence.
You would be far better adviser to write a balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident (ie: what it was that caused a well trained crew to fly a perfectly servicable aicraft smack into a mountain.)
Incidentally, why is it that evryone seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers.
You would be far better adviser to write a balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident (ie: what it was that caused a well trained crew to fly a perfectly servicable aicraft smack into a mountain.)
Incidentally, why is it that evryone seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I went back to edit this,, because your insensitivity and unwillingness to see that there is plenty of contradicting evidence drove me to extreme intemperance.
I began by saying "I was going to say that there was only one word for people like you, Dragon. Scum.
But then I came up with financial adviser, tw@t, @rsehole, Łuckwit, and many many more. Open your mind, you pygmy!"
And I apologise for all that. I'm sure you're a smashing chap, and that if we met in a pub we'd enjoy a pint and a chat/line-shoot. But I am genuinely astonished that an ex military aviator and professional chap could be so black and white about this, and so insensitive. I'm also getting a little bit sick about the constant jibes at journos and the press. If you want a better press, help us make it better. Anyway, back on-thread....
Yes, it could have been negligence (but gross negligence is a bit strong) - but bear in mind that even Bill Wratten didn't try to excuse the fact that the aircraft's clearances precluded flight in IMC, and that's why they were trying to maintain VMC. We're talking about reasonable doubt here. And if this was negligent, then what about the SAOEU Harrier? The suicide Tornado? The bent Jag at Incirlik? The two Johns and their Tornado? Where is the negligent line drawn?
It's like pilot error. It is always attributable to pilot error, cos if nothing else, he made the mistake of getting up that morning.
Let's all get a grip - and I guess that includes me!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 23 August 2000).]
I began by saying "I was going to say that there was only one word for people like you, Dragon. Scum.
But then I came up with financial adviser, tw@t, @rsehole, Łuckwit, and many many more. Open your mind, you pygmy!"
And I apologise for all that. I'm sure you're a smashing chap, and that if we met in a pub we'd enjoy a pint and a chat/line-shoot. But I am genuinely astonished that an ex military aviator and professional chap could be so black and white about this, and so insensitive. I'm also getting a little bit sick about the constant jibes at journos and the press. If you want a better press, help us make it better. Anyway, back on-thread....
Yes, it could have been negligence (but gross negligence is a bit strong) - but bear in mind that even Bill Wratten didn't try to excuse the fact that the aircraft's clearances precluded flight in IMC, and that's why they were trying to maintain VMC. We're talking about reasonable doubt here. And if this was negligent, then what about the SAOEU Harrier? The suicide Tornado? The bent Jag at Incirlik? The two Johns and their Tornado? Where is the negligent line drawn?
It's like pilot error. It is always attributable to pilot error, cos if nothing else, he made the mistake of getting up that morning.
Let's all get a grip - and I guess that includes me!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 23 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
percydragon,
Lets face it. Wrotten would not have submitted that piece of misleading filth if he was'nt running scared from the fact that his opinion will eventually be found to be nothing other than complete hoop. The man quite clearly knows nothing about rotary ops or the aircraft in question. If he did he would not have tried to mislead everyone by banging on about the navigation computer. It's amazing how you can cast such aspertions on a professional helicopter crew and disregard the fact that their families have to live with a Wrotten opinion.
Lets face it. Wrotten would not have submitted that piece of misleading filth if he was'nt running scared from the fact that his opinion will eventually be found to be nothing other than complete hoop. The man quite clearly knows nothing about rotary ops or the aircraft in question. If he did he would not have tried to mislead everyone by banging on about the navigation computer. It's amazing how you can cast such aspertions on a professional helicopter crew and disregard the fact that their families have to live with a Wrotten opinion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah Jackoniko. Hit a tender spot there didn't I? You being a Journo and all. I did mean that in all seriousness though. You guys have to come up with sensational stuff to keep your editors happy, and there's nothing better than the old 'top brass conspiracy cover up theory' to keep the readers interested.
The problem with this one is that its going to prove to be a dead story. Incidentally, I also really did mean the bit about the human resources problem. Strange thinsg can happen between crews in the cockpit. I have very nearly committed the same sort of blunder a couple of times while polling an S61 around on the North Sea. Very nerely ploughed into a big lump of rock near Sumburgh with 24 oilies on board. If I had hit it and crashed and burnt, incidentally, the reaction from the media would have been very different. Me being a Civilian at the time. Think about it.
The problem with this one is that its going to prove to be a dead story. Incidentally, I also really did mean the bit about the human resources problem. Strange thinsg can happen between crews in the cockpit. I have very nearly committed the same sort of blunder a couple of times while polling an S61 around on the North Sea. Very nerely ploughed into a big lump of rock near Sumburgh with 24 oilies on board. If I had hit it and crashed and burnt, incidentally, the reaction from the media would have been very different. Me being a Civilian at the time. Think about it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy Drag
Welcome to the debate. People wishing to be associated with those seeking to blame the two dead pilots, are indeed (and IMHO, thankfully) very few and far between. I congratulate you on raising your head above the parapet.
Because of the anonymous nature of these forums, we can only make assumptions about your relative (and relevant) experience in these matters. Whilst that may not be crucial in assessing the weight we should give to your comments, it may help us to identify where you are coming from. Care to help us?
Again, making assumptions, I can only imagine that anyone making comments such as yours, has either not read the full Board of Inquiry report, or that you didn't really understand it. I do for example wonder how you seem to know better than the Wg Cdr who actually conducted the investigation.
You say: "There is no way that this accident was caused by anything other than crew negligence."
He says:
1) "There were many potential causes of the accident and despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause." BOI para 61.
2) "It would be incorrect to criticise him (the captain) for human failings based on the available evidence." Because the Board were unable to positively determine the sequence of events leading up to the accident. BOI para 67c.
3) "The Board concluded there were no human failings with respect to (the co-pilot)." BOI para 68.
You advise (not quite sure who) to write a " balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident."
How about if I give you a quote from a report commissioned by our very own Board of Inquiry, entitled "Accident to Chinook ZD576 on 2nd June 1994" written by J W Chappelow, Principle Psychologist at the Institute of Aviation Medicine.
He says: "The lack of a CVR on the Chinook has two major consequences: The competence and skill of the crew are unavoidably but invidiously called into question in a speculative manner. And, if they did fail, the lessons that could have been learned from their tragic error are denied to their colleagues."
In your second posting you say you have very nearly committed the same 'blunder' yourself a couple of times, whilst 'poling' an S61 around the North Sea. Now, without wishing to pass comment on your professional ability, you are still around to tell us of any extenuating, or unusual circumstances surrounding these incidents (which of course you reported, so lessons could be learned.) However our two pilots can no longer give us their version of events - whatever they were!
You say,"why is it that evryone (sic) seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers."
My question is only this; do the "widows and children" of the two dead pilots deserve any less sympathy? What precisely did they do wrong?
Incidentally, you may like to know that a large number of those passenger's "widows and children" do not believe the official version of pilot negligence.
Finally, you use the terms "flogging a dead horse", and "dead story".
Well my friend, this "dead story" has been running for six (that's SIX) years now, and I think this particular "dead horse" will run and run!
I genuinely hope you have the bo****ks to post a reply, explaining how you seem to know more than those who investigated this accident, but in case you don't, should we just assume you have wound your neck in?
Remember, watch this space.
Welcome to the debate. People wishing to be associated with those seeking to blame the two dead pilots, are indeed (and IMHO, thankfully) very few and far between. I congratulate you on raising your head above the parapet.
Because of the anonymous nature of these forums, we can only make assumptions about your relative (and relevant) experience in these matters. Whilst that may not be crucial in assessing the weight we should give to your comments, it may help us to identify where you are coming from. Care to help us?
Again, making assumptions, I can only imagine that anyone making comments such as yours, has either not read the full Board of Inquiry report, or that you didn't really understand it. I do for example wonder how you seem to know better than the Wg Cdr who actually conducted the investigation.
You say: "There is no way that this accident was caused by anything other than crew negligence."
He says:
1) "There were many potential causes of the accident and despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause." BOI para 61.
2) "It would be incorrect to criticise him (the captain) for human failings based on the available evidence." Because the Board were unable to positively determine the sequence of events leading up to the accident. BOI para 67c.
3) "The Board concluded there were no human failings with respect to (the co-pilot)." BOI para 68.
You advise (not quite sure who) to write a " balanced and reasoned article analysing the human factors behind the accident."
How about if I give you a quote from a report commissioned by our very own Board of Inquiry, entitled "Accident to Chinook ZD576 on 2nd June 1994" written by J W Chappelow, Principle Psychologist at the Institute of Aviation Medicine.
He says: "The lack of a CVR on the Chinook has two major consequences: The competence and skill of the crew are unavoidably but invidiously called into question in a speculative manner. And, if they did fail, the lessons that could have been learned from their tragic error are denied to their colleagues."
In your second posting you say you have very nearly committed the same 'blunder' yourself a couple of times, whilst 'poling' an S61 around the North Sea. Now, without wishing to pass comment on your professional ability, you are still around to tell us of any extenuating, or unusual circumstances surrounding these incidents (which of course you reported, so lessons could be learned.) However our two pilots can no longer give us their version of events - whatever they were!
You say,"why is it that evryone (sic) seems to be feeling sorry for the pilots? I personally have a lot more sympathy for the widows and children of the dead passengers."
My question is only this; do the "widows and children" of the two dead pilots deserve any less sympathy? What precisely did they do wrong?
Incidentally, you may like to know that a large number of those passenger's "widows and children" do not believe the official version of pilot negligence.
Finally, you use the terms "flogging a dead horse", and "dead story".
Well my friend, this "dead story" has been running for six (that's SIX) years now, and I think this particular "dead horse" will run and run!
I genuinely hope you have the bo****ks to post a reply, explaining how you seem to know more than those who investigated this accident, but in case you don't, should we just assume you have wound your neck in?
Remember, watch this space.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tandemrotor, I presume Percy D is advising me to stop flogging the deceased horse. (Good to see you up on the site - hope all is well).
Percy D, I think that it is important that you read all of Tandemrotor's posts on this subject and then tell us where they are wrong. It is all too easy to simply say "It's the pilots wot did it" but you must explain the grounds on which you dismiss the contary evidence.
No-one is saying that the crew could not have been to blame, we are simply saying that there is not one shred of evidence to show that they were. In those circumstances surely we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
As Lord Meeston said in a debate on the subject in the House Of Lords:
"One cannot help feeling that what has been applied here is the Sherlock Holmes approach. When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That simply will not do outside detective fiction."
AVM (retired on full pension)Billy Wrotten is entitled to his opinion on the Chinook crash. But what he, and others, must accept is that with no evidence from CVR, ADR, Radar, Radio or Witness, and with a large proportion of the aircraft destroyed by fire, all they are offering is a personal hypothesis of what may have happened in a possible scenario.
Good enough for a discussion but not nearly enough to find two men guilty of manslaughter.
Interestingly, I held a similar view to yourself a few years ago. Until I sat down and read the full BoI. Try it; you might be surprised.
Percy D, I think that it is important that you read all of Tandemrotor's posts on this subject and then tell us where they are wrong. It is all too easy to simply say "It's the pilots wot did it" but you must explain the grounds on which you dismiss the contary evidence.
No-one is saying that the crew could not have been to blame, we are simply saying that there is not one shred of evidence to show that they were. In those circumstances surely we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
As Lord Meeston said in a debate on the subject in the House Of Lords:
"One cannot help feeling that what has been applied here is the Sherlock Holmes approach. When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That simply will not do outside detective fiction."
AVM (retired on full pension)Billy Wrotten is entitled to his opinion on the Chinook crash. But what he, and others, must accept is that with no evidence from CVR, ADR, Radar, Radio or Witness, and with a large proportion of the aircraft destroyed by fire, all they are offering is a personal hypothesis of what may have happened in a possible scenario.
Good enough for a discussion but not nearly enough to find two men guilty of manslaughter.
Interestingly, I held a similar view to yourself a few years ago. Until I sat down and read the full BoI. Try it; you might be surprised.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
This is supposed to be an anonymous forum.
How,dya guess?
I'm sure lot's of people want to hear Percy Drag's argument. I do hope he doesn't let us off lightly!
By the way, thanks for your article, and thanks for starting the most talked about thread on this forum.
Watch this space.
[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 24 August 2000).]
This is supposed to be an anonymous forum.
How,dya guess?
I'm sure lot's of people want to hear Percy Drag's argument. I do hope he doesn't let us off lightly!
By the way, thanks for your article, and thanks for starting the most talked about thread on this forum.
Watch this space.
[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 24 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have finally had a reply to my questions from the MoD. I'll post the questions first followed by the answers as a seperate posting.
Apologies if some of the questions appear simplistic to you aviators, but please remember I am not of the master race. Merely someone fortunate enough to have worked with these people.
Questions:
1. Following the near total destruction if a Chinook in 1989 and the subsequent legal action against Textron Lycoming, why do the MoD continue to insist that the case was about testing procedures, despite the fact that the Department was accusing Textron and its sub-contractors of having badly designed FADEC and it not meeting international standards?
2. Ministers have stated that Boscombe Down were using an ‘inappropriate’ method of validation to test the software (static code analysis), yet static code analysis was designed by DERA specifically to verify safety-critical software. It has also been used to validate software in aircraft such as the Tornado and Eurofighter. Are you saying that the validation tests on the other aircraft are incorrect and invalid?
3. Could you please confirm the existence of a memo from Boscombe Down criticising the FADEC software, after numerous errors were found. Did this, or any other memo from Boscombe Down, conclude with a recommendation that rewriting the [FADEC] software was essential?
4. Why has the Government chosen to ignore the findings of the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, in particular, the ruling by Sir Stephen Young that both pilots should not be blamed?
5. Who made the decision as to what information would and would not be disclosed to the Air Accident Investigation team (this includes information such as the 1989 incident and the problems experienced by ZD576 in the days prior to the accident).
6. What experience did that individual (or department) have in knowing what would and would not be relevant to investigators?
7. Would it not have been prudent to place all the information before the Air Accident Investigation team, and let them decide what relevance the information was?
8. Can you confirm that, prior being seen by AVM Day and ACM Wratten, the RAF Board of Inquiry stated “….distraction by a technical malfunction could have been a contributory factor in this accident.”
9. Could you please advise me of the names of those involved in giving the authority for releasing into operational service (albeit with limitations) the Mk2 Chinook, after the second suspension of flight trials by Boscombe Down on 01 June 1994.
10. If AVM Day or ACM Wratten were involved in the authority for release into service, would it not have been prudent to have different reviewing officers for the RAF Board of Inquiry? I am, however, not alleging any impropriety by anyone. Merely pointing out what could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.
11. Why is the Tench report still unpublished?
12. Why is the Chinook fleet still without flight recorder equipment?
13. Would you please provide me with the names of those who sit on the Air Force Board of the Defence Council.
Apologies if some of the questions appear simplistic to you aviators, but please remember I am not of the master race. Merely someone fortunate enough to have worked with these people.
Questions:
1. Following the near total destruction if a Chinook in 1989 and the subsequent legal action against Textron Lycoming, why do the MoD continue to insist that the case was about testing procedures, despite the fact that the Department was accusing Textron and its sub-contractors of having badly designed FADEC and it not meeting international standards?
2. Ministers have stated that Boscombe Down were using an ‘inappropriate’ method of validation to test the software (static code analysis), yet static code analysis was designed by DERA specifically to verify safety-critical software. It has also been used to validate software in aircraft such as the Tornado and Eurofighter. Are you saying that the validation tests on the other aircraft are incorrect and invalid?
3. Could you please confirm the existence of a memo from Boscombe Down criticising the FADEC software, after numerous errors were found. Did this, or any other memo from Boscombe Down, conclude with a recommendation that rewriting the [FADEC] software was essential?
4. Why has the Government chosen to ignore the findings of the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, in particular, the ruling by Sir Stephen Young that both pilots should not be blamed?
5. Who made the decision as to what information would and would not be disclosed to the Air Accident Investigation team (this includes information such as the 1989 incident and the problems experienced by ZD576 in the days prior to the accident).
6. What experience did that individual (or department) have in knowing what would and would not be relevant to investigators?
7. Would it not have been prudent to place all the information before the Air Accident Investigation team, and let them decide what relevance the information was?
8. Can you confirm that, prior being seen by AVM Day and ACM Wratten, the RAF Board of Inquiry stated “….distraction by a technical malfunction could have been a contributory factor in this accident.”
9. Could you please advise me of the names of those involved in giving the authority for releasing into operational service (albeit with limitations) the Mk2 Chinook, after the second suspension of flight trials by Boscombe Down on 01 June 1994.
10. If AVM Day or ACM Wratten were involved in the authority for release into service, would it not have been prudent to have different reviewing officers for the RAF Board of Inquiry? I am, however, not alleging any impropriety by anyone. Merely pointing out what could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.
11. Why is the Tench report still unpublished?
12. Why is the Chinook fleet still without flight recorder equipment?
13. Would you please provide me with the names of those who sit on the Air Force Board of the Defence Council.