MoD may destroy Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash records
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
I was one of the first five to sign and was a little alarmed when it went offline. Good to see it back again.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donkey
Good first post! Unfortunately, MoD confirms it doesn't hold the 1992-3 (un)airworthiness documents I mention. Luckily, we have two letters signed a few weeks after the accident confirming the Air Staff knew beforehand it wasn't airworthy. MoD and Ministers (esp Adam Ingram) denied their existence, but Lord Philip chose to believe the physical evidence.
As you've worked in an aircraft IPT (as have I) can you ever recall the concept of a time-limited Release to Service? The Chinook HC Mk2 one ran out two weeks after the accident. It was for ground training and familiarisation only, and this was to be extended because Controller Aircraft had stated it was not airworthy. To me, the very notion is barking but someone else might say it was common practice.
Good first post! Unfortunately, MoD confirms it doesn't hold the 1992-3 (un)airworthiness documents I mention. Luckily, we have two letters signed a few weeks after the accident confirming the Air Staff knew beforehand it wasn't airworthy. MoD and Ministers (esp Adam Ingram) denied their existence, but Lord Philip chose to believe the physical evidence.
As you've worked in an aircraft IPT (as have I) can you ever recall the concept of a time-limited Release to Service? The Chinook HC Mk2 one ran out two weeks after the accident. It was for ground training and familiarisation only, and this was to be extended because Controller Aircraft had stated it was not airworthy. To me, the very notion is barking but someone else might say it was common practice.
I wasn't implying that the aircraft were fit to fly, only that all documentation should, by MoDs own rules, be retained and not destroyed. I don't see how any other organisation can claim that their rules are different, as I recall it is a flow down from CAA/EASA regulations.
I was actually on HEIPT but the same rules apply to airframe as engines.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
196 Signatures now!
I've signed.
Checked daily and signed as soon as it I found it live again, at number 38 or so. Also written to my MP, although I suspect he has currently more urgent issues on his agenda.
Just a numbered other
Thanks kintyred (😂love it) for the recommendation. I missed it earlier somehow. A great read I’m about a third through. David Hill writes a very compelling account somewhat in the style of one of our contributors here! 🤔
The appearance of the name of my ex-MP Andrew Robathan in the narrative explains a lot. He refused to see any of my points during the campaign, against my reasoned arguments.*
Now I know he was being shmoosed in Philadelphia by Boeing as the crash happened goes some way to explain his intransigence.*
His initial answer to me to me that he ‘doesn’t sign EDM’s’ was just one of his obfuscations. (I’m too polite to use the word ‘lies’) He was less than pleased when I sent him a list of those he had signed.*
Politicians eh? His toeing of the party line served him well. Now known as Lord Robathan of Poultney.*
Last edited by Arkroyal; 1st Feb 2019 at 13:14.
Signed.
I never had anything to do with the accident, or the investigation. But I did occupy a post at MoD at the time where I saw the iterating draft reports - which told me more than enough to believe firmly that these documents should be archived and ultimately in the public domain.
G
I never had anything to do with the accident, or the investigation. But I did occupy a post at MoD at the time where I saw the iterating draft reports - which told me more than enough to believe firmly that these documents should be archived and ultimately in the public domain.
G