davaar lad,

Your post #3764 2nd December.

"The point is, how do you, they, anyone know if this was CFIT and certainly not a straightforward VMC/IMC accident, unless you were there, then: how would you?"

Could you please explain what you perceive to be the difference between CFIT and a "straightforward VMC/IMC accident"?

BBC Radio 4 News has just announced that the two pilots involved in this incident
are unlikely to be cleared, as no new evidence has come to light!

Here is a link to the BBC website:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Dead Chinook pilots not cleared

..and presumably after all this time and all of the heartache that will be the final position. I think it's wrong because as their is no conclusive proof either way then the equivalent of a coroner's open verdict should be allowed.

It's a sad indictment of the system that, without that proof, people should be condemned as grossly negligent in all eternity.

nnt:
Why? The MOD is the sole institution of many which have pronounced on this scandal that maintains its own hard line position. Frankly I would have been amazed if they had come up with anything different. Delighted but amazed! The idea now is that we all shuffle off dejected, demoralized and defeated. Well this BOF ain't for shuffling off until the slur on these pilots is removed and honour restored to their Service. Lead on Brian, we're right behind you!

Let Right Be Done

Typical of "Civil Serpents" attitude .. no-one wants/needs/requires any "new evidence" .... the rules at the time applied fairly and correctly to the existing lack of evidence is the requirement.

JB
I will always be appreciative of the help and expert input you have given to me and this forum – and I hold you with great respect as I am certain do most parties interested in this event.
This is why I was dissapointed when you, whose opinion would be given more than average weighting by any reader, so strongly dismissed the idea of a “low level Navex” - it is quite wrong to dismiss such and in consequence many related aspects.
I recall one comment in one of the inquiries when an RAF witness referred to this particular flight as a training flight (can't locate it just now) – when someone seized upon this and asked further, he back-pedalled by saying that all such SF sorties could have a training element (or words to that effect).
Here is another reference to training that I think sums it up:
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHINOOK ZD 576 TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2001 SQUADRON LEADER ROBERT BURKE by Lord Tombs 753. The last few seconds. A. .... Even on a transit trip you try and get the maximum training value out of it and that is the way we operate, that is our protection against being shot down or detection.


Bearing in mind that there was no outgoing brief and that the actual maps used by the crew were not found (in the wreckage) surely you cannot dismiss the possibility of their including an extra activity that could have been accomplished with minimal diversion from their route when passing an ideal location (so often used by such crews for training and where Flt Lt Tapper had landed before) – they had after all got through the Antrim hills at low level – I'm sure the passengers would have found the flight more interesting and not objected.
The latest news is that the pilots are not going to be cleared – there is enough circumstantial evidence for you collectively to put your efforts into consideration of an extra activity – perhaps grounds for a new inquiry.
Remember that the finding of gross negligence was based upon their supposed incorrect rate of climb when intending to overfly the Mull? If you can get your experts together and they form a concensus view that the most reasonable conclusion was, say, that they were intending to land/pass closely to a point on the Mull – then the original finding was baseless.
As I posted to Brian Dixon recently – what have you got to lose?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...rnet/zxzxz.jpg

That might be the view of the nuLabor mis-government. However, I have a letter signed by David Cameron (10 July 2006) safely stored away - in it he states:

So - perhaps another year until the present bunch are booted out of office and then we might finally see some justice.

I was saddened to hear that the crew of this flight are not to be "cleared" over this accident..

Walter Kennedy, cracking point raised which i dont recall seeing anywhere else...

"no maps found in wreckage"

1. Burnt in the wreckage
2. Blown away due to the prevailing wind at the time of impact
3. Secreted away by 1st on scene investigators
4. Cover up by this government, brought on by the fact they, the government authorised the purchase of the Chinook upgrade and because of it, this has bitten them in the butt..!!

I remember seeing the Channel 4 (?) documentary on this with John Nichol, interesting point raised then, was the transponder code settings..

IIRC it was partially set to 7700... not caused by the impact apparently..

House of Lords - Chinook ZD 576 - Minutes of Evidence

as a footnote...

during my time in FI i flew numerous times with Chinook crews and was never in any way concerned by their skill in flying the a/c...

In fact one pilot Lima 4 Charlie, proved his worth during a flight where low cloud came in...!!

He followed a fuel line up over the hill at a very slow speed and completed the task as planned...
Although flying as support crew in the back, all concerned were asked for input,
options:
1. were to land and wait out
2. landing raised the problem of unidentified minefields (this was 1983)
3. try to climb out above the cloud (icing problem ?)

Just wonder how much head banging will continue before these guys are allowed to RIP...!!

Until justice is done. That's how long!

And, as Brian frequently reminds us all:

Have always felt that this crash was a well planned exercise in removing people who could have opposed the peace process in NI.

Reasons why

1.) Standard Operating Procedure within military and civilians leadership is you never put all the eggs in 1 basket, a President and VP never travel together, a Senior General and his deputy never in the same Helicopter etc etc. Think this is drilled into senior military people throughout their life and the people on board the copter would have known it more than anybody that a single hit would do a lot of damage. Why put everybody in 1 copter when a jet can easily be called up. Bear in mind Pilots were on duty for 6 hrs before crash waiting to takeoff.

2.) Those who died lived in paranoia, everwhere they went everything they did outside of a secure base was always done mindful there could be someone with a gun / bomb planted close by. They were the establisment and they ensured they looked after themselves and controlled what was happening. Living like that and being aware of the risk of everybody being on 1 aircraft would mean that someone senior was requiring them in 1 place. These people would err on side of caution always as thats how they lived.

3.) The alledged conference they were supposed to attend never seems to have happened so finding out whether it was ever going to occur, its subject matter, attendees etc would show if it was real or a made up one designed to lull people into a false sense of security. It had to be BIG as these people don't do small events.

4.) The roadblocks to a peace agreement in NI were not either side but the vested intersts that needed the war to continue, the Raison D'etre of existence and their power came from a war. Any settlement of that would make them and their power redundant.

5.) In 1912 elements in the British Army had an internal mutiny over home rule in Ireland and supported Carson and the Unionists. In the 1970's during the Ulster Workers Council strikes the military effectively stood by while anarchy reigned. This was coordinated and run by a select group of individuals who believed themselves untouchable and loyal to themselves and NOT the UK Government. The UK establishment knows history and together with the US would have known what the risks were and who the people who could keep the war going were. Eliminating a risk in an accident is effective and there is no backlash unlike Bloody Sunday in 1920 as no need to look for the perpatrators.

6.) Setting the scene for "an accident" takes some planning but hell even Tom Clancy did this in one of his books by getting a problem logged days earlier or to build up over months to ensure there is enough"Evidence" to stop crash investigators looking further than it being an accident. In relation to this Chinook crash it seems to be all there.

7.) The weather on the Mull was awful on that day with lots of mist, low visibility etc, perfect flying blind weather, where pilots required to use mapping software and rely on it. The Pilots were special forces trained pilots who knew how to use the software and rely on it. Changing the settings so instead of being at 250 feet you are at 150 feet is easily done when you have all the source codes and is pretty hard to prove when the same people who changed it are investigating it. Keeping them on station for 6 hrs before the flight was also part of the ruse as the copter hit the cliffs at full power so blame the pilots.

A government will kill its citizens when its in its interests to do so.

I have always believed that the people who died on the Chinook were killed maybe not by the UK Govt but by someone who was doing a "Black Op" with the full support of the UK Govt.

Lots of loose ends tied up and the barriers to peace have not all disappeared but just being reduced.

Course its only a stage on the path but eliminating blockers also means that other blockers are aware as a clear message has been sent.

Did the elimination help the GFA ?

Most definitely as the opposition was political in origin with no war campaign being carried out by vested interests. http://www.politics.ie/images/misc/progress.gif

racedo,

Perhaps you and WK should find somewhere quiet for a year or three and between you write the definitive book on how those on board ZD 576 were murdered by the Establishment.

I think you would make a lot of Lawyers very happy.

Caz
He's not one of your mates, is he?

It was a little over 20 years ago that I first met Rick in the Mess at Gutersloh; it doesn't seem like 14 since we lost him together with the rest of the crew and passengers. I'm saddened at the latest "no new evidence" line and the irony of such a statement isn't lost on me; there never was enough evidence. I'm sure this isn't the end of the discussion but I do wish that outrageously right of arc theories about conspiracy, hypothetical technical problems etc would go away. As someone recently said, the burden was on the AVMs to demonstrate "no doubt", they did not achieve this.

PS. Like a few people here, I knew exactly what the nature of the task was that day and it has no relevance on the tragic outcome. So racedo, can I suggest that you take your Elvis-found-alive-on-Mars type theory and peddle it somewhere else?

So are you saying that you would load up all your senior officers on one flight without a thought or question ?

Do you think a Government (any) would be unwilling to sacrifice good people for a political objective ?

Of course what I put forward is way out of the field but remember these same politicians are willing to allow people go into a warzone without the appropriate equipment or intel.

racedo,

The task was generated "in-Theatre" utilising "in-Theatre" assets; the number of Pax would have required 2 Puma's or 1 Chinook. To put it another way; the ability to respond to 2 separate incidents at the same time would have to be sacrificed if the Puma's were utilised whereas the use of the Chinook would carry all Pax in one airframe. No request was made for fixed wing Transport Aircraft to perform the task.

Chinook
 

Brian Dixon. Do you now feel free to say what line you took in your presentation to SofS? Regards. JP

racedo, please go back to your Tom Clancy thriller.

He longer brings out good plot lines as all the baddies been beaten

And exactly where do you think he thought up some of his plots from

or had them verified ?

Channel 4 UK new report. Chinook unsafe?
 

Channel 4 has exclusive info on the situation.

Says documents from test pilots on the sad day said "ground them"

7pm news now available

Channel 4 News video player

Hi everybody,
firstly, may I thank you all for your messages of support. I've been through a number of emotions over the last 24 hours or so, but I won't bore you with them here. What I can say at the moment is that we are examining the reply from the MoD and will reply formally in due course. I am, however, amazed that they have returned to the long discredited excuse of no new evidence. Is that the best they can do? :ugh: Shame on them.

Mr Purdey, until we are in a position to make our reply, I don't think it appropriate to make public our submission, so please bear with me a short while longer. I promise that as soon as I can, I will publish the document.

Walter, the spreadsheet, as described to me by the MoD was to "Catalogue documents on the subject". As I was denied access to this document, I don't actually know what documents are on it. However, it appears to have been clarified by Atlantic Cowboy. No intention for it to be a red herring.

Talking of red herrings, please allow me to remind you of answers to questions I asked on your behalf, back in 2005:

Q: Has SSR code 7760 ever been used by an aircraft in other flights to indicate that the aircraft was engaged in the testing/evaluation of ground transponders/navigation aids, or personal locator systems?

A: SSR code 7760 has no meaning and, as far as my enquiries have been able to establish, there is no SSR code dedicated for use when testing such equipment.

Q: Was Chinook HC2 ZD576 tasked with evaluating the performance of a new/temporary navigation aid located on the Mull or a personal locator system in this flight?

A: No. The purpose of the flight was the transit of passengers from Aldergrove to Inverness.

Q: If Chinook HC2 ZD576 was tasked with evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid or personal locator system on that flight, who originated the request, organised the test and supplied the on board equipment?

A: The flight was not tasked for this purpose.

I hope that helps.

There will be a formal response from the Campaign in the near future. Again, I thank you all for your support and ask for your patience whilst we prepare a reply.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Caz
 

Good evening Caz,
Further to your good question.
My comments were directed mostly at BBF who has a rather simplistic (look it up Ken) view of rotary ops. By drawing a parallel with a PPL who "banjos" his a/c into the side of a hill he overlooks the background and experience of the Chinook pilots.
We may have differing views, but in my view a "straightforward IMC/VMC" accident is where the pilot has so little SA that he continues on his intended VMC flight path, plunging into cloud disregarding the fact that it may be concealing terrain. I have changed "classic CFIT" from BBFs' previous post, to "straight forward IMC/VMC" purely to highlight the fact that there is a difference.
This may well be your view of what happened at the Mull of Kyntyre, but I think this is unlikely. Infact BBF suggests this is an occurence which happens regularly in the PPL world. I'd be interested in comparing the statistics between catastrophic mechanical failure amongst helicopters with those of "Classic PPL CFIT"
As for the difference, and i'm not for one moment suggesting that it was "controlled" but causes of CFIT can include

• disorientation
• unreliable navaids
• error of judgement

The point is that they are not exclusively VMC/IMC accidents.
This is academic since no one knows, but if let's say you agree with my assessment, in your opinion do any or all of the above bullet points constitute gross negligence?

rgds

SMK

Lurking 123

May I refer you to the following paragraphs of the BOI as submitted to the AOC:

para 16e

"The weather was suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre."

para 32c

"In the forecast conditions, the icing clearance would have allowed an IMC pull-up from low level flight to Safety Altitude over the Mull of Kintyre."

para 45b

The BOI concluded "that the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident."

para 51

"During this phase of the flight, to continue flying visually, the crew would have needed to adjust the aitcraft's height and airspeed to the prevailing cloudbase and visibility. The Board assessed that the possibility of the crew visually acquiring the lighthouse was remote, given the fact that it was in fog at the time. The hillside from lighthouse elevation to summit was also in cloud, although there were irregular areas of improved visibility up to 500m. The general weather close to the Mull was also very poor, with broken cloud at 200ft and 500m visibility below. Furthermore, any visual contact with the Mull or Lighthouse should have prompted a reduction in height and speed well below those found at impact."

para 54

"If the crew did not have visual contact with the Mull, and had decided not to attempt a landfall in the vicinity of the lighthouse, they would in the opinion of the Board, have been faced with 2 options: to turn away from land and attempt to route VFR towards Corran, parallel to their intended track but over the sea to the west of the mull of Kintyre peninsula, until clear of the poor weather; or to climb on track, accepting a change of flight conditions to IMC if necessary." (See extract from para 32c).

para 56

"The Board considered why the crew had not been alerted to their proximity to the ground, by either visual sighting or radar altimeter information, at any time from coasting - in until the initiation of the flare prior to impact. The lack of visual warning appears to indicate that the crew had lost all visual references and werein IMC during this phase of the flight. ----- The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch which could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground."

Brian
I did appreciate you asking those questions for me but I am surprised that you think them a red herring – 7760 was found set and could have been or still could be a clue as to their actions.
This is a piece of real evidence as opposed to searching for, say, hypothetical control system defects that has taken so much of your time and effort and for which there is no evidence whatsover in this crash – that activity is a red herring if ever there was one.
Remember that it would have been improbable that, by the nature of the selector switches, impact could have got them there from an assumed start of 7000; further, that it would have been bad practice (as recommended and also from a common sense perspective) for the crew to have been bothering to change such a setting in their location and in an immediate emergency.
There was no technical reason why the secondary radar at Lowther Hill would not have had consistent returns from their transponder for most of their sea crossing (and therefore got their SSR code) – indeed, there was a witness to the replay of the recordings whose description of a straight line track implied multiple returns over a significant time.
How would those official answers look if the radar recording turned up, or someone came forward (hint, if you are reading this) as a witness to the replay of that recording, confirming that 7760 had been used?
It would surely then be viewed as very pertinent to have got those answers previously.


Oh, and I think JP's point about letting us all see the essential info that you were presenting is valid.

To the Campaign, hearty congratulations on delivering yet further information to exonerate the pilots. It is an astonishing thing that through 14 years of thick and thin research no evidence has come forward to set back the suggestion that doubt about this accident exists. And the latest material cited by Channel 4 News and Dr Powers only adds credence to the belief that the test of AP3207 was neither applied nor met. Remember Pulford and Perks never saw that memo of June 2, 1994. And even without seeing it, Andy Pulford cleared the pilots of any form of negligence.

Even though the investigators learn more about the accident with each passing year, the Ministry of Defence has decided with an omnipotence only a bureaucracy could muster, that as a department it has nothing to learn about this accident because everything that is new to us is old to them and therefore dismissable. That they are prepared to illegitimise their own existence through such a coldness sags morale among the Forces fighting overseas and supported at home.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

cazatou, I'm interested in how that is interpreted as "no doubt"? Rhetorical question as it has undoubtedly been discussed somewhere else in this thread. To me, this whole argument is about "gross negligence" and the openly declared definition of that phrase at the time of the accident.

I have been away for sometime and very saddened to hear that the pilots were not cleared. I am sure this must have been soul destroying for the families and those who have worked tirelessly to clear the pilots names. All I can offer is my continued support.

For those, like me, who missed it yesterday, here is a link to the 5-minute Channel 4 news item that was broadcast yesterday (9 Dec 08):

Channel 4 - News - Doubt cast over Chinook verdict

For the moment, words fail me, but this won't end here.

I wholeheartedly agree with antenna. Many congratulations to the campaign, and it's supporters, for uncovering such utterly damning evidence, of an organisation totally devoid of morals.

I well remember, during the build up to the Fatal Accident Inquiry in Paisley, in early 1995, asking for 'disclosure' from the MOD of information relevant to the accident.

I know for certain the legal team representing Rick Cook requested EXACTLY the kind of information now revealed in this new dossier.

Because I framed those requests!

It was denied to us, as being irrelevant to the accident, and we were accused of going on a 'fishing expedition', through MOD files!!

It was pointed out to me at the time, that 'non disclosure' of relevant information is an offence, and you can go to prison for it! I am sure there will be a paper trail to those deceitful individuals purveying their lies, and I wish to see them prosecuted!

To the fine ladies and gentlemen serving in the front line (of any service) I hope you take note of this current disgrace, which follows a long, and utterly undistinguished pattern!

Talk to your friends, and make a mutual pact to do the decent thing for each other, should one no longer be around to defend themselves.

Precisely the conversation I had with Rick Cook!

My greatest regret is that he would have made a much better 'fist' of it than I!

The once fine reputation of the Royal Air Force is being dragged through the gutter by the arrogant, and the deceitful!

This absolutely will not end here.

May I just ask cazatou (K52), and john purdey: Was this aircraft fit for purpose?

Having watched the saga unfold, from standing on the Mull the morning after the accident, to the present day, I have always refrained from applying the all-to-easy tones of conspiracy to a tragedy that ended in mystery. The loss was too great, too important, to encourage an already growing cottage industry of theorists that has developed over the years. Especially with no evidence pointing to a cause.
But today, on reading Tandemrotor's entries, I am left with no option but to conclude this has been a cover-up. Pure and simple.
I never wanted to say that. I have fought the instinct for years. I needed the clear proof. Maybe I blinded myself for too long. When we produced the Channel 4 documentary (and, critically, its revised version which included the Fadec concerns for the first time) I always argued "cover-up" was unfair to the MoD. A cover-up needed to be shown, not just spoken.
I was generous, to a fault, as I tried to walk in the ministry's shoes.
But to now realise the sham that was the MoD's submission to the Fatal Accident Inquiry is to find it in contempt of Sheriff Sir Stephen Young's court. To discover this material A) exists and B) can be ruled irrelevant is to have stood in that pale blue painted room for weeks in Paisley, and looked in the eye of the relatives of the dead and to have said nothing. It is the cardinal sin of omission.
It is a morally bankrupt position. It is feral; it is squalid. It is, simply, wrong.

Let's go for a bike ride

Lurking123

Quote:

---

the burden was on the AVMs to demonstrate "no doubt", they did not achieve this

---

According to Day - based on legal advice he specifically sought and received on this issue – he did achieve this (and Wratten concurred).

Although deemed privileged information - the MOD legal ‘interpretation’ on the standing definition of ‘no doubt whatsoever’ that Day received has not, to date, been challenged in open court.

Lurking123 -

Quote:

---

theories about conspiracy, hypothetical technical problems etc would go away

---

The STF debate – Reply #3553.

Quote:

---

MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit.

---

Also,
On a prompt, the author of the above replied:

Quote:

---

I am wary of stepping on anyones toes here, I do not think it is for me to present the facts known about STF, some facts are still being teased out.

---

Brian replied – #3566

Two carefully worded answers?

If evidence was produced (see above) to show that ZD576 ‘was carrying STF equipment’, then was ‘beta’ software present and could this have affected the aircraft’s FADEC/avionics on the day? (Note: The lack of physical evidence that STF equipment was fitted/found at the crash site does not rule out the absence of ‘beta’ software – see previous replies re STF management by the MOD)

One of many definitions:

Before a commercial software program is released to the public, it usually goes through a "beta" phase. During this stage, the software is tested for bugs, crashes, errors, inconsistencies, and any other problems. If you choose to test a beta software program, don't be surprised if it has multiple problems and causes your computer to repeatedly crash.

If STF information associated with ZD576 was suppressed and, consequently, was not made available to the BOI then, clearly, a full review would need to be carried out?

Hi Tandemrotor,
the MoD, to this day, still have problems locating paperwork.

Taken from a letter, dated 18 Oct 2006, in response to a letter from me:

b. Documentation requests

(i) A copy of the RAF response to Boscombe Down's decision to stop flying
(ii) Any documentation relating to the first suspension of flight trials by Boscombe Down
(iii) A copy of Air Chief Marhsal Wratten's document Disciplinary Proceedings in Aircraft Accidents
(iv) A copy of the January 1995 memo written by Captain Brougham (RN)

(i) to (iv) We have not yet been able to trace a copy of these items of documentation; if they are subsequently found they will be provided to you
Nothing supplied yet.... (pssst - There's a copy of Mr Wratten's document in the House of Lords Library)

There are many more documents (EDS Scicon report to the MoD following their examination of the FADEC software and the third and fourth line engineering reports on the engine changes to ZD576, but to name a few). Again, if they are located, I will be provided a copy. :hmm:

With regard to legal advice, AA, I received the following answer to a question I posed back in 2005:

"I am sure you will be aware that the Ministry of Defence is permitted to withhold information where an exemption and/or exception are considered justifiable. I am withholding all documentation falling under your request for 'all correspondence between AOC 1Gp, AOCinC HQSTC and DLS(RAF) and also the Treasury Solicitor regarding the legal implications relating to the crash of ZD576' under Section 42 of the FOI Act as this information is subject to Legal Professional Privilege"

I have heard nothing from the MoD since 17 Aug 2007. Perhaps I have upset them.

Thank you all for your support.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

John Hutton is squirming on Ch4 News right now.

Well filited by Jon Snow, who would not let go of the issue. Hutton very defensive, accusing Snow of impuning the reputation of Senior RAF Officers. Very flustered when reort of senior TP from rotary wing test squadron was produced ststing all HC2 should be grounded, same day as the crash.

Yes, caught it too. Great stuff when an SoS says; I'm only a politician, I can't second guess the decisions of professional senior RAF officers. So it was all a misunderstanding, there was no review as he and Des are only politicians! Interesting to see posts rubbishing Boscombe Down piling into the long dormant HC3 thread. Has the fact that Channel 4 was highlighting the BD reservations re HC2 airworthiness the very day of this dreadful accident any bearing on that? No? Just wondered.

Channel 4 News video player

Minute 11.40 to end ..

Another good item by Channel 4 news, and my thanks to the team.

Mr Hutton, you stated "We have published everything in relation to this inquiry."
Oh, really?? :=
I have quite a list of documents still to be supplied. I take it they will be arriving through my door in the next few days then?

"There is no legal grounding in which I can overturn this finding. I'm not in a position to do that."
Not strictly accurate. BoIs are governed by rules made by the Secretary of State for Defence in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 135 of the Air Force Act. Have another look at your rules Mr Hutton. There are rules which allow for the reconvening of a Board of Inquiry, should new, or further evidence become available. Plus the fact, your position allows you to make the rules.

"I'm just a poor politician" does not absolve you from your responsibility to uphold the rules and ensure that justice is done. It is clear that there are areas of doubt and clear gaps in the available evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever is not achieved.

The Campaign submission to the MoD should be available in the next day or so. Please keep an eye out on the Campaign website.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Mutton…..

“…and they have flown safely for 15 years”


MoD Safety stuff…..

“Actions and decisions may be challenged by others, sometimes with the benefit of hindsight. A decision may have to be defended on the basis of judgement and so the decision process must be documented and all judgements and assumptions validated wherever possible. “It has never happened before” is not valid evidence on its own, that a particular event will not happen”.


The SoS justifies not grounding Mk2 by virtue of the fact there have been no fatalities since. Yet again, MoD seeks to confuse the timeline by talking in the wrong tense. The simple fact is MoD was required to retain all necessary documentation, including reasoned responses to the Boscombe letter of 2nd June 1994. His reply to Mr Snow was, therefore, disingenuous. Where is the other evidence his own rules required which led to the decision to ignore Boscombe?


“Nothing has been covered up”.

Really? 14 years and key airworthiness documents still cannot be found, even though they will have been copied widely. MoD continues in its attempt to cover up the verifiable fact it did not comply with its own regulations. Like Nimrod, Hercules……….