Tuc

"It would indeed be interesting if someone named by him sought damages for defamation of character."

Not too likely given that the report was issued under parliamentary privilege. This may also go some way to explaining why subsequent investigations would be difficult; the evidence would have to be reassembled.

EAP86

Yes, I think you are right. Just to be clear, I believe most of those named have a case to answer. But, clearly, Baber and Cowan's defence would expose worse failings by more senior people (in Baber's case) and by Cowan's direct predecessors. As I said at the time, there are many in MoD who breathed a sign of relief they weren't named.

There is something very sinister at work when Haddon-Cave criticises Cowan for 20% savings over four years which barely affected airworthiness, but ignores 28% per year for 3 years (91-94), directly and deliberately targeting airworthiness. The evidence of the latter was not hearsay but in reports by the Inspector of Flight Safety (RAF).

Honourable book.
 

Thank you sharing your story, it's an honourable tribute to your son & his colleagues - an incredibly sad loss one & all.

Hopefully someone in control of such matters may learn that safety is not just about compiling pieces of paper & going through the motions, it is real people & real lives that are affected by such losses.
Let us pray this never happens again.