Also waiting to sign, ex-tech Chinook and Puma flight(PCSF) Gutersloh

I'll just put a personal view on why this is so important.

I looked upon Rick Cook as a close friend. We were together at Gutersloh in the mid/late-80s and we flew together in the Falklands in April/May1988. On one trip, I remember Rick categorically refusing to scud-run up the side of a hill to collect two signallers who had been maintaining a rebro site; they had to walk down the hill to the CH47. In those three or four years we experienced the needless death of friends on a number of occasions (To recollect a few - Dave Sunderland/John Carver - Otterburn. Phil Brewer, Jim McMenemy & Glynn Jones - Hannover. Paul 'Ada' Adams & Pete Smith - Gutersloh. Colin Burns and the rest of the crew of Dylan - Harris).

Rick was a gentleman, intelligent, funny and highly professional. I'm sure there are at least 28 sets of similar personal thoughts dating back more than 25 years.

Brian Dixon, John Cook and many others spent well over a decade fighting to right the obvious 'wrong'; John never had the honour of seeing his son's name cleared. But that should be just half the story. There will be a time where all the information needs to be brought together to present a true and accurate consensus, warts & all; 2nd June 1994 was one of the RAF's darkest hours and 28 families deserve the right to retain all the facts.

"Justice has no Expiry Date" - John Cook

Okay........
 

:=

"We’re checking this petition

5 people have already supported Brian Dixon’s petition.

We need to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it.

Please try again in a few days."

Waiting to sign.

I've emailed my MP politely asking WTF?

Hi all.
Firstly, thanks for your patience in respect of the petition. I have no control over how long it will be off-line or, indeed, if it will be alowed to proceed, but as soon as I know for definite, I will let you know.

Just as an update, I can let you know that the concern for the documentation is gaining momentum. The story has also been picked up by the media in Northern Ireland:
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ch...iles-1-8783038

Whilst we are waiting for the outcome of the petition, may I ask that you consider contacting your local MP and canvass their support.
As previously, we couldn't do this without your support.

Thank you, one and all.
My best,
Brian

I have no standing to sign, being on the other side of the pond, but I would like to offer best wishes on a positive result from this in terms of the issue and its flight safety aspect seeing the light of day.

That is, crucial papers from 1993 and 1994 have already been reviewed and, judging from what was released a month ago, not much remains. It is well-known that MoD denies the stuff from Sept/Oct 1993 exists, yet (probably inadvertently) quoted it in a Ministerial briefing some years ago. The part of the airworthiness audit trail where Controller Aircraft (Spiers) told the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Bagnall) that he was not permitted to issue a Release to Service, but did. Thereby making a false declaration to aircrew (and passengers). See Philip Report, para 2.2.8. Hopefully the follow-up papers from Air Marshal Austin won't be destroyed this year. Ah, Austin, another name that emerged late in the day and has never been interviewed. Or perhaps he was, but those papers remain hidden....

Also may be of interest, from Hansards (scroll to near the bottom of the page) - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debat...defence#g367.5

Retention of records
 

I seem to recall (having worked in an IPT) that airworthiness documents must be retained for at least 10 years after the out of service date of the equipment. I'd imagine that documentation relating to a crash would fall into that category.

Given that this aircraft was unairworthy, and positively dangerous according to Boscombe Down who grounded their trials aircraft and suggested that the RAF do the same with their (already in service!) fleet, it would seem that different rules apply both then and ever since thanks to the cover up of the improper Release to Service of the Chinook Mk2.

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.

Now available for signature!

Petition
 

Just checked, the petition is open.
I have signed but we need more than 23.
XN593

Signed....

Signed also...

Just signed - and it says there are now 31 signatures

airsound