[Observer1940]

Yes, I have seen some files elsewhere of RAF crashes which occurred in Britain and was also in the New Zealand Archives looking at 1940 crashes which occurred there, so I ordered up several files at random which have got everything from the initial Casualty Report to the official Inquiries, notes, policy, recomendations, medical reports etc.

I have decided to edit my post here and remove the casualty references, because my main reason for my research interest and application to the Information Tribunal Appeal was to get the facts and technical information from official sources surrounding the crash and not just the bare Casualty information.

The family living immediately opposite the crash site said that they were led to believe the Whitley had been hit by enemy fire (reference to friendly fire in the No.4 Group ORB) and veered to miss their house and got tangled in the balloon cable at the balloon site nearest their house.

15ft of the wing was reported as found in a field two miles away. Two files, vary with the three separate Squadron records (924; 930 and 77 Sqns) and also the letter sent to our family later in 1940 that only a singular balloon site was involved, which (according to the official AM map and site number quoted) is the balloon nearest the family's house.

When the 4 AMCOs were changed 29.8.40 to amend reporting an SOS immediately to the MLS at Fighter Command (MLS partly responsible for RAF Bomber movements) and that Aerodrome Obstructions must be notified to FO6 [the Air Ministry - Flying Control] London, immediately in an emergency, RAF Calshot were also to be told that they must have immediate notice to put an RAF Rescue Launch to sea, because they have to check and get authority from the Naval authorities.

The crew knew the proper SOS drill, also the Diversion drill to divert to another airfield, and also the Forced Landing drill as this was their 4th recorded emergency in two months!

Three chaps officially working on the defences stated that the wireless signals which were received by the aircraft would have been wrong.

Mark