[Observer1940]

It is a shame that the Accident Files with the Court of Inquiry or Court of Enquiry, along with the accident paperwork etc., plans, maps and damage photographs, newspaper cuttings, Observer Corps, Police and Witnesses etc., etc., from all the relevant sources are claimed not to exist.

Basically, once the findings of an RAF Court of Inquiry had been issued by the Unit CO or Group (or whoever was holding the Inquiry) on Form 2 or Form 412, it went to higher authority at Group or/and Command level and they could add their Statements, mount any defence against the earlier findings that they wished and include the findings of any further Inquiries that the Air or other Officer Commanding knew about or wished to make about the aircraft and these were recorded on the Form (sometimes annexed to the Form), before the Court of Inquiry Forms went to the Air Ministry. Some accidents were even referred by the Command to their own Engineering Branch or A.O.A. and then back to the aircraft Manufacturers, when the cause pointed to a structural airframe problem etc. They could also seek the technical assistance and an opinion from the Air Ministry A.I.B.

Paragraph 1318 of "The Kings Regulations of the Royal Air Force and Air Council Instructions" (known as "King's Regs" or "K.R.") refers, to when the Character or the professional reputation of an Airman or Pilot is called into question, or affected.

A Pilot or Airman has the right to defend himself and in the event of his death he cannot defend himself, so the accident cause must really be without any doubt.

In this case according to the summary on the Flying Accident Card a defect with regard to the aircraft rudders was mentioned, as they are unmodified. Therefore, this fact that there is in effect a defect with the aircraft involved which could likely cause this crash, throws into doubt any earlier reference to the Pilot causing the crash.

Therefore, the Pilot cannot be blamed, when there may be doubt or is any doubt as to the cause, or the earlier provisional cause is called into question.

The Inquest would likely have occurred before the RAF Inquiry was finalised and may not have been privy to any technical advice and information the RAF was receiving during any Investigation.

According to the K.R. this accident would also have to have been reported to the AIB (Accidents Investigation Branch) now the AAIB, under the reasons given in K.R. 743 Investigation of Accidents.

The A & AEE Report into the rudder problem on this type of aircraft said that it could take up to 4,000 feet for an experienced Test Pilot to recover this type of aircraft with the rudder problems.

The Pilot cannot be blamed, when an unmodified airframe defect could have caused this crash.

Mark