§ 12. Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation why his Chief Inspector modified the conclusions of the Air Investigation Board in one respect in their report on the accident to the Britannia aircraft 312 G-AOVD on 24th November, 1958.
§ Mr. RipponThere is no Air Investigation Board. The report on this accident was made by the Chief Inspector of Accidents, who is head of the Accident Investigation Branch of the Ministry. As the report itself explains, the Chief Inspector added a paragraph to his opinion of the cause of the accident as a result of representations made in accordance with the normal procedure.
§ Mr. RankinIs it not the case that the report made in the first place by the Accident Investigation Branch attached blame solely to the captain and the first officer, and that it was only on appeal that the modification was made, not directly, but tacitly? If it is the case that the instrumentation was at fault, why should it not be stated openly that the captain and the first officer were not wholly to blame?
§ Mr. RipponThe position is that the report as originally drafted stated the cause of the accident and representations were made in accordance with the agreed procedure. As a result, the Chief Inspector of Accidents added a paragraph which said, not that the instruments were at fault, but that the particular instrument is a difficult one to read.
§ Mr. RankinSurely the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary are not going to leave the reputations of the captain, who is dead, and the first officer, who survived, in this sort of cloudy light? Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the blame that was originally attached to both those officers has now been at least partially removed?
§ Mr. RipponI think that the report sets out all the circumstances quite clearly.