Air Historical Branch Northolt

Perhaps they have been reading this thread! 🙂

Today I received a letter from AHB Northolt and was surprised that they sent me a decent and complete copy of the AM Form 1180 card I wanted.
Ian

Ross McNiell
Many thanks for replying to my PM your help was most appriciated and helpful many thanks again.
Ian

Tangmere asked on 29 January:
It would be helpful if any other viewers to this thread could input with their knowledge or experience in this area so as to build up a picture of what the true position is.
I have had 2 experiences of the AHB recently.
The latest (January 2012) was an enquiry about a pilot whom I knew in the 1960s, and whose trace I have lost. The reply was, probably fair enough, that they did not hold information about him during or after his service with the RAF. They explained that it was possible that his Record of Service could be available at Cranwell. The argument was that the MOD had responsibility for the custody of Records of Service which were not already in the public domain. Whilst an individual is still alive only that person may obtain information on their Record of Service. If deceased, the MOD’s duty is to “ensure that information is not disclosed if there is even the slightest risk that this would undermine” trust with families. Applicants who are not immediate next of kin may obtain a summary of the Record of Service when the subject is known to be deceased. The consent of next of kin may have to be obtained. A fee of £30 is payable.
That seems more or less OK to me.
The other case (September 2011) was my enquiry about a Wellington which crashed in the Middle East in 1943, and I asked, by email, five numbered questions about the mission, the circumstances and two of the people involved, one of whom died. All five questions received well documented answers.
The same officer signed both letters of reply.
So, I cannot grumble at the service I obtained.

If these museums are not going to allow people access to the information they have been gathering and preserving, what is the point in gathering and preserving it? They might as well close down and burn all the paperwork.

AHB (and TNA) aren’t museums of course, my understanding is that the museums only receive from the services what they can copy to the public, for example airfield plans of closed stations only, however as noted above it seems like extra restrictions are coming into play.

My understanding of the Data Protection Act is limited, but I understood it relates to information held on Computer systems.

I just browsed at the link here.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/key_definitions.aspx

The more I read this kind of thing, the more my head spins ! It seems like the introduction of computers in these collections to simplify the catalogues and searching facilities, brings these card systems into play under Data Protection !

The DP Act has always applied to organised filing systems whether manual or computer.

If these museums are not going to allow people access to the information they have been gathering and preserving, what is the point in gathering and preserving it? They might as well close down and burn all the paperwork.

Obfuscation.

It is the only word that comes to mind.

I’ll bet there is a whole Government department somewhere that just deals with implementing that principle as widely as possible.

The Legislation?

The following is a minefield that is open to the widest interpretation.:(

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) http://www.ico.gov.uk/ has numerous rulings that make a mere mortal quiver. The 100 year exemption rule on personal data is being liberally applied. I had noticed last year that Family History groups were also up in arms and e-petitioning the ICO and MP’s as they were being thwarted on records that had been open for decades.

The following legislation appears to be the brickwall, along with the litigation culture no doubt.:rolleyes:

The Data Protection Act 1998
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The exemption for personal information (Guide)
www.ico.gov.uk/%7E/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/PERSONAL_INFORMATION.ashx

Issued today 30 Jan 2012, a new (plain english!) guide to the Freedom of information act.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide.aspx

I almost lost the will to live!:mad:

Yes, I think it is the policy change that rings alarm bells although it might just be a smokescreen reason to fend off queries from the public.

One does have to recognise that the AHB is a branch of the MOD and provides official archive and historical services to the RAF. Its primary purpose is not to serve the public.

That said, the change of policy and stated reason does seem to flag up a sea change that could have much wider implications. That is the problem with this, I think.

Agree with that Ross, I think the AHB say as such themselves aswel, they are ultimately the keeper of original records of the service, primarily for the services’ use and shouldn’t be regarded as first contact.
However my point (and I suspect Wellingtons’, Andys’) is that there does seem to have been changes in the response to requests in information just recently.

What aircraft serial are you looking at?

There may be other sources for some of the unreadable info.

I must admit that I have had a better success rate saying what I have/deduced from a card or accident and asking for confirmation yes or no.

Seems that if I show I have put work into exhausting other sources then the limited remaining work for AHB is acceptable.

I do not know about photos or other documents listed by Andy so cannot comment on how to go about obtaining AHB access.

One thing that I have become aware of is a growing trend by family/part time researchers to bang out an inquiry to AHB before expending time on other sources which may be causing the policy shift.

A quick look at most web sites usually shows a post from a bod advising “contact the AHB” regardless of suitability.

Regards
Ross

I’m wondering what the odds are of me getting a decent copy after reading the posts?
1. Copy of card sent.
2. Copy of card sent minus Pilots details.
3. No copy sent.
4. No further commication request lost amongst all the red tape and chain of command.
Place your bets.
Ian

et les banquiers a la lanterne

Aux les barricades, mes amis
Resmoroh

Andy further up the column used the old fashioned term “common sense”. I long ago uttered the exasperated phrase, “The more letters a man has after his name, the less common sense he has”. Now, that even clerks have to have a degree, the full force of that is becoming evident. This country has HAD It in a big way, roll on the revolution.

I suspect that there is nothing new in the way of legislation. It’s just that some mandarin has discovered that some obscure, and arcane, para in the DPA means they don’t have to tell you anything – FOI or not. It’s just a smoke & mirrors ruse to reduce staff/costs – which is what the game is all about! I very much doubt if they are trying to restrict seeing data, as such – it’s all about money!
Your Brass Hat’s inability to see certain data may be a bit of ‘Red Herring’. He’s probably just been removed from the indoctrination list of some TS Codeword project? Or de-indoctrinated as we used to say in the trade!!
HTH
Resmoroh

But what new “regulation or law”…?

Has there been one?

Or is existing legilslative control being applied either unreasonably or improperly, or as the result of some knee-jerk reaction to an issue that may have arisen?

If my ‘jobsworth’ comment was unreasonable, or touched a raw nerve, then I’m sorry. But at least I think we should be told exactly what the position is, and why. That will enable a proper challenge to be made.

It would be helpful if any other viewers to this thread could input with their knowledge or experience in this area so as to build up a picture of what the true position is.

No Andy, and I must admit I haven’t pressed them for a reason – yet.
I’m not sure it’s a case of jobs worths as such, as everyone I have spoken to have been very helpful, it seems to me that a new regulation of law has crept in recently (though that is only my impression) which seems to umprella official service records.
I don’t know if this has come about because of one case or what.

One reply I had was that I could only view a percentage of records, and even then that would be at the discretion of the assistant as to what I could view, and then as to what I could copy.

Interstingly I haven’t heard the same thing from TNA, but possibly because I’ve not asked for the same info.

I agree entirely with your comments about this effecting future publications.

My understanding of the Data Protection Act is limited, but I understood it relates to information held on Computer systems.

I just browsed at the link here.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/key_definitions.aspx

The more I read this kind of thing, the more my head spins ! It seems like the introduction of computers in these collections to simplify the catalogues and searching facilities, brings these card systems into play under Data Protection !