>  -----Original Message-----

> From:           Garstang, John      Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:09 PM

> To:    Gerden, Vic      Cc:   Vance, Larry; Snow, Eric; Garstang, Lee

> Subject:        RE: RCMP Assistance: Sgt. Juby           Importance:  High

> Vic,

> I noticed that you did not include the request that Sgt. Juby's move out of the hangar not commence until after mid March to facilitate efficient completion of work currently in progress.  It may be that you have discussed this with Inspector Lathem and determined that this is not a problem.  If not, I think it is important to reiterate that if Sgt. Juby is instructed to move prior to completing the work currently in progress, I have no confidence that he will complete this work within the time we have requested.  The time estimate I put forward is based on using the efficient equipment/production line setup currently in place in the hangar, devoting all of Sgt. Juby's time on these tasks (not on anything else), not encountering any significant problems (e.g. illnesses, etc.), and allowing Sgt. Juby to directly work with others in the hangar in the manner he does now.  Sgt. Juby has a lot of items in the hangar setup in a unique manner, and to disrupt work now to try and start a move, in whole or in part, would be counterproductive.  Just like us during our move, Sgt. Juby's two computers may have to be debugged, etc., with no guarantees that they will necessarily work properly at first try after being disconnected, transported and reconnected.  I know our people in the hangar will try to help (at least to some extent) if a move starts, out of common courtesy, even though we cannot afford the time to do so.  The RCMP Identification Office is also located in Halifax, and just having to make one trip from CFB Shearwater to run back and forth to get something or to transport exhibits over the bridges, through downtown traffic, etc., involves a significant amount of time and effort. 

> I hope that concerns about the move are a moot point, but I thought I should point them out just in case they might have slipped through the cracks.

> John 

…..

            In answer, the following was sent:

From: "Tom Juby" <tom.juby@ns.sympatico.ca>         To: "John GARSTANG" <john.garstang@tsb.gc.ca>

Subject: Time Line for March     Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:08:04 -0400

 John, in answer to you email of this morning, the following is offered up as a guideline only:

The following items are still on my list of TTD

Mylar/Tedlar examination -  Because of the weather, I have been unable to put the time into this project yet, as access to the hangar is restricted at times due to snow.  This will take two to three days of work, with timeout to deal with other minor tasks for photo, etc.

Business Seat examination -  Not started, but again will take one to two days.

Microtrace Exhibits -  Exhibits to be identified and located, collected, recorded, and packaged.  This will take at least two days.

Burn Test Exhibits -  Exhibits to be identified, located, collected, photographed and exhibited, recorded, then packaged.   This will take at least two days.

T-Shirt matter -  Exhibit to be retrieved including Customs paperwork, photography, recording, sampling, packaging for Microtrace.  At least ½ day.

Wire Collection for Jim FOOT -  Depending on number of wires, they have to be located in 'J' Hangar, retrieved, photographed, recorded, and packaged.  Because of 'J' Hangar, plan on two hours per sample.

Photo processing/Cataloguing -  Half day.

CD sorting for CAD team - At least one day over the three weeks.

Exhibit handling for CAD team - At least one day over the next three weeks.

The above list accounts for nearly three weeks of work (about 14 days), and that is only if I don't find anything of interest in the seats or Mylar.

These are only ballpark figures, and they depend on sunny days.  Hope this gives you something to work with.

            This was sent out this afternoon just after lunch.

            The table from yesterday was revised as follows:

 PHOTOS OF 1R DOOR DEFLECTOR & DRIP SHIELD LOCATION

REVISED 01-03-07

            It will be printed off and made available to Ted tomorrow along with the CD’s involved.

(Clarification:)  The table shows the aircraft examined that still retained a protective shield over the wire run at the forward right door.  The shield had been ordered removed because it was redundant.  A deflector had been installed to ensure that the door didn’t damage the wire runs when it was raised.  However, it was one of those tasks that need not be completed until the aircraft went in for it’s ‘D’ check.  Looking at the aircraft ID’s, one could easily assume that HB-IWF (Vaud) still retained the shield.  If so, then this would have been an ideal location on which to place incendiary material that would have created a fire that lasted several minutes before wires became involved, thus causing circuits to short out and fail.

This shows the black metal deflector in place without the shield.