Mr Arrse
"Gross Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found".
Like Wratten and Day and a few politicians your assumption that the pilots must have flown into the hill is simply that, an assumption, that has not nor will be proved.
In the same way there are assumptions made that the aircraft developed a defect that has not been traced. If you read the Commons debate you will see that a US Army Chinook barrel rolled in 1997 . When stripped down fault a few days later no fault was found. We also were reminded of the FADEC problems as well as the problem of the aircraft suffering in flight jams at or shortly after a change of direction.
I also recall Robert Key in the same debate tell us about the refusal of the Boscombe Downs pilots to fly that type of Chinook.
All of this suggest there might have been mechanical failure. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove that point.
Now if you had put a case for mechanical failure at least the history suggests that it might have been the cause. However, we don't know because nobody was able to find out the cause. We also know the pilots were worried about the aircraft . These are facts but still do not prove cause.
On the other hand there is no, repeat no evidence, that the crew were intent on flying into the hill or negligent in any way. As the Lords Select Committee states the finding of gross negligence, not by the original inquiry but by the two air marshals was based on hypotheses and assumptions but not on fact.
Last edited by slj; 2nd April 2002 at 18:48.