JP
I had quite forgotten your excellent summary at post #5301, which I hope you don't mind me copying below.
I note the lack of reasoned response, so may I remind you of the reason that led to my joining this discussion some three years ago. It was the allegation that:
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.
You will be aware 1. and 2. are now established facts following MoD's (perhaps inadvertent) release of key documents which they had withheld from all previous inquiries. (A serious offence).
The emergence of these documents renders your 5th point academic - there is no need to "blow the whistle" as MoD have held their hands up.
On point 3. there is no doubt the RAF hierarchy blamed the pilots. It is also beyond doubt that, if the above documents and facts had been known to the inquiry teams, said senior officers would have faced severe censure, if not legal action. (You will be aware two serving officers are being investigated following the Nimrod Review - their alleged offences are nothing compared to those perpetrated on Chinook). Deliberately misrepresenting the facts and issuing a fabricated CAR and RTS, thereby knowingly endangering aircrew, is a serious offence.
On point 4. I cannot speak for all these departments but, for example, the record shows the MoD(PE) Project Director pleaded with his bosses to take heed of Boscombe's advice that the aircraft should not be declared airworthy. I also understand the formal legal advice was against the gross negligence verdict. If "Flight Safety" or "Engineering" signed up to a decision to ignore Boscombe's "positively dangerous" advice, then I would describe that as criminal. It is far more likely that they were not told; just as the BoI, HofL, HofC, Sheriff and, most importantly, the aircrew, were not.
Again, thank you for reminding us of the facts.