Chugalug2, that was a bloody good effort even if it didn’t pan out. Well spotted. I don’t think it thread drift as that ASaC collision is crying out for the BoI to be reconvened. If a BoI starts with the premise that the aircraft were serviceable, but it emerges they were not (especially in areas the BoI cited as contributory factors), then the BoI itself should be asking for a review. The evidence withheld from it was significant. Not least the IPT immediately blaming a civil servant, but withholding this when the CS produced evidence he’d been told to leave the aircraft unsafe. MoD reverted to this argument after the Inquest, when the CS was no longer in a position to defend himself, and still maintains it. This background detail of organizational faults may not change the conclusions pertaining to the final moments (which I think are pretty well accurate except for the confusion caused by HMS Liverpool’s Lynx, which MoD lied about) but it should make interesting reading for the MAA who are trying to avoid recurrence in the MoD as a whole. But from what I read here they don't want to know.
Does anyone know if the MAA has, for want of a better term, a “cold case” section which reviews old BoIs? It would be an easy way to quickly learn from past mistakes. It also strikes me there is a lot of expertise here on pprune that has immediately spotted the underlying causes on the likes of Nimrod, C130 and Chinook. Why have MoD’s investigators seemingly missed all this? This can’t be coincidence surely? In each case the BoI dwelt on the final moments but didn’t look at underlying causes. In each case the true cause was revealed on pprune. MoD’s role seems to be to denigrate that expertise, but at the cost of human life. So MoD become part of the problem, while doing its best to avoid the solution. Which I guess is what most of your posts are saying!
Keep up the good work.