The Nip, sorry to be so long replying. I have a "Not secure" warning preceding the https:// address on this page and have sought advice before posting again. One other member also has it, but it is only showing on my Edge browser with everything being normal on Chrome. It's been reported and I understand it might be an insecure link on the page somewhere. If anyone else has the same experience it would be nice to know.
I was not meaning to cast doubt on your integrity, and apologise if that was not clear. Rather I meant to criticise those who have persisted in casting doubt on that of the defendant in this case when his conviction was for negligence and for which he pleaded guilty, having been found not guilty of perjury and making false record. It is a well tried technique of the apologists, to persist with a theme despite evidence that it is wrong. They did the same with Kintyre, "They should have climbed to Safety Altitude" despite that entailing flying in Icing Conditions contrary to the (illegal) RTS.
ATG, who is calling for no blame here? The defendant himself admitted the negligence that led to this accident and for which he was convicted at CM. What more do you want? Your tale of cause and effect is clear and no-one would not sympathise with those who have suffered as a direct result of the defendant's negligence, hence the accident, hence the conviction. What more do you want? Flight Safety used to be about learning what led to an incident/accident and how to prevent a recurrence. Not any more it seems, given the shocking state of UK Military ME Flight Decks as described by JTO above. But let's not concern ourselves with all that tosh, eh? Just march the guilty bastard in!
Oh, and where in the Voyager RTS does it prohibit cameras on the Flight Deck? Only you have mentioned that, so we still await confirmation...