etudiant
The Government and MoD itself still enjoys 'immunity', although individuals can be prosecuted. For example, action was initiated after the Nimrod Review against named individuals, but ceased as soon as Thames Valley Police were given evidence of prior negligence by people more senior. But they didn't shift focus, just walked away saying it was unlikely anyone would come forward with evidence. Missing the point that many had, both to themselves and Haddon-Cave.
Same on Chinook ZD576. The pilots have been cleared, but the Inquiries have not been reopened. The only official indication was from the Crown Office in Glasgow, whose Head of Fatalities Unit, David Green, stated that it was now a matter for the Metropolitan Police, as the offences were committed in London (by the Air Staff). One assumes he gave it some thought before putting it in writing. The Met have yet to respond. And won't.
Who benefits?
Perhaps the best clue as to why the Mk2 was released is the confirmation by the RAF Director of Flight Safety in August 1992 that the Army was applying pressure. But there is much more. Boscombe had stated the aircraft was only a prototype. This was generous. It did not yet meet MoD's definition of a prototype. Yet ACAS (AVM Anthony Bagnall) signed the RTS. But what pressure was being applied? Surely, even if a pilot, he understood 'positively dangerous', 'not to be relied upon in any way whatsoever' and 'we've grounded our aircraft, so should the RAF'. It wasn't an isolated memo he may have missed on his day off. It was weekly reports, over a period of almost a year. Another clue may lie in the fact he didn't actually sign a letter of promulgation, which is the authority to conduct Service regulated flying. That wasn't issued until January 1996, by his successor. Was he being clever, to avoid comebacks? An interesting question.