falcon 900:-
Let me try again in plain, simple terms.
Having read your plain simple terms F900, it would appear that we are indeed in violent agreement. Let me be clear though, as a mere ex-driver airframe I hold the person who signed off the Chinook Mk2 RTS to be put it into squadron service, no matter how well he felt covered, as directly responsible for his actions. That he was acting under orders I have no doubt. That those orders had been devised by a cabal of RAF VSOs I consider highly probable. That those VSOs would have to be at the very top of the RAF High Command would seem unavoidable, for how else could they anticipate compliance with such an illegal order? That succeeding ones continue the cover up of what happened merely brings that original betrayal of trust and duty of care right up to the present day.
Your very particular tree does indeed warrant close inspection, I fully agree. The MOD prides itself on being to handle MPs, QCs, Coroners, and any others minded to ask awkward questions. Times they are a changing though, and awkward questions are increasingly having to be confronted. As you say, let those involved with the RTS be questioned under oath and then follow where that leads us to. It is unconscionable that VSOs continue to be protected while unairworthy aircraft sustain fatal accidents because of illegal orders issued by them. The RAF needs to lance this boil or face ever worse outcomes if it does not.
Let Right Be Done!