I watched both episodes yesterday, but I'm not sure viewers were left with a balanced picture, notably some of the key conclusions from the 2011 report.
Examples:
There is a clear "most probable cause" suggested:
1.4.2 The investigating Board found that there were several potential causes of the accident but, despite detailed analysis, were unable to determine a definite cause. They however, concluded that the most probable cause was the selection by the pilots of an inappropriate rate of climb which was insufficient to enable them safely to overfly the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre.
--
Whilst they can suggest what the most probably cause was, most I think would agree the high standard of proof for negligence was not necessarily established. This is what the criticism of the seniors rests upon - and it seems it was right that this aspect was corrected, albeit only years later, which is regrettable.
1.4.18 Applying the high standard of proof, the Board unanimously concluded that they were unable to make any finding of negligence or make any assessment of human failings because of the lack of evidence. After they had briefed Air Vice Marshal Day and his staff they reconsidered the question of human failings and concluded that, although it was likely that Flt Lt Tapper had made an error of judgment in the conduct of the attempted climb over the Mull of Kintyre, it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence.
--
However, it is not clear that the error in not having the supporting evidence to find the crew actions responsible necessarily translates into a witch hunt around wider airworthiness :
1.4.19 Criticism that insufficient attention was paid by the Board to the maintenance, engineering and airworthiness aspects of the Chinook, was not in our view, justified. They investigated the problems with the engines’ Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system and other technical malfunctions in the Chinook fleet, and the history of ZD576. They took these matters seriously, but did not expand on them in their report because there was no positive evidence that a malfunction had occurred before or during the accident. Their job was to determine the cause of this accident and make recommendations, not to investigate all aspects of Chinook operations. Moreover, these problems were well known and were being addressed by the Ministry of Defence.
--
If you were to write the story on balance of probabilities, and the report from 2011, you would draw certain conclusions on what probably happened. I'm not sure the BBC programme reflects a balanced view and heavily suggested the cause lay in airworthiness or other factors didn't it? That is not the most probable cause is it?
--
In the TV programme, what was the guy referring to when he said the chinook went right when you demanded a left turn?