Flipster, I absolutely do not cast aspersions whatsoever at Tony Cable, quite the opposite. He wasn't a member of the BoI though, merely there to assist it. As with all such assistance, it could be utilised to the full or not. Rather like the only eye witness interviewed of the a/c's short transit across the sea, the so called 'lone yachtsman' (who wasn't alone!). He could have given so much more information if only the board had asked him the right questions. It didn't, so he couldn't. It would have clashed with the VSO 'reconstruction' presentation to the HoC Committee. Whether the BoI was so feeble because that was its brief, or it simply wasn't professional enough, or evidence was deliberately withheld from it, or all of those things, is open to question. Whatever, it is a damning indictment of UK Military Air Accident Investigation. It, and Military Air Regulation, needs to be separate from the MOD and from each other.
UK Military Air Safety now depends on good intentions, that those with the power to intervene and subvert investigations, won't. That's probably all that kept my little pink body safe when I depended on the likes of tucumseh to ensure that my aircraft were airworthy. All that changed when RAF VSOs illegally raided ring fenced Air Safety budgets to cover the losses incurred by a disastrous and incompetent AMSO policy. Hence the loss of UK Military Airworthiness, hence Mull, and all the other airworthiness related fatal air accidents that litter this forum. Is that all over now and we can put it all behind us and move on? Not by a long shot in my view. The cover up has to end and admitted to, and Accident Investigation and Air Regulation made independent of the operator (the MOD). Otherwise it will simply be deja vu all over again.