I would have thought that the conclusion of the BOI was so obviously wrong that it does not need complex legal arguments to push for a full review – let us recap on that conclusion “… that the pilots, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, were guilty of gross negligence in crashing the helicopter in thick cloud cover. It ruled that the helicopter was flying too fast and too low when the pilots attempted to take emergency action to avoid a steep hillside.”
This is downright misleading – I believe that the following is a more accurate description of what happened:
“They were flying in clear weather towards a headland shrouded in localised mist on a regular path requiring them to make a slight turn up the coast but they failed to turn in time.”
This is what happened, they just did not commence that turn in time, and this part of the flight plan should have been known to those at the BOI.
Had this been acknowledged, then perhaps the way would have been open to ask the obvious question “why they did not make that turn”.
This in turn would have led to the two possible cases:
1. The aircraft had some momentary control problem;
2. The pilots misjudged their proximity to the landmass.
I believe that case (1) has been thoroughly discussed but most interested parties won’t touch case (2) with a barge pole. I believe that it is possible to find out what the practice was on this regular leg by interested parties pressing the RAF and respective flight members for details. This is how I think case (2) opens up:
1. Pilots maintaining low level in this area had only their own judgement to rely upon to make this turn, or
2. There was a radio beacon provided for their TACAN in its DME function so that such flights would have a nice distance to go reading on a (normally) trusted, accurate system.
Now, if (1) here is the case, we are to believe that, in this high tech world, this commonly used route (the shortest from NI) with this all too common local weather problem had no special practice to assist pilots – a bit like not bothering to put distance markers on approaches to motorway exits. OK if this was the case then RAF planners would surely have a case to answer – and a share in the blame.
If an interested party with sufficient authority would address (2) - ie was there a navigation beacon used etc - with a specific question in the right forum (eg at an inquiry or parliament) then we could put the navigation issue to bed.
I personally believe that the avoidance of specifics on the flight plan in the inquiries has been deliberately misleading – why can be debated when the plan is clarified fully.