PP
I had time to read your 24/9 post but not to reply until now. Now I find it edited!
To answer the (now edited out) points, I can see that the Strathclyde findings could apply to 442. My argument is that that would be wrong, as so many circumstances were different, from ownership of the helicopter, to the role of the police observers on board.
To blindly accept that Andy was not crew because a couple of hapless pioneers of police aviation were deemed passengers, would be ridiculous.
Of course those who stand to pay out a large sum of money will wriggle to avoid it. They must be made to face up to their responsibilities. This thread was started to energise debate on the subject, and it has certainly done that.
Yes PP, your views are as valid as mine or anyone elses, and I have not attacked your right to place them here. I merely objected to your arrogance . quote: OK – This is my last post on the subject / Will this thread never end? unquote. You must defend those views in open argument, not simply expect the rest of us to shut up and agree with you!