You seem to know quite a lot about Board of Inquiry procedure, so I seek your advice. I quote from the recent findings of the F15 accident in the Cairngoms on 26 th March 2001:
Station Commander on Cause (aircraft under RIS):
I did not find the arguments over "instructions" wholly germane to the question. I accept that the the "instruction" from air traffic to the formation was not an order but it was reasonable to assume that the crews would comply with the "advice" given and doing so placed the aircraft and crews in an unsafe situation. I am therefore content that the Board's determination of the cause of the accident is soundly based. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the word "potentially" should be deleted from the Cause, as the "instruction" given was clearly unsafe
Comments by the Air Officer Commanding:
A BOI does not apportion blame and I note that none has been apportioned in this case
and later,
I support the Board's analysis of causes and factors other than finding myself in agreement with the Stn Cdr that the cause of the accident was that the formation accepted an unsafe ATC instruction rather than one that was [U]potentially[U] unsafe,
[U]Comments by Commander in Chief[U]
I am therefore in no doubt that the Air Traffic descent information " BITE 21 descend initially 4000ft on the Portree 29.62" was unsafe, and I agree with my Stn Cdr and AOC 3Gp that the word "potentially" be removed from the Board's Cause for the accident
All the above suggest that they are 'blaming' the controller concerned and that appears to be outside the remit of the BOI procedure and I assume these gentleman would be considered part of that whole procedure. If my assumption is correct, then they may have negligently exceeded their authority and opened up a possible claim under 'vicarious liability'.
Any help (from any source) would be appreciated, as I am tabling some questions for my MP on this BOI report.