OK, first things first:
Most importantly, cazatou, absolutely no need to apologise, and I am genuinely sorry to hear of your bad news.
Numerous contributors to this thread, and indeed in the wider debate, can make statements, which aren't supported by the 'facts'. Those opinions can then be regurgitated, even elaborated, by others, and I accept that in that atmosphere of 'fact deficit', a damning picture
can be painted of the accident.
I apologise for correcting your contribution, when I could have corrected others, it's just that yours was relatively straightforward to counter. Others sometimes need more time and effort.
JP
You asked why the yachtsman's assessment of speed might be relevant to the cause of the crash.
I don't think I ever said it was. However...
It is (to some) an appealing profile to suggest that the crew flew the aircraft at high speed, across the water, in an attempt to ameliorate, the 'apparent' crew hours 'problem', and simply 'pressed on' regardless.
Particularly appealing when this version originates from an opinion ("it's obvious, right!") rather than being a 'fact led' analysis.
The second reason the yachtsman's evidence may be 'interesting', I put it no more strongly than that, is that he sees the aircraft at relatively low level, relatively low speed, and in sunlight. Yet within approximately 60 seconds or so later, it has 'apparently' climbed into cloud, and impacted a hillside at
high speed!
In the words of another, the level of incompetence required to
deliberately climb
and accelarate into cloud, makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!
Again in the words of another, it is simply not recognisable as a chinook (or any other helicopter's) technique!
Where does that leave us? I do not know, other than to say this:
Even after exhaustive examination of the 'physical' evidence, the AAIB could not, and
did not, say the aircraft was serviceable at any moment up to, and including, the impact.
I put it to you that is exactly what they would have
had to have said in order to satisfy the standard of proof required to find Flts Cook and Tapper guilty of anything.
d246
those of us who have been there in SH heli's know, the findings were correct.
We are I'm sure, impressed with your expertise in the field. Perhaps you imagine you are the
only one engaged in this forum, and the wider debate with such an insight?
It may or may not interest your arrogant self to know that 2 of the RAF's most highly decorated pilots since WW2 (both having flown Chinooks!) along with
very many others, don't agree with your assertion that:
the findings were correct. As the 'powers that be' have mantained despite the barrage of nonsence (sic) from the media, politicians and all and sundry.
Since these distinguished officers are clearly not media, or politicians, I guess they must fit into the 'all and sundry' category, spouting "nonsence" (sic)
You may like to bear in mind that many of us (who have also
'been there') find the concept that, "Only in cases in which there is
absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent" to be in the very highest traditions of the RAF,
and of natural justice! It seeks to prevent those that are unable to defend themselves, from becoming the victims of a miscarriage of justice.