John Purdey
<< … to see how it worked? Were there not engineers on the unit, and what did aircrew hope the uncover that the engineers had not? >>
But there were changes from the Mk1 and would it not be expected for aircrew to be as knowledgeable as possible about their a/c, especially systems (eg nav) that directly affect their job?
That said, I agree that the emphasis on the a/c’s airworthiness is strange given that it got them there (past where they changed from waypoint A which, if anyone can be bothered plotting it on a map, was already dangerously close in those conditions).
That is to say, they were already so close in (in those conditions) that their navigation and intentions would already be of concern before the narrow window of opportunity occurred for control problems to manifest themselves – and the final control positions and a/c attitude were consistent with an evasive manouvre which was being responded to appropriately by the a/c.
And 47Ds hadn’t exactly been dropping out of the sky before this tragic event nor have HC2s since.
Perhaps the misgivings expressed by aircrew involved were more to do with pressure and arrangements to use a Mk2 for this trip? Perhaps there was a real desire to give this team a demonstration of the Mk2’s capabilities beyond just ferrying them around? Perhaps it just had to be a Mk2 for whatever reason, eh jayteeto?
Then again, pointing at hypothetical transient technical problems in such a complex machine without clear evidence would no doubt keep interested parties running around harmlessly in ever decreasing circles for decades, would it not?