Hi everyone.
Firstly my apologies for my prolonged absence. Those of you who know me may have guessed it already – I broke my computer (again!!). However, all is now fixed – with no trace of any problem!
Cazatou, Would you accept an element of doubt? The AAIB stated that they could not confirm whether or not the control pallet had detached prior to the accident or not. Agreed, it may not have caused the crash, but would certainly have constituted a distraction in the cockpit. Would you agree? How can anyone be certain that that did not take place, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever? Obviously, I don't offer this as the only example, and it is just that - an example.
Also, does anyone have an opinion on this particular puzzle:
Sir John Day, when speaking at the House of Lords Select Committee said, “
For example I remember saying to Wing Commander, as he was then, Pulford, Group Captain now, and his team when they briefed me, "Surely the crew could have started to climb, lost control of the aircraft in cloud as a result of spatial disorientation or just bad instrument flying, and then crashed from that?" But the answer was "No"
So, according to Air Marshal Day's statement, spatial disorientation was definately not implicated in the accident, despite Air Marshal Day perhaps looking for something to take the heat off the pilots.
Interestingly, the BoI concluded,
"...therefore, that Spatial Disorientation may have been a contributory factor in the accident."
Now, I would call
that an element of doubt.
As I have said many times before, I'm not interested in point scoring with individuals. The whole purpose of the campaign is that there were (well documented on this thread) rules in place to protect deceased aircrew.
There are elements of doubt, therefore the rules were broken.
That is what this whole thing is about.
It's good to be back!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook