Hi, caz
I have lost count of how many times people who have actually flown the Chinook have pointed out to you that the BOI were correct that the forecast weather conditions would have permitted a climb to Safety Altitude
Er... where?
SALT for the next leg was 5900ft, way above the 2500ft the crew would have understood to be the 4 Deg C isotherm. Even more locally, the SALT was 2800 ft.
What you, and all those who favour the "FADEC runaway" scenario, fail to take on board is that (if the scenario is correct) we are then dealing with a TRIPLE failure
I have NEVER favoured ANY scenario. I am willing to accept any outcome based on evidence which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. There is not, and never will be, such an outcome.
As you are adamant that there was no negligence
au contraire, mon ami
I am not
adamant that there was no negligence at all, as any trawl of my past posts will show. I simply require the rules in force at the time to be followed, and that any negligence assumed, be proven to the required standard.
three Very Senior Officers did not agree with your viewpoint
And your point is?
That three people with the most to hide, hide from the truth is no reason to find their judgement infallible.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is NO PROOF that these guys were negligent, and no matter what you, or I, or Wratten, or Day, or Reid, or Hoon, or old uncle Tom Cobbly
believe matters not one jot.
Without proof beyond
ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that there was negligence, the benefit of any doubt rests with the pilots.
I take it that your reference to me as
ex-Naval Sea King Pilot AKA Ark Royal
is in some way supposed to diminish my credibility as a contributor to this debate.
Now, pray, tell me why I should hold you in any higher authority?