cazatou, you are absolutely correct that the BOI appear to have 'assumed' that Flt Lt Tapper left photocopies of
HIS maps with the DAO's assistant "as a record of the
route to be flown"
But since we don't know
what maps or charts, were being used by the crew during the flight, how do we judge whether the BOI's assumption; that the photocopy of Lt K's chart left behind was the prime navigation document, is correct??
jayteeto is an
eyewitness to the fact that the crew conducted their own
independent planning!
Is your, and the BOI's assumption, beyond doubt?
Or even the balance of probability??
As far as crew duty considerations are concerned, I know you will agree with the BOI that:
The Board concluded that at the time of the accident crew duty time limitations had not been exceeded and that fatigue was unlikely to have played a part in the accident
So I assume your
ONLY point is, in a circumstantial way, to imply that the crew were operating under some kind of time pressure??
Which to be fair is also the BOI's hypothesis.
However, I would respectfully suggest, the difference between your position, and that of Wg Cdr Pulford and his 2 colleagues, is that
they accept the weakness of the
factual evidence available, when compared to the
standard of proof required. Which is
precisely why they felt unable to satisfy that standard.
Do I need to remind you again, what that standard is?
Over to you my friend.