cazatou K52
Your evasive answers to John Blakely's excellent post do you no favours.
You feel unable to comment on engineering matters as beyond your ken, but are more than happy to comment on support helicopter operational procedures which are equally foreign to you.
The reasons for this accident are many and complex, and also mostly unknown.
You can't simply cherry-pick the ones which suit your argument and ignore the rest.
How you can postulate the trivial matter of Jon's avoidance of breakfast as worthy of inclusion in an argument to support the finding of gross negligence, yet ignore the Chinook Mk2's known technical failings in the counter argument amazes me.
Get your blinkers off and look at the big picture.