Cazatou
Re your post #2136.
I'll have to defer to your knowledge of this particular accident because it is not one with which I am intimately familiar. However, it does provoke two immediate thoughts:
1. If the BoI had before it all of the evidence you quoted (and presumably with access to the same supporting technical advice), and no other conflicting evidence, I cannot understand how even the most amateur Board could have reached the initial conclusion that it did. I am therefore bound to wonder if you are really giving us the full picture. Nevertheless, having said that .....
2. The AOC (rightly, if your picture is correct) did not support the Board's recommendations, but in coming to that conclusion he had hard technical evidence in front of him that the Board had formed the wrong conclusion. Those who have argued against your point of view of the Chinook accident will continue to point out that there is precious little, if any, hard evidence of anything in the Chinook case, but merely a loosely-linked connection of sightings, assumed speeds, imprecise time data and the like. This type of evidence can frequently be reconstructed in a number of ways, depending on one's point of view, to "prove" anything one wishes. That must leave doubt. If there is doubt, then the Chinook verdict was unjust and should not stand.
Regards
Ginseng