With respect to Jackanicko (and to test pilots!), test pilots are not the be all and end all in the world of flight test. Just beccause one or two tps MAY have said that the Chinook Mk 3 is safe, doesn't make it so; they are not necessarily the experts in system design or safety engineering for example. Most of the safety guys, engineers, FTEs, and indeed the IPT agree that the Mk 3 were potentially unsafe. Perhspas the risks are small, but equally, they could be huge. Many different tactics and philosophies were investigated to try and get the aircraft into service. The fact of the matter is that there were a number of areas where the risk was unquantifiable. In some areas the risk WAS quantifiable, and they were STILL assessed as unacceptable. I can only imagine the furore if a Mk 3 had crashed due to a software failure that resulted in misleading (or non existent) attitude information in instrument flight, or if the AFCS had suffered a dual lane runaway at low level, or if the transmission system had sufffered a catastrophic failure due to an unknown number of torque exceedances. And yes, perhaps some aircraft have entered service with unacceptable deficiciencies, but either mitigation was applied, or at least the MAR was signed off by someone who was aware of the risks. Neither of these options were possible on the Mk 3 (and yes, they were investigated).
P.S. I was NOT involved in ANY way with the Mk 3 procurement or evaluation!