"The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events"
Aye, and there's the rub, SAS! Look at the list in tucumseh's post, and ask how many of those inquiries have resulted in findings based on the criteria that you propose. Maybe a similar US list would pose the same concern? Note that I talk of the findings. The inquiries themselves were, I'm sure conducted in a thorough, diligent and professional way. It is the subsequent input from the "worried" Minister, the "concerned" Senior Civil Servant, or the "frankly perplexed" Air Marshal, etc, that warps the final outcome. In the case of the Mull accident of course, the findings were simply thrown out on review, and the infamous Gross Negligence verdict substituted.
I'm afraid that at this stage your chain will have burst its links asunder, SAS, and the whole point of the exercise, to determine causes and recommendations to avoid repetitions, lost. As a BOF, steeped in the Flight Safety culture of the RAF of the 60s/70s I am simply appalled. I don't care if that makes me a reactionary cold war warrior, our system worked (well usually), and the present situation is more akin to the infamous one in the USSR, where ashes were returned to NOK, with a reminder that further discussion would constitute a betrayal of State secrets!
If it takes an English Coroner's Inquest to do the job that the MOD should have done but failed to, so be it. Let us give thanks that an archaic institution still exists to protect the interests of ordinary people, and that hasn't yet been swept aside as redundant in the modern world!
US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!
