8000+ hours? Well he can't be 'William-of-unmarried-parents' then!
If you were the grieving relative of someone killed in the accident, you could perhaps ask the MoD a couple of questions:
1. Why was civilian Public Transport being carried out in an aircraft which did not (and still does not) comply with the relevant Public Transport requirements when alternative aircraft were available? Was this an operationally essential flight for which this transport helicopter was the only feasible mode of transport able to convey such high value passengers to their destination?
2. If the test team who were attempting to bring the Chinook 2 into service, as well as those who flew it, had any reservations concerning the airworthiness of the accident aircraft whatsoever, as evidence would seem to indicate was quite certainly the case, please produce evidence proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that the aircraft was, in fact, fully airworthy.
If these questions cannot be answered to the entire satisfaction of the legal teams representing the relatives of those killed, then MoD could perhaps stand accused guilty of contributory negligence in permitting this flight to take place. And could ipso facto be sued for very substantial damages. But if MoD could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the crew were 'grossly negligent' and that the reported concerns about airworthiness were nihil ad rem, then the relatives could only claim against the vastly more modest estate of those held guilty, rather than that of the Crown??
My cynical personal view is that any verdict other than 'gross negligence' might render MoD liable to substantial claims for damages from the relatives of the deceased - and that's the sole reason for the continuing reluctance to correct the Accident Report findings to 'Cause - Not Positively Determined'.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>