Georgemorris,
welcome to the debate. It appears that you have fallen into the trap the MoD would like you to. As has been mentioned, (and if you have nothing to do for several days!) please read the thread from start to finish. Others who made the same start as yourself did, and then became avid supporters of the Campaign. However, if you have an opposing view, that's fine too but please spare us the hypothesis and speculation. That is reserved for Reviewing Officers only!
Davaar Lad,
welcome to you too. There is no reopening of any inquiry at this stage. A document will be presented to the Secretary of State for Defence during the meeting between him and Lord O'Neill. It will then be up to the SoS to make decisions/recommendations as he sees fit.
The only people able to answer your question why did they come to that decision would be the decision makers themselves. I very much hope there was no policy/political/strategic/personal pressure although I am sure that the fact that 29 people lost their life and also that the RAF were strapped for Chinook airframes would have been in their mind somewhere.
Boslandew,
the only accurate verdict would be that of 'Cause not positively determined'. No-one knows what happened, so anything else would be as unsafe as the current verdict. The standard of proof you refer to is no longer valid as Boards of Inquiry no longer apportion blame. However, the Campaign has always maintained that the Chinook accident should be assessed against the rules that were in place at the time of the accident. This is to ensure that we (the Campaign) play by the rules that affected the pilots.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook