'taint,
Although I have been involved in the case for 5 years only the two fathers, Mike Tapper & John Cook, can really answer the question about what verdict from the H of L they would be satisfied with.
From my own point of view though, my belief has always been that there has been nothing approaching the required evidence to support a finding of gross negligence. Much of the evidence now known was withheld from the BOI. The RAF suing the software manufacturers, the problems with US Chinooks and more.
Even without this evidence Wg Cdr Pulford would only say, despite considerable pressure from above, that the scenario of CFIT was only a possible one amongst many.
The reality of this case, as most right minded people agree, is that the cause is unknown. There are possiblities, there are theories. But the actual cause is, and will remain, unkown.
If you examine the many similar accidents and BOIs like this case, you will find that the most often used term is NPD - "not positively determined".
I suspect that, under a different regime to the one many of us worked for at that time, a finding of NPD would have been the outcome of Andy Pulford's honest & thorough BOI.
NPD is a verdict I personally would have no problem with. Of course, what I think, is irrelevant.
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]