Uncle Pete and Misterploppy
I hear your points and understand them fully but the question to Wg Cdr Cooke about who ordered Sqn Ldr Burke to stop helping the BoI is still wholly releveant. I sat on a BoI as the air member in 1990 into a Hawk crash and as we could not prove 100% the cause we concluded "Cause not positively determined, most likely cause...." I am pretty sure with the evidence we had that our most likely cause was correct BUT that was not the point.
As in the Chinook crash with no ADR/CVR or survivors the only conclusion the BoI should have come to was "Cause not positively determined", which I understand was Wg Cdr Pulfords conclusion. I am sure Sqn Ldr Burkes experience and assistance to the BoI would have reinforced that conclusion which is why he was probably ordered to keep away.
Blame is not the key, be it the crew or the Airships, the key is preventing such an occurrenece again and as we don't know the cause that aspect failed and no doubt that was not acceptable to the MOD because of the tragic loss of life. If the MOD had acted responsibly by installing an ADR/CVR in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.
I agree there should be only one outcome now but that still doesn't stop a suitable use of words being used to show that the Higher Authority were simply wrong.
In my current Claim against the MOD a District Judge stated "I am highly critical of the Ministry of Defence in the way in which they have handled this claim up to now". The right words could be used they just take a bit of courage.