Hi Courtney,
you say:
Also clearing the crew of liability seems rather difficult
No it isn't. The rules were broken in sullying their reputations with a negligence slur. Therefore the negligence verdict should be removed.
all the evidence points to a impact with high terrain at high speed in poor weather
No it doesn't. Yes, the aircraft impacted with the ground. High speed? - the first simulation was flawed and the second gave an operating speed within normal operating limits. Poor weather? Not according to the only witness looking from the same direction as the pilots.
Certainly one can argue that absolute evidence is not possible without flight and cockpit recorders
Hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever then, is it?
but it was probably time for this quaint tradition to be binned
I take it you are referring to the AP3207 – RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, page 9. I recall that being the law at the time. Hardly 'quaint'.
Certainly there are many different views expressed and many contrary pieces of evidence
Again, hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever then.
but picking through it is pretty clear that the conditions were very poor, the aircraft was being flown at high speed in controlled flight towards high ground,
See above.
Looks like pretty risky stuff
Flying the Mk2 Chinook in 1994
was risky stuff. That's why the test pilots refused.
If you can find hard evidence to support your views (of which I have no problem, by the way), you might like to get them to the MoD fairly sharpish. They may be needing them soon.
The bottom line is that, as there were no witnesses or survivors, nor were there any accident data recorders or cockpit voice recorders, then one cannot be absolutely certain as to what happened. Therefore the only sensible conclusion is that the cause of the accident be listed as not positively determined.
Have a good New Year.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook