Board of Inquiry procedure is governed by rules made under section 135 of the Air Force Act 1955 and by The Queen's Regulations for the RAF, chapter 17. The RAF Manual of Flight Safety AP 3207 published by the Inspectorate of Flight Safety and in force at the time of the accident provided in paragraph 9 of Annex G to Chapter 8
Cazatou's comments.
It must be remembered that the BOI is the Convening Officers BOI and the President and Members of the Board are acting on behalf of the Convening Officer.
Simply not true - Day was ONLY the convening officer;the BOI, once constituted, was governed by the above rules (which Day then became part of).
At the time of this BOI the number of extant BOI's in No 1 Gp was well into double figures
Irrelevant to this investigation.
it would have been impossible for the AOC to have conducted all those inquiries and run 1 Gp at the same time.
Day was the convening/reviewing officer - he was not required to conduct the investigation day-by-day, only to seek an 'administrative finding' based on the facts.
Having said that it would have been pointless to reconvene the BOI team to get them to ask a question on legal matters that he could could ask himself.
Not too sure on this one - this should have been an inclusive investigation to establish an 'administrative finding' based on the facts.
If a somewhat uncertain reviewing officer seeks legal council (and Argus makes a very valid point here) regarding those guidelines/procedures, then the very least that should of happened is that the investigation should have been afforded a judicial review prior to the report's release.
This finding has had a devastating effect on the families concerned, and the vast majority of contributors to this Thread disagree with Day’s finding – including a House of Lords Committee that reviewed the Chinook crash.
(John Purdey) Nit picking, I hardly think so.
AA