Forgive me for thinking my chinook experience allows me to agree with the statement he made, after his consultations with senior chinook operators.
If we were 'weighting' the outcome by relevant experience, Wg Cdr Pulford's position would have been supported, not overturned!
The nuts and bolts used in the 'construction', of the theory of a cruise climb, fall woefully short of the standard of proof required.
They form a 'model' of possible events, Not a record of flight!
Pulford knew that. Not everyone seems to.
Every independent review of this case, would appear to agree with Pulford's finding.
Let right be done.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 30th Apr 2008 at 14:54.