Ally,
Thank you for your input.
This was as stated at the inquiry. Mission Commander or not, the bloke who gave the evidence in court was not in the drivers seat and it was he who gave evidence not the Pilot Flying. Considering how the report stated quite clearly
low cloud beyond this point
caused the experienced RAF helicopter pilot, with his navigator, to decide not to continue south
this is taken directly from the report
The Pilot Flying and the Non flying pilot were not experienced but were under training.
If the Chinook was going from A-B by a non defined route, why is it that for the report the route is very defined as coming from the horses mouth so to speak. And why after giving a clear report to the AAIB would this individual, given that he is military trained and the crew would keep some sort of flight plan, be unable to state what his route was or is it that when one gives evidence to the AAIB regarding an aviation incident you would have a complete brain fade when comes to an inquiry.
With respect, who are you to discredit any witnesses on the ground or suggest the military traffic is a red herring.
As for your rule 5 suggestion, that is bogus.
Why then did the military aircraft in Cumbria wipe out a Bell 206 on a survey whilst operating a see and avoid procedure.
I have had my own personal close calls with military traffic in the scottish borders. I fortunately could see him and i hope he could see me as he flew directly underneath.
An objective report would not need to suggest that someones occupation in some way influenced the accident.
ST