JP
Welcome back indeed.
Did you really think that CAS would not take such a close interest in what was bound to be a high profile accident.
So what you are saying is that CinC STC will have discussed what he was about to publish with CAS and will have therefore been aware of his views on the subject? It would seem to follow, therefore, that AOC 1 Gp will have performed a similar process with CinC STC. This way all the Command Chain ducks will have been put into a neat little row. Doesn't this seem a rather unfair process for those at the receiving end of this combined judgement? Wanting one day to be CinC STC himself, it was in AOC 1 Gp's interest to say what he knew CinC STC and CAS had already agreed, especially given CinC STC's "unequivocal views" as laid out in his appalling letter to Stn Cdrs in Feb 95.
The Board of Inquiry process has since been changed and, under the new regime, a finding of 'Gross Negligence' in these circumstances could not occur. Accordingly, the finding against Tapper & Cook should now be withdrawn.