Lurking123
the burden was on the AVMs to demonstrate "no doubt", they did not achieve this
According to Day - based on legal advice he specifically sought and received on this issue – he did achieve this (and Wratten concurred).
Day v Brennan (extract from HOL Committee)
332. Can you tell me the circumstances in which you felt it necessary to take legal advice in this case?
A. Because I realised the enormity of the decision I was about to make and I felt it right to take legal advice.
333. What sort of legal advice did you feel would help you? You were deciding the facts, were you not?
A. I was deciding on the facts but I wanted to know basically if the definition of "no doubt whatsoever" was a definition which was achievable or not.
Although deemed privileged information - the MOD legal ‘interpretation’ on the standing definition of ‘no doubt whatsoever’ that Day received has not, to date, been challenged in open court.
Lurking123 -
theories about conspiracy, hypothetical technical problems etc would go away
The STF debate – Reply #3553.
MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit.
Also,
I have also been shown evidence which indicates that ZD576 was carrying STF equipment on that fateful day and I think it important to establish that breaches of airworthiness regs continued from that day to this day specifically regarding Special Trials Fit procedures.
On a prompt, the author of the above replied:
I am wary of stepping on anyones toes here, I do not think it is for me to present the facts known about STF, some facts are still being teased out.
(AA reply) Was an active, passive or redundant STF a contributory factor in this accident, and were airworthiness regulations breached as a consequence?
Brian replied – #3566
There is no evidence I have seen that suggests that FTS equipment was on board ZD576, whether in an active, passive or redundant role. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, but I have read a substantial amount of paperwork and asked several direct questions on this subject and never had even a hint of any such equipment.
Two carefully worded answers?
Q: Was Chinook HC2 ZD576 tasked with evaluating the performance of a new/temporary navigation aid located on the Mull or a personal locator system in this flight?
A: No. The purpose of the flight was the transit of passengers from Aldergrove to Inverness.
Q: If Chinook HC2 ZD576 was tasked with evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid or personal locator system on that flight, who originated the request, organised the test and supplied the on board equipment?
A: The flight was not tasked for this purpose.
If evidence was produced (see above) to show that ZD576 ‘was carrying STF equipment’, then was ‘beta’ software present and could this have affected the aircraft’s FADEC/avionics on the day? (Note: The lack of physical evidence that STF equipment was fitted/found at the crash site does not rule out the absence of ‘beta’ software – see previous replies re STF management by the MOD)
One of many definitions:
Before a commercial software program is released to the public, it usually goes through a "beta" phase. During this stage, the software is tested for bugs, crashes, errors, inconsistencies, and any other problems. If you choose to test a beta software program, don't be surprised if it has multiple problems and causes your computer to repeatedly crash.
If STF information associated with ZD576 was suppressed and, consequently, was not made available to the BOI then, clearly, a full review would need to be carried out?