I disagree entirely.
Firstly, the RAF have been flying multi-crew aircraft for a very long time. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure why the numbers of people aboard should be significant.
Since you mentioned them, I imagine the families of the "other 27 individuals" might read the following:
6. RWTS has carefully monitored the progress of this trial and has put tremendous effort into ensuring that it progresses safely to provide timely CA release recommendations. These recommendations with respect to FADEC have, to date, been ignored. Until RWTS is provided with a clear, unequivocal and realistic explanation of the faults described at references B through H, with corrective action, further Chinook HC2 flying shall not be authorised. A statement of 'No Fault Found' will no longer satisfy this requirement.
7. As a trials organisation, A&AEE has always been keenly aware of the risks associated with operating the Chinook HC2 and has tailored sortie profiles accordingly. Crews of the RAF have no such luxury and are likely at higher risk than the A&AEE crews. As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions established in paragraph 6 are satisfied
...and ask themselves why their loved ones were flying in this aircraft
at all! It is an utter disgrace!
'Absolutely no doubt
whatsoever' was the standard of proof the RAF required.
I find this standard ENTIRELY appropriate in cases where there are (tragically) NO survivors, NO eyewitnesses, NO data recorder, NO voice recorder, NO radio calls, and NO radar traces!
The 'case for the prosecution' was based, not on any RECORD of the moments leading up to the accident, but by combining snippets of unrelated information retrieved from equipment not designed to provide historical data, and 'dodgy' computer MODELING!
All that we have is wreckage on a hillside. The AAIB are good, but they aren't psychic. Even they couldn't verify the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576, and as we all now know, at that time, this helicopter was not fit for purpose!
The required standard of proof was not met.
Let right be done!
PS: Perhaps it may ease your 'trouble' to bear in mind, the Fatal Accident Inquiry examining this incident required a much lower standard of proof. I believe it was 'balance of probability'. Even so, they could identify no grounds for criticising the pilots!
BTW. It's quite likely we know each other.