Walter
Happy New Year to you.
I cannot argue with the first part, but your argument –re airworthiness falters as soon as you equate it with serviceability. That is MoD’s line when it suits them, and I know you are no supporter of them. The fact is that under no reasonable interpretation of the mandated regulations (which have barely changed in decades) should the Chinook HC Mk2 have been released to service post-conversion. That being so, perhaps the underlying reasons for this bizarre decision should be explored (the political imperative?), and those involved questioned (who are barely mentioned in the Mull papers, except those who have been permitted to judge their own case). You also ignore, as do MoD, that most fiendish of beasts, the intermittent fault; of which there is much evidence.
You cite the evidence set before the House of Lords Select Committee. Notwithstanding Boeing’s minute detail and reasoned explanations for some events, I note the Committee determined the verdict should not stand, as the burden of proof could not be met.
I am not trying to undermine the rest of your hypothesis, just clarifying a couple of points.