A Happy New Year to all, and especially to all those who have worked so hard and for so long to achieve simple justice for two deceased pilots and their grieving loved ones. Walter, and for that matter VSF, concentrate our minds wonderfully. Should we look to the undoubted intrigue on both sides of the "struggle" for an explanation of this tragedy as the former suggests, or simply pack it all in as demanded by the latter (and supported no doubt in the MOD's murky corridors)? Or do we take a lead from tucumseh and John Blakeley and look to the airworthiness, or undoubted lack of it, of this particular aircraft and its sister HC2's? There is much more to emerge in that regard, as proved the case with the Hercules and Nimrod, than is yet generally apparent. That deficiency in those three types, and many others for that matter, was the responsibility of the very organisation that holds hostage the reputations of these two pilots and that presided over the kangaroo court of W&D's findings, the Ministry of Defence. Judge, Jury and Chief Suspect at one and the same time, for it is the MOD that was and still is responsible for UK Military Airworthiness provision. It has been shown to have reneged completely on that responsibility for the past twenty years or so. It certainly reneged on it in releasing the HC2 for service when it did, as tuc tells us. In doing so it laid the path for this accident, and for that matter the geopolitical outcome that Walter so succinctly describes. What I would call Gross Negligence at the very least.