John
This discussion is ecoming very esoteric, Meanwhile can someone say, as I asked on 6th March, whether or not the Chinook is now airworthy. If it is not, then why is it still flying; if it is, then what exactly was done post-Mulll disaster, to make it airworthy? May we please have a clear answer? JP
The discussion you describe as “esoteric” (i.e. getting too close for comfort) is primarily concerned with the airworthiness of the fleet
at the time. Your question seeks to shift emphasis to the
present day. A typical MoD ploy if I may say.
Why not study and draw up a list of what constitutes airworthiness, and then ask if, for example, the various Directorates involved were given the resources to meet their legal obligations.
You’ll quickly realise (but perhaps not acknowledge) that those charged with implementing the regulations are completely hamstrung if under resourced and there is no political will or leadership. In a process which relies so heavily on a “top down” approach, it will become apparent that the pilots (and pax) are merely at the bottom of this food chain in the sense they are totally reliant upon everyone before them doing their job – not just the maintainers they see while doing pre-flight checks. Then ask if the factual evidence gives even the remotest indication that all these mandatory tasks were carried out correctly and in a timely fashion before the crash.
A simple statement of verifiable fact – they were not. Now - who is to blame for that? Answer that one and you get close to the reason why the establishment were so keen to hoist the blame on pilots who couldn't defend themselves.