Three times in a legal sense; almost daily as an RAF officer.
Moving away from rations and the distinction between possible, probable and absolutely no doubt, I'm still trying to reconcile why
this particular CFIT attracted a gross negligence judgement whereas I cannot recall any other time where this conclusion has been reached. For example, look at the report on the
Shackleton crash on 30 April 1990. To quote:
The BOI concluded that the accident was caused because the aircraft was flown below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather conditions; the Board were unable to determine the reason for this.
and for the Mul of Kintyre accident
.... continued to fly towards the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather conditions.
Reads rather similar, doesn't it?
Please correct me if I am wrong (and if I am I will retract my argument), but I don't think any of the Shackleton crew were found to be negligent. If that is the case, why the discrepancy in determination of proof?