ShyTorque
Are you are suggesting that this non-operational passenger transit sortie was conducted under the same "suck it and see" weather criteria as your missions in NI? I hope not. Passengers should not have to accept an increased level of operational risk and that they might just go home one day in a wooden box, even if that is the way the pilots approached their work.
The argument that competent pilots flew a serviceable aircraft into the ground when they could and should have prevented it is gaining credence here.
Olive Oil, I agree 100% that passengers should not have been required to accept an increased level of operational risk. Please read my previous posts on the subject!
The aircraft, as a type, was unairworthy and should not have been used for this flight, or any other. These passengers should have been flown in a tried and trusted aircraft, possibly by Cazatou's previous unit in an aircraft with a proper Release to Service (clearance to fly) in the prevailing weather conditions. A Mk1 Chinook, as the Captain requested, could have done it in complete safety, had one been available, or the passengers should have been flown by a civilian airline carrier using an aircraft with a valid Certificate of Airworthiness. A civilian airline who flew an unairworthy type of aircraft on a passenger flight would probably have it's Air Operator's Certificate revoked, accident or not. The RAF blamed its pilots, who were ordered to take the unairworthy type against their wishes, instead.