I've mentioned it before but I'll do it again. If we assume that there is a reasonable probability/possibility that this was a CFIT, what is it that makes the burden of proof far more convincing in this accident than a significant number of other CFITs? In other words, how can the MOD justify differing 'verdicts' from the same level of evidence? From the 1990 Shackleton BOI:
The Board of Inquiry 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.
So, I was wondering whether it is worth pursuing a line with MOD regarding their widely varying application of standards when reviewing accidents in the 1990s?