The consenus seems to be serviceable but not airworthy due to failings higher up the food chain. I repeat that someone flew this aircraft into a rock, and that this would not have happened if basic airmanship/navigation et all had been followed. That is fact. Not being airworthy or even if it was unserviceable does not alter those facts above.
I regret, Bast0n, that it is not fact. You cannot say with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that the Chinook was serviceable prior to impact. The AAIB report states:
No evidence to suggest a control jam was found, although such a possibility could not be excluded, given the level of system damage.
and
It was noted that during ZD576’s service since MLU the thrust balance spring attachmen bracket had detached from the thrust/yaw control pallet (Ref 27) as a result of the release of two threaded attachment inserts bonded into the pallet. Each of the two control pallets comprised a 7.5x24 inch, 1.1 inch thick, aluminium honeycomb panel with a 0.02 inch thick aluminium skin bonded to each face and contained respectively 23 and 26 threaded inserts for component attachment. Each insert was bonded into a blind hole bored through the outer skin and part way into the honeycomb, to approximately half the thickness; its integrity appeared to rely on adhesion between the exterior of the insert and the damaged honeycomb around the hole, together with some keying effect between the adhesive and the rim of the skin hole by virtue of the boring producing a marginally larger diameter hole in the honeycomb than in the skin. Inspection of the pallet remains after the accident showed that both inserts for the thrust balance spring attachment bracket had detached, together with most of the similar inserts on both pallets. This was unsurprising in view of the attachment method and, as an insert could apparently pull out of the pallet without appreciable distress to the components necessarily resulting, the possibility that insert(s) had detached prior to the accident could not be dismissed. Few signs were apparent of extensive strong bonding of the adhesive to some inserts or to the panel.
Now, I'm not saying that these issues actually happened, or were responsible for the accident, only that there is a possibility that they could have occurred. As such, the absolutley no doubt whatsoever test fails.
Caz,
you continue to push for a definitive answer as to crew rotas, then go on to point out that the evidence under oath to the BoI suggested a day on - day off pattern, whereas the
evidence given on this thread suggested a change of crew due to weather issues. I would suggest that evidence given to a BoI as opposed to a comment on a forum bulletin-board would be the more accurate.
May I ask, again, about your views on the difference of opinion in relation to the spatial awareness comments made by the BoI and John Day?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook