Olive Oil:
Just suppose that in the great scheme of revisionist history the gross negligence finding were to be dropped/rescinded/whatever.....
What finding would you have it replaced with?
I am very reluctant to disagree with Brian, but disagree I must. Given that the evidence that has emerged since the BoI points to severe airworthiness problems with the Chinook Mk2, that this was only too well known at the time, and the obvious witness to all its many manifestations, Sqn Ldr Burke, was never called; I would suggest that the BoI is proved to be totally inadequate. Therefore its finding should be simply put aside as any other finding would be similarly compromised. If the RAF is interested in Accident Prevention, which seems doubtful, I have already proposed that the BoI be reconvened and the new evidence taken from witnesses that were not previously called upon. Hopefully then the state of the aircraft's airworthiness may be found to have been a probable (without ADR or CVR the best you can get) cause of this accident. That of course would be down to the BoI, but you know and I know it ain't going to happen. Too many other reputations at stake. Hence the urgent need for an MAA and MAAIB to prevent future avoidable accidents which the present arrangements do not.