Fitter2
As in a Court of Law the verdict is in the hands of those whose duty it is to deliver that verdict. In a High Court it is the duty of the Jury; in the case of the Chinook Board of Inquiry it was the duty of the Reviewing Officers to agree or amend the findings of the BOI and to apportion any blame (should that be required) in accordance with the Air Force Act.
At the same time as the Chinook BOI there was a BOI into the loss of a Tornado through an explosion and engine fire during a Bombing exercise at the Nato Range in Sardinia. The BOI found the crew negligent in that they failed to carry out the Fire Drill.
This finding was overturned by the AOC 1Gp as the tape of the CVR (which had been salvaged) and analysis of the ADR showed that at no time was there any visual or aural fire warning and that the first the crew knew about the fire was when their leader, whom they had asked to do a visual inspection following the engine rundown, told them to "
GET OUT -GET OUT". In addition the Board had failed to notice that the engine bay doors of the affected engine had been blown off the aircraft by the explosion so that even if they had pressed the extinuisher button the extinguishant would merely have dissipated to atmosphere. The doors had landed on the beach on the run in to the Range; a fact noted by the BOI in a different annex to the BOI.
Would you say the AOC was wrong to amend the findings of the properly convened Board of Inquiry?
What about the Tornado mid-air over Canada? The Pilot whose Tornado hit another stated in evidence that he did not realise that he was supposed to wear his newly prescribed "Corrective Flying Spectacles" whilst he was flying an aeroplane!! Perhaps he thought the RAF were just being generous?
