Baston,
Your 5175: Yes, Yes, "airworthiness question a disgrace."
Yet you seem to fully accept that a version of events based on Boeing and TANS simulations as gospel. At best these are approximations of what might have happened. Without an ADR for control inputs / outputs, and a CVR to assess crews intentions, they are a work of fiction.
General forum:
A the HOL enquiry Sqn Ldr Burke gave evidence that UCFMS and Power Interrupts had taken place. (Fact)
In his "opinion" one of these "events" was the likely cause of the accident.
This version of events was accepted by HOL.
Between 1994 and 2000 at least 35 UCFM's took place. So although not an everyday event they were fairly common.
Each of these incidents served to show that S/L Burke might have been right all along.
One incident to overturn the "burden of proof", maybe not.
Thirty five, certainly. We now have no proof "beyond reasonable doubt"
And John Purdy, each of these incidents was "new evidence". Unless of course you list clairvoyance among your many talents.
The RO,s of course had no problem with this.
Being well aware of his opinion. They decided to exclude him from the BOI. This in spite of the fact he was the premiere Chinook expert at the time and had been the original investigator assisting the AAIB.
As Caz pointed out earlier the AM's decided which evidence was relevant and what was not. Burke's evidence was highly inconvenient.
Without it, trying to establish "no doubt whatsoever", at least in the eyes of politicians, was a little easier.
Caz uses words "reasoning" and "onerous burden.
Another interpretation is "Perverting the Course of Justice".