Ah, caz, just the very man. In my post yesterday and speaking of the RO's, I asked you:
Are you now saying that if their finding was not in accordance with AP3207 it was because they were all so overburdened with their "duty"?
The following post from you to me about "No Evidence" was such a non-sequitur that it would appear not even to be a response let alone an answer. Could you try to do so now please, as I cannot see the difficulty of an AOC (or his boss) publishing a finding to a BoI that is in accordance with RAF regulations. I mean, that was his job wasn't it?
Pulse, great post that highlights the shabby way that a professional RAF pilot, Sqn Ldr Burke, has been treated throughout this affair. It was not only Pulford who took a sideswipe. I seem to recall that the SoS went out of his way to point out that it was his understanding that Sqn Ldr Burke was not a "real" Test Pilot as they worked at BD! When such co-ordinated personal belittling occurs one's concentration moves away from the target to those doing the belittling. What is called in the trade "over egging the pudding" and a sure sign that there is an agenda at work.
Walter, your latest map and associated revelations do indeed give food for thought. Why route A,B instead of H,B as planned? As always we don't know. Any number of possibilities come to mind. To alter and shorten NI overflight (security?), to fly by the Mull for some unknown reason (pax interest?), even to fly by the LZ perhaps? None of those, or no doubt half a dozen other reasons, would have any significance to my conviction that this was an "eruption" of an Airworthiness condition, other than the location of its occurrence. The only issue remains as ever; what caused this accident?. Was the accident caused by such an "eruption", by an abortive attempt to land at the Mull LZ whether being misdirected or no, or an unbelievably botched attempt to overfly the Mull having encountered IMC? You will realise I am sure that the last two scenarios would both involve pilot error, perhaps negligent, perhaps Grossly Negligent. That the finding was not in accordance with AP3207 is clear, but I am firmly of the opinion that it wasn't wrong simply on a technicality, nor even to a matter of degree, but simply and plainly it was wrong. The BoI was so partial as to be obvious. My belief is that it was to cover up a scandalously unairworthy fleet knowingly pressed into service as such. Your belief (as I understand it) is that it was to cover up a covert operation that went wrong, or even a planned murder that went right! The only answer for both of us surely is to press for a new Accident Investigation. As that needs to be both objective and fair and seen to be so, perhaps the RAF's reluctance to do so (for the reasons enumerated by Caz) might be turned to advantage by having it carried out uniquely by the AAIB?