Well, we seem to be bogged down in an evaluation of opinions quagmire caz. In many ways I find that more honest than the quasi civilised exchanges that have peculiarly featured in this thread between those who stand by the BoI and the ROs' findings and those who find them unacceptable. Given the finding amounted to one of manslaughter and given that it was based on interpretations of what little evidence that survived the crash and given that it plainly contradicted some of the evidence given to the BoI and given that pertinent evidence was neither sort by or given to the BoI I find such restraint unnatural to say the least. I believe that the BoI and the RO's finding amounted to a cover up of the known unairworthiness of this Chinook Mk2, and every other one at that time come to that. It may well be that the cover up was felt necessary because of the scale and nature of this accident and the political sensitivities surrounding it and the Peace Process. If so that may well explain it but does not justify it. That finding destroyed the reputations of two Junior Officers and did so in contradiction of RAF Regulations that applied to the ROs as it did to all RAF personnel. BTW I have never said that the pilots were blameless. Why? Because I just don't know caz, that's why! Your second para is irrelevant. Why? Because it is based on suppositions, just like the Ro's finding, that are unsupported by facts. Because you just don't know caz, that's why!
bast0n:
OK, how?