Wrathmonk
Your 5345
Thank you for your comments. If JP does not always respond promptly, try to remember that he was operating Canberras at the time of Her Majesties Coronation. I, on the other hand, am a mere youngster as I did not join the RAF until the day after Sir Winston Churchill died.
You must remember that the BOI was conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures current at the time. Those rules have, I am given to understand, been revised and a BOI is no longer required to pronounce on negligence. That had not happened in 1994 and it was a requirement for the BOI to pronounce on negligence. In this context the BOI consists of the Investigating Board and the Reviewing Officers; who are not bound by the opinions that the Investigating Board put forward.
To put this into context ( I have mentioned this before but it will do no harm to repeat it); there was another BOI in progress at the time into the crash of a Tornado at the NATO Range, Decimomannu. A Tornado suffered an explosion and titanium fire in one engine which resulted in the loss of the aircraft. The Investigating Board found the crew negligent as they had not carried out the Engine Fire Drill. What they neglected to consider was that the initial explosion had blown off the engine bay doors of that engine; this removed the major part of the Fire Warning detection system and ensured that if the engine fire extinguisher was fired then the extinguishant would immediately dissipate to atmosphere. The crew, therefore, had no indication of a fire until the aircraft they had requested to carry out a visual inspection got them in sight and ordered them to "Get Out - Get Out".
The AOC and AOCinC rejected the findings of the BOI.
Oddly enough, I have never heard anyone complain about the Reviewing Officers "overturning the findings of a properly constituted BOI" in respect of that accident.