Caz:
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.
Wrathmonk:
Finally, whilst I can't remember the exact details, IIRC it was not long after the outcome of this board that the procedures were changed again whereby blame would no longer be attributed. Timing, it seems, is sadly everything.
Olive Oil:
Not everyone believed that was progress, although clearly a section of contributors here would have us believe that it should be applied retrospectively.
Well here we all are again in violent agreement guys. The problem though IMHO is that the clear evidence of OC RWTS BD (suspends flight testing of type, suggests suspension of Service flying), independent testing of FADEC code (suspended due to shear volume of bad code discovered), in service experience of ZD576 (Tech Records), in Service problems of type; HoL testimony of Sqn Ldr Burke and Witness A (SF Chinook pilot) all point to a serious Airworthiness Deficiency of a type that nevertheless received its RTS (restricted). Rather stronger evidence of negligence (and "New" to the BoI, as it chose not to call it at the time) than the "modelling" of the case against the pilots! But perhaps negligence can only be found in JO's as a matter of policy?