Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
But I'm afraid that caz is quite right you know, if the scenario that you describe had occurred then the RO's finding effectively stands (not withstanding that it was itself in contravention of RAF regulations).
But, if the scenario had occurred, then someone not on board would have known about it, and it would seem highly likely that those who signed off on the verdict would have known about it too.
The information given to the BOI, HOL etc would then be missing clearly relevant information. With that in mind, the original verdicts would have to be overturned.
If it were true, though, this scenario makes it more likely that negligence occurred. At least I could understand why they were approaching the Mull.
It would also give the MOD another witness to the events, who would have been able to give a very informed view on whether negligence was the cause.
And that might be the root of why they are set on maintaining the verdict, because they would actually know, even if they couldn't tell for some reason.
Without this scenario, it seems incredulous they would have been anywhere near the Mull.
Just my 2p - I'd still have expected someone to have blown the whistle by now if it was the case.
TN