Rather like a very famous film star, Walter, when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad....! From the evidence given by Sqn Ldr Burke and Witness A (not to the BoI of course, not wanted there!) the Chinook Mk2 was very Jekyll and Hyde then. "So what's changed since?", we keep getting taunted with. Well a lot clearly, but what was done about the DECU connector, the FADEC software and the contents of the "broom cupboard" so prone to shedding vital springs etc and then being vulnerable to the very same loose articles, I have no idea. But I know some people who would, the MOD. That is the organisation responsible for the appalling lack of airworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 when it was released to RAF service despite the protestations of, amongst others, the OC RWTS at Boscombe Down. They are the ones who would have realised the enormity of their Gross Negligence after this tragedy and set about doing what they should have done before, instead of granting an RTS to this aircraft, ie making it airworthy. Would they have highlighted that action? Given that they deliberately obscured the RTS condition of the aircraft in the Accident Investigation and deflected attention instead towards the pilots who were labelled as solely responsible for all 29 deaths, what do you think? How the paperwork could be hidden I have no idea, but the corporate memory developed Alzheimer's Disease over Nimrod and Hercules without any problem, and I suspect much the same thing was managed here. BTW I know that I have morphed the RAF High Command into the MOD above. To all intents and purposes that is how I see it. Command stops at the Station gates in the RAF, above that level it is a beaurocracy bent on enforcing "policy". AOC, AOC in C, etc, etc are impressive titles but a case of lesser fleas etc, IMHO. What I am clear about is that this aircraft, along with its sister Mk2's was not airworthy. It was if you like an accident looking for a place to happen. In my view it found it, but of course I don't know for sure. Despite all the above it could have simply been a case of CFIT, it could have been an authorised visit to the Mull LZ that went wrong, planned or otherwise as you propose, Walter. We don't know. What we do know is that the ludicrous proposal of W&D, that the aircraft was flared and hence under control immediately prior to crashing, was wrong. Despite being "reverse engineered" obligingly by Boeing for them it just doesn't work. Even the attempt to show that the pilots were "flying too fast" before waypoint change hence not complying with VFR (for they were still VMC then) doesn't work. There was no Gross Negligence by the pilots and that slur should be dropped forthwith. There may have been pilot error, that should be investigated. There may have been an authorised clandestine "exercise" behind this tragedy, that should be investigated. There was definitely Gross Negligence by the Airworthiness Authority, the MOD, in allowing this unairworthy type into RAF service. That must be investigated and a solution found to guarantee military airworthiness again. In short this accident must have a proper and fair Accident Investigation, for the same reason others should, to prevent further accidents. It is already 7+10+14 lives too late by my calculations.