Walter
The first half of my post to "Squidlord" applies to your post.
Referring to…..
I think you are missing the point of the recent exchanges on this topic – starting with Cazatou's post which put the “grounding” into perspective in that it was lifted after some fairly minor further checks, trying to counter the spin that the aircraft was somehow not safe for test pilots
I think it is you who has missed the point. Caz was of the mistaken opinion there had been no airborne malfunctions. MoD correspondence was quoted which admitted numerous airborne events in the 2 months period before the accident; which I assume no-one is disputing now.
But your post to Squidlord (and now myself) seemingly still supports the original assertion, despite all the evidence.
That changes in the FADEC design took place is not in doubt. MoD sought to deny the problems which led to these and other changes, but were caught lying when the evidence was “discovered” two weeks after its existence was denied in Committee. On other occasions MoD have not been truthful when discussing Chinook problems, notably Dr Reid’s evidence to the HCDC when he said there had only been one accident before Mull, knowing there had been at least seven – some leading to loss of life and serious injury. At the time he was accompanied by an AVM, who knew the truth but failed to correct him.
In his evidence to the BoI, the Chinook OCU Flight Commander stated these “unforeseen” FADEC malfunctions were of a “Flight Critical Nature”, resulting in “undemanded engine shutdown, engine run up, spurious engine failure captions and misleading and confusing cockpit engine indications”.
I think you also miss the point that, while some problems may have turned out to be “minor” (the RAF’s most experienced Chinook test pilot of the day disputes this, but I’m in no position to comment), the important thing is that AT THE TIME there was a dearth of information available to pilots, mainly because;
(a)The Mk2 had entered Service too early, before the problems were fully understood, and,
(b)What little knowledge existed on the problems and how to cope with them was omitted from the FRCs and, I believe, aircrew training.
To repeat, I am not saying this was what caused the accident. But MoD have stated the sole cause was the pilots’ gross negligence. Even if such negligence could be proven (and it can’t) there would clearly be a degree of shared blame because of the failure to implement the airworthiness regulations. That failure is demonstrable, and constitutes gross negligence and abrogation of duty of care. The most insidious element of this whole case is that the latter staffs are those who have been allowed to judge this case. But whenever there has been an independent inquiry, the pilots have not been blamed to this degree. All I seek is natural justice.