John Blakely,
I hope, as always, this finds you well.
The written comparison between the Mull accident and the Tornado at Glen Ogle did receive a reply from Adam Ingram. He stated:
"I do not propose to answer your comparative analysis on a point to point basis. Although undoubtedly attractive to those who seek to use selected examples to illustrate a particular argument, it is not necessarily helpful to draw comparisons between individual cases. There may be differences in the cases that fall beyond those that your carful analysis has revealed. It may, for instance, be considered that the flight crew of the Chinook owed a "duty of care" to the passengers for whom they were responsible. The crew of the Tornado, with a joint responsibility for the operation of the aircraft, shared a duty of care to each other. Clearly the buden in the former case, and the need to exercise that care, is greater, leading, perhaps, to a greater need to consider whether negligence had occurred.
So it looks like the number of passengers influences the duty of care placed upon aircrew and not the actions of said crew.
For the record, the comparative document did not compare the two accidents, it compared the decision making processes of the same Reviewing Officers who made comment on the two Boards of Inquiry, some fourteen days apart.
Kind regards,
Brian