Duty of Care and Negligence
Brian,
Nice to hear from you - particularly as I no longer seem to be involved on the Chinook side. You are quite right - I was trying to compare the review process and not the complete BoI process, although I am sure that many of my concerns about the BoI process for the Chinook may read across to the Tornado - but I have only seen extracts from the latter BoI, and some of the more interesting looking bits of these were redacted (a great new (well 15th Century anyway) word for us all to use).
I am sorry, I had forgotten that Ingram had given a response - albeit with none of the questions answered. However, as I think I pointed out some time ago the decision on Gross Negligence is not related to the number of deaths - although given that the Minister incorrectly suggests that this is the case, as well as implying that the navigator somehow had a role in his own death through the crews joint "responsibility" for operation of the aircraft (and with single seat flight controls!), I can see that the SROs might have been tempted down this route at the time, if only to get other parts of the system "off the hook" - especially given the very high profile of this accident. I can remember one very senior officer proudly saying to me that the RAF had taken full responsibility for the accident (ie two flight lieutenants in an aircraft that was not seen as airworthy by many were to blame), and that the families had received compensation "in a record short time" - that alone would make most MOD watchers very suspicious!
All the best - keep the fight for justice alive.
JB