GICASI
With reference to your post #5711.
The door to the Flight Safety Office at HQ 1 Gp was almost always open so that people could drop in with any queries they may have had. The door was only closed if the Office was empty or we were processing Classified or "In Confidence" material. I have No recollection of your dropping by and discussing the Chinook BOI.
You have also, in common with a large number of others who pontifcate on this thread, completely ignored the fact that when the BOI reached HQ 1 Group (after being reviewed by OC RAF Aldergrove and OC RAF Odiham) it already contained a "Finding" of Negligence. OC RAF Odiham stated in his Remarks that Flt Lt Tapper, as Captain of the Aircraft, had a "Duty of care" in respect of his Crew and Passengers and that he had failed in that Duty. In deference to PPRuNe Pop I will quote the definition for negligence contained in Chambers Dictionary:
" Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require."
That Finding, being already extant, had to be addressed; as did the role of Flt Lt Cook (who was the incoming Detatchment Commander) as Handling Pilot. It was our conclusion that the rules for low level flight in VMC had been breached and that Flt Lt Cook also had a duty to ensure that the Aircraft was flown by him in accordance with the requirements for low level Flight in VMC.
The BOI, complete with comments from HQ 1 Gp Staff, was reviewed by SASO before being forwarded to AOC 1 Gp for his decision. Subsequently the BOI was passed to HQ STC where the process was repeated and finally, and uniquely in my experience, the completed BOI was passed to Mod Air for review by CAS prior to publication.
I am flattered that you believe that I, as a Specialist Aircrew Flt Lt, was capable of influencing the viewpoints of so many Air Officers past and present.