Caz
as GFSO and I did when drafting our comments on the BOI.
As a Safety Officer, was it within your remit to comment on that most basic safety requirement – that the aircraft be airworthy? (We already know certain systems were unserviceable and/or vulnerable to trend failures; not least UFCM after a straight run, which is a perfect explanation for this scenario).
All available evidence clearly demonstrates it was not airworthy – dangerous in fact. Surely anyone with a safety remit would make this observation, even if it was not in the BoI’s remit? And because it wasn’t mentioned, the subject seems to have been ignored thereafter.
The above makes any selective quoting of the BoI report rather meaningless, except to expose its limitations, as the MoD’s obligation to investigate all legal and technical aspects is not yet satisfied.
A simple question – Was Sir Donald Spiers asked by any investigation why he signed the CA Release, when Boscombe’s advice was that it should NOT be signed? (The rules require a reasoned explanation). Similarly, Air Vice-Marshal Bagnall? I’d say that is a reasonable starting point for any safety investigation.