Good afternoon Caz,
I trust all is well with you.
Whilst I don't want this to become a Mull v Glen Ogle issue (apart from the RO opinion differences), the 'startling event' conclusion is quite important.
The Tornado had full ADR and CVR. I have a copy of the CVR transcript and there is nothing on there to suggest anything out of the ordinary. I would suggest that had there been a 'startling event' then one, or both, of the crew would have made a comment or sound. They did neither. Likewise there was consideration that the pilot suffered a 'medical episode'. Again there was nothing on the CVR transcript.
However, in respect of the Chinook which, as everyone knows, did not have the benefit of ADR or CVR, the ROs categorically dismissed the possibility of a startling event or medical episode.
So here we have the Tornado which provides a comprehensive history of events in the cockpit and possibilities are accepted without any hard evidence as compared to the Chinook which has nothing, yet these same possibilities are dismissed outright.
As I say, I don't wish to go down the comparison route as the Campaign is about the Chinook and not anything else, and my apologies if this has caused any distress to friends and family of the Tornado crew.
In respect of crew duty limitations, it is accepted that the Chinook crew, at the time of the accident were within limits. Remind me again, where was the waypoint change made?
Enjoy your wine
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook