KG86, it is ironic that you make my point better than I could myself, which is that this very tragic and avoidable accident may well sully the reputation of the RAF if it is not properly investigated, as with the examples I list above. The Airworthiness of the Puma is an issue as has already been posted in this thread by those far more knowledgeable than I. Simply because the CVR contains seemingly damning evidence against members of the crew does not mean that issue and its possible bearing on this tragedy should not be fully and transparently investigated. Will it be? The precedents do not inspire confidence. You may think that a finding of Gross Negligence by the pilot(s) might sully the RAF's reputation. History shows that it is the preferred option when airworthiness deficiencies might prove even more embarrassing if "found"! I find it interesting that you think I have subverted the Mull thread. OK to post as long as one doesn't make waves, eh? I am not even a messenger to shoot, merely someone who is shocked by the attitude to Flight Safety extant in the RAF and MOD today.
PTT, Rather than being entertained by me could you please try to take on board what I am saying? Military Air Accident Investigation by the RAF is compromised, BoI/MI findings are not objective and the causes of accidents are often undetected, uncorrected and thus avoidable accidents are not avoided. I propose that such investigation be therefore removed from the RAF to an MAAIB. To those who maintain that the FAA and AAC do not have such a problem I say think on. How can any investigation carried out by serving officers be truly independent of the CoC? This is not a diatribe against any individual but against a system that is a contradiction of itself. I say again,
Self Regulation does not work and in Aviation it Kills!