Most of us in the military have done our share of wazzing and zooming in the past and lived to tell the tale - why? - because we left ourselves some margin for error and knew when to knock it off.
Unfortunately, some young men will always think they are better at things than they really are and believe themselves to be gods of aviation - you could call it the Top Gun syndrome. The same attitude kills lots of young people in cars every year but shouldn't kill people in military aircraft because the training and supervision should prevent a pilot who is incapable of exercising judgement and self-monitoring from being in charge of an aircraft.
There were lots of other factors in this tragic accident and lots of opportunities for any of the crew or pax to prevent it but it still comes down to the numbskull with his hands on the controls trying to perform manoeuvres he was not skilled enough for and which were wholly inappropriate for the task in hand.
Crab: you just don't get it, do you. I see very clearly that you have been protected for far too many years in your company on the old philosophy on blame allocation
In a more modern way of approaching accidents than you are demonstrating, you don't stop asking the question "why" until you get no further. but in this case the "whys" might hurt your beloved RAF, doesn't it? The fact of the matter is that the management of the RAF let this accident happen, without doing anything to stop unacceptable behaviour. Policy, selection, training, monitoring, assessments, briefings, debriefings, etc. - the tools were there. Why do I say let happen? - read James Reason's writings on Organizational Accidents.
Your references to "Top Gun" is totally uncalled for unless you are meaning the movie.
I was trained by the USN Fighter Weapons School and I take offence that you even think for a minute that the attitude demonstrated by those in the Puma represent anything even close to what Top Gun stands for.
An old friend of mine once said, and now it is part of his company thinking (not my company):
• All accidents are preventable
• Management is the art of control
• Accidents are examples of a loss of control
• Accidents are a failure of management
• Management must do what is reasonably practicable to prevent accidents.
Did the Squadron/Wing/Base/RAF do everything that was reasonable practicable to prevent this tragedy? I think not. The squadron management did not have any control at all. They just sent the lads out on their own for them to show off and have some fun, didn't they? (without actually saying so)
So these young tigers went out to have some fun,impressing their Army passengers and onlookers on the ground. Did the squadron issue any limitations regarding this crew on this flight as it was the first non-instructor flight??. I don't think so.
In my eyes all this makes the RAF as an institution liable for the tragedy, and should be accountable for it. There is a legal term called "Corporate Liability" Look it up, might surprise you. Accident investigation boards all over the world are now focusing much more on company management and even board of directors than they did before.
It became painfully relevant after the offshore Piper Alpha tragedy. But the RAF and others are putting this accident away as "pilot error" and that it will not happen again. BS.
I understand that some of the management of the squadron/wing/ base have retired and joined the civvy market? I hope they wake up to the real world. RAF management training, even at lower levels, leaves a lot to be desired, doesn't it?
And on a personal note: the CVR recording should never ever have been released. Who the h*** authorised that???
I would think that the great RAF would have control over something as simple as that. Or not??