This is a message to all the members of what might be called the "you dont care about the facts" camp. Pprune is full of attacks on hacks for not caring about the facts. I have asked repeatedly about the facts. You havent answered the questions. You insist these facts exist and are confirmed facts without ever explaining the authority for gainsaying the BoI. So I am going to give you yet another chance to answer the following questions:
You and others used the last thread to dismiss this as an issue, also dismissing the BoI's assessment that it was to all intents and purposes a head-on collision.
1) Was this because - as you seem to suggest - the BoI's assessment had been overturned by another body, and did that body make a written report to that effect?
2) Since that report would have been overturning a key assessment of a document of public record, was it also made a public record?
3) Was the BoI told that, in May 2000, the engineer managing the Sea King Mk7 programme had refused to agree "read across" of the HISL installation from a previous mark because there was no evidence of any trials or tests, but was overruled by a senior official without the necessary qualifications to make that judgement?
4) Was the BoI told that the design authority had declined to back the replacement of the anti-collision lights with HISL?
5) Why was the inquest not told about the fully documented "facts" in questions 3 and 4?
It would be really good if someone had the balls to actually answer the questions.