I don't necessarily think another H-C is necessary - some key evidence to him was actually based on the Mull failings recently "exposed". He embedded this evidence and recommendations from early/mid 90s in his report, but inexplicably baselined it at 1999; implying wrongly that the problems started then.
What recent events will hopefully achieve is a wider realisation that H-C's report and criticisms apply to a period preceding Mull. This is irrefutable; it is a simple case of mapping many of his recommendations to those made by various bodies in the period 1992-96; then again in 1999, following the Chief of Defence Procurement's admission to the PAC that airworthiness regs had not been adhered to on Chinook.
-re Simple change of verdict - Agreed. As Sir Malcolm Rifkind said, this is easily done without further inquiries and, if I interpreted Mr Tapper's comments correctly, honour would be satisfied without the need for any further action. However, I think there would inevitably be other fall-out, as the main culprits would inevitably fall out in the rush to distance themselves from the decision to release the aircraft to Service.
But that is not Mr Tapper's fault or concern, nor indeed that of most here. MoD would be well advised to have a close look at themselves and ask just how they have been brought to their knees these last 3 years and, if so minded, ask whose decisions were responsible for prompting such successful campaigns on the likes of Nimrod and C130. For be assured, these issues are directly related.
On a separate point, I assume the 2 ACM's were 'advised' on the content of their letters by 'MOD', but I would like to know why the admission of prior knowledge of defects (and thus presumably the position of Boscombe) is now openly on record?
I think it is a case of the information already being on record but a combination of MoD ignoring the airworthiness regulations and the BoI not addressing it in the first place, meant it sat on the backburner; emphasising the importance of the Nimrod and C130 cases in bringing this aspect to the fore. I suspect MoD's advice to CAS (both of them) came from the Directorate of Air Staff, who are on record as disagreeing with Haddon-Cave's conclusions. (How many shots can a foot take?).
In saying this, it is important to note that a certain poster here has been banging on about this for many years - long before me - and prepared an excellent report on the subject. Perhaps if MoD had paid attention to him red flags would have been raised in time to take corrective action on more recent tragedies. In this, they failed in their Duty of Care. Again.