flipster:
Importantly, however, one would also have to include 'Organisational Fault' (O) and 'Unsatisfactory Equipment' (UE). Although not part of the BoI, it is also possible that ACAS and Controller Aircraft and their staffs would have been subsequently Court Martialled for negligence in their duties - sadly unlikely!
At last we get to the logical point of this thread. It is alleged that senior Air Officers conspired to suborn the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations, no doubt to deal with ongoing budgetary cuts. It is further alleged that as a result the Chinook HC2 was released into RAF service in a Grossly Unairworthy condition. The allegations then continue that, following the tragic Mull accident when 29 people were killed, a cover up ensued entailing a BoI that disgracefully ignored the technical shortcomings of the aircraft. The cover up is alleged to then extend to the RO's who threw out the BoI finding as inadequate for their purposes and replaced it with their own idiosyncratic finding; that the two pilots' Gross Negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Again the allegations continue, that the RAF High Command thereafter stood firm in blocking any move to reopen this scandal simply because that indeed is what it is. The culmination of that was the letter signed by 5 Air Marshals. Now that is a lot of allegations and "allegeds". It would seem to me that those in the RAF High Command have a self interest in lancing this boil now, rather than for the whole farago to come out elsewhere (Coroner's Court, FAI, HoL, HoC, where next?) and condemn them all for failing in their duty to safeguard the good name and reputation of the Royal Air Force. The RAF Provost Marshal has already been charged with investigating matters arising from the Nimrod Report. Those matters are of course intimately related to these, for the reasons that tucumseh has reminded us. Let us trust that the Provost Branch are invested with the zeal that all good coppers should have, to follow the evidence no matter where it leads!