Walter's Theory
Walter,
I am sorry about your disappointment since I can certainly agree with the conclusions you make at your 24 March posting, and I think I said that you appeared to have been proved correct re your insistence on the fitment of the CPLS. However, I do not accept your comment that there was "no evidence whatsoever of a control jam or engine control malfunction" - the former is certainly a possibility from the AAIB Report (which I seem to recall I sent you) and the latter formed part of the RTS. I also cannot see why they would have changed waypoints had they been conducting the trial that you postulate.
But in terms of the purpose of this thread none of this seems to me to be relevant anyway. Although I do not see that such a trial could have been missed from the BoI's investigation on the operational side they missed or failed to investigate, or were kept in the dark about, so much else that I have to accept that your theory should not be dismissed any more than mine or indeed pilot error should be - none of us will never know what happened. The point of this thread, with which I believe we both agree, is that the criminal verdict of "Gross Negligence" cannot be justified except on the basis of speculation, and the dangererous failings of that speculation have become ever more obvious as the real facts behind the airworthiness and Introduction to Service of the Chinook Mk2 have emerged - including, it now appears, a failure to even admit/know what the equipment fit was and the potential implications of it being fitted. All of this makes this speculation, even admitted at the start of the SRO's comments, on which the "Gross Negligence" verdict is based ever more unjust and unjustifiable. To quote and support your words the verdict is indeed a "stinking disgrace".
JB