BOAC:
...it beggars belief how the same RAF can come to two such wildly different findings on the Mull and this accident.
It's notable certainly, BOAC, but quite understandable I'd say. From what we know now it seems likely that the Chinook HC2 was knowingly forced (what other word for it, given that Boscombe's urgent pleas to not do so were blatantly ignored?) into RAF service in a Grossly Unairworthy condition. Given that it was a mere matter of months later that Mull killed 29, including the cream of the UK's anti-terrorism front line, and that the cause was obscured by lack of evidence (no ADR, CVR or direct witnesses) let alone a 'briefed' BoI that ensured no circumstantial evidence would muddy the water, the need and opportunity to nail the pilots for it was clear to those so implicated. That the nailing was so OTT and incapable of standing up to informed scrutiny is a comment on the arrogance and incompetence of those who wielded such a sledge-hammer to this particular nut! This accident by contrast may well raise similar questions of decisions taken by the RAF Higher Command, but more of poor judgement (ie what are the safe minimum monthly hours for a Typhoon AD pilot?) rather than the Gross Negligence that lead to Mull (and not by the pilots!).