Walter:
An ear witness on the Mull did not detect any adverse changes in noise that could have made him think that they did anything other than fly straight in.
There is nothing to suggest a control problem.
How on earth would an "ear witness" be able to hear a control problem, Walter? Perhaps he/she should have heard the sounds of the pallet springs becoming detached, as indeed they were found to be at the crash site? Oh, of course they were detached by impact forces alone, weren't they? Weren't they?
Arthur Rowe:
I do get a feeling that on this thread it is easy to wander into the full half hour of argument rather than five minutes, to quote Monty Python.
The only Pythonesque aspect here is to accept any part of a rigged accident investigation as gospel. The reason Mr Holbrook's testimony is so easily disparaged is that there is so little of it. The one and only eye witness available was dealt with and despatched with unseemly haste. The one expert witness to the many technical shortcomings of engine and flight control in the Chinook HC2, Sqn Ldr Burke was not called at all despite putting himself forward for that purpose. Now why would that be I wonder, given that the RAF included such shortcomings in the RTS?