Whilst I am firmly on the side of the debate that advocates quashing the finding of 'Gross Negligence' for these two pilots, there has been some admirable argument from both sides on this thread, which has been mostly respectful and well-mannered. However, it is unlikely that JP and other supporters of the Air Marshals' crash-cause hypothesis will ever post that they have been won over, and it is
even more unlikely that I will ever be persuaded that there is no doubt whatsoever that the two pilots were negligent.
The difference is that I would have nothing to lose by changing my opinion (other than a possible loss of face) but it seems that others, such as JP, may see the Gross Negligence tag transferred to those that they have been doing their utmost to protect -fellow senior officers. How ghastly!
It looks as if someone (ACAS?) was faced with one of those difficult high-powered decisions that Air-ranking officers are required to make and for which they are financially well-remunerated. Facing pressure from those requiring the urgent introduction of the Chinook Mk2 into service, and possibly egged-on by others above him, he probably took a deep breath and signed a RTS whilst thinking "it'll probably be alright". Well, it wasn't!
So what aboout Day and Wratten? Where do they and their scandalous decision fit in? In his now infamous letter to Station Commanders, Wratten stated that
aircrew and their supervisors should be in no doubt that honest professional endeavour will never bring censure - and will indeed attract my strong support - even when in trying circumstances mistakes are made, as they surely will be. On the other hand, I wish you to convey, once again, the clear message through the command chain that unmitigated carelessness or indiscipline will not be tolerated and will be met with formal proceedings. This will of course in no way undermine the certainty for those affected of a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process.
Perhaps, aware of his boss' unequivocal (hard-assed?) view, Day thought he might curry favour by suggesting that the Mull accident was a clear case of indiscipline? Wratten may have seen this as an ideal way
pour encourager les autres and the Gross Negligence tag was born.
Alternatively, realising how open to criticism was the introduction of the Mk2, Wratten (and therefore Day) were persuaded by other even more senior officers that blaming two dead junior officers who would have no recourse to "
a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process" would be an expedient method for diverting attention away from the embarrassing fact that the aircraft wasn't actually airworthy? Sadly, there is no ADR or CVR to back up this conjecture, oh but neither was there to back up theirs either!