Apologies
Walter,
I had not realised you were also an expert on Chinook Mk2 aircraft dynamics - many apologies. However, you are not quite as "sharp" in reading my posts, and if you wish to quote my words to question my "waning" engineering capabilities please quote them in full - I actually said "but I will happily bow to more expert opinion" - I do not claim to be an expert on either helicopter dynamics or the Chinook Mk2. As a Chinook pilot, and hence an "expert opinion", I thought Boslandew with his post two days ago provided a very good explanation - however, perhaps you are aware of changes to the aircraft between the BD report of October 1993 and the accident which would have caused BD to modify their comment that "The vibration characteristics were similar to the Mk 1 and were unsatisfactory."
As I tried to explain in my second post I am not trying to use the BD reports to provide a possible cause for the accident - but to point out the failure of the BoI process to look at all these very relevant issues and hence highlight the further doubts these omissions raise on the "safety" of the verdict. In the wider sense they also further highlight the flaws in the RTS process and confirm the now very public doubts on the airworthiness of the Chinook at the time of the accident - similar flaws were, as we now know, present in other later accidents with the Nimrod loss leading directly to the H-C Inquiry and the formation of the MAA - an organisation which has not yet had time to prove its effectiveness and independence.
I have already acknowledged your "success" in pointing out that equipment was apparently fitted to the aircraft that the BoI does not mention, but if this was classified I would not expect it to be mentioned unless it could have relevance to the accident. Although I do not subscribe to your theory you believe it had, and in the sense that none of us know, I would not dispute your wish, indeed right, to raise the issue with the next Inquiry. Albeit I think MOD will provide TORs which are very restrictive as they will definitely not want most of the issues we now know a lot more about to be looked at again. I think MOD and the families will want to settle for clearing the pilots' names, and given that this is what this thread was originally all about that anyway needs to be the absolute priority - however, MOD is, I suggest, mistaken if they believe that reversing this unjust and unjustifed verdict, vital as that is, will be the end of the discussions as far as their airworthiness and RTS failings are concerned.
JB