What we are seeing in the response of LookingNorth is a typical
Authoritarian Follower's response.
In this case the Authority of the BoI and the AIB are challenged, and the Authoritarian Follower as described by (
Dr Bob Altemeyer) will defend those authorities aggressively (even to the point of violence) and irrationally even when presented with factual, evidence based reasoned arguments that challenge their authority. In military services the Authoritarian followers response is exploited by a hierarchy of power that must be obeyed no matter what, military training is designed so that the Authoritarian Follower's response becomes a conditioned reflex, you couldn't run a military service without it.
So in this case the AIB man makes two tiny errors in his report, probably working from notes he misses out a 1 and gets the wrong baring at impact. But to the Authoritarian Follower the AIB are infallible even though a close inspection of the
Crash site photo on the web page and in the
post above shows a baring of 250º that and the drawing by Corporal Spence and in section Page 100 BoI pdf
23. Distribution of Wreckage show the baring had to be closer to 144º than 44º and so there is enough evidence to suggest a typo by the AIB man, but not to the Athoritarian follower the AIB man must be right and Corporal Spence and the 'Conspiracy theorist nut job' whose dad died in the crash can't be right, despite the available evidence to the contrary that the AIB man made an error in his report.
Anyway Authoritarian Followers bless em all!
I've mentioned the Tench Report in some of the posts above and as it's not that available I've put
a pdf on the web so that anyone interested can read it. According to LookingNorth's view point Mr. W. H. Tench (AIB) CBE Ceng FRAeS is also a 'conspiracy theorist nut job'.
From Tench we learn that "Board of Inquiry (Air Force) Rules, 1956" were in operation in '60 and up to the time of his report in 1987 (made public in 2000)
The AIB needed to be asked to take part in a BoI for one of the reasons laid out in Tench. Here they are...
4.2.3 RAF. The AIB acts in the capacity of consultant to RAF Boards of Inquiry concerned
with accidents which appear to have been due to any of the following causes:-
a. structural failure in the air,
b. fire or explosion in the air,
c. serious technical defect,
d. unusual or obscure features of a technical nature,
e. defects which have become epidemic.
The phrase as in d. above 'unusual or obscure features of a technical nature' is exactly to the letter the phrase in G(2) on the telegram sent from Wittering at 1pm
which would make it likely that the questions for the answers given in G(1) and G(2) on that telegram would be something along the lines of:- 1 Are the AIB involved? to which the answer on the telegram was:- G(1) YES and 2 Give the Reason (choose one from 5 from the list above) to which the answer was G(2) UNUSUAL OR OBSCURE FEATURES OF A TECHNICAL NATURE. There is no mention in the AIB Report or in the BoI of UNUSUAL OR OBSCURE FEATURES OF A TECHNICAL NATURE the reason why the AIB were invited along in the first place.
Here Tench gives the reason why the Captain of XD864 should have been represented once the BoI figured they could pin the blame on him.
5.3 ROYAL AIR FORCE
If it appears to a Board that the inquiry will affect the character or professional reputation of
any person, that person must be given notice of his rights under QR 1259. This entitles him
to have all the relevant evidence up to that stage read to him, and to elect to be present, and
represented at the remaining sittings of the board, (or at such times as the convening authority
or president may specify). He may also cross-examine former and subsequent witnesses.
That's All Folks!
Over and Out.