Gross Negligence
JP,
Given your background I am surprised that you are going down this road again. The simplest legal definition of "Gross Negligence" (for that, and not negligence, was the AOCinC's finding) I can find is "An action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another."
Thus we have the situation that there is an alleged and unproven finding of gross negligence against the pilots. This is based, in my opinion and that of many others, on a totally inadequate and flawed BoI, and ultimately speculation as to what might have happened, with many "facts" throwing doubt on the basis of that speculation. This should be compared with the easily provable fact, ultimately admitted at 4* level, that the RAF's airworthiness system had totally failed thanks to deliberate "actions and omissions in reckless disregard of the consequences to flight safety and fitness for purpose" accepted, and even led, at the most senior level in the RAF. I believe these actions and omissions resulted or contributed to the loss not just of the Chinook, but the Tornado shot down by a Patriot missile, the Sea King collision in the Gulf. the loss of the Hercules XV 179 and, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, the Nimrod loss at Kandahar (which has now I suggest directly contributed to the RAF losing its maritime patrol capability).
Where do you see the gross negligence lying?
JB