Balance of Probabilities
Dalek,
Absolutely right - option "a" has never been proven, and as the House of Lords Inquiry acknowledged, after a much fuller investigation than the BoI ever carried out, is anyway not provable except by speculation - not a normally accepted definition of "no doubt whatsover". I believe that the balance of probabilities arguments now point heavily to option "b" unless of course your minds are totally closed to the facts. The "biased" starting assumption that this accident was caused by the crew, a flawed investigation, and an even more flawed analysis and review, the airworthiness and fitness for purpose issues, the history of ZD 576 itself, the change of waypoint, the meticulous flight planning (to quote Stn Cdr Aldergrove's comments) and the experience of this crew and its training to cope with the weather and a low-level approach to the Mull (the first 4 paragraphs of Stn Cdr Odiham's comments), together with the evidence of Mk 2 experienced pilots such as Sqn Ldr Burke, all point the balance to option "b" in my opinion.
The irony is that none of this was meant to be seen outside the "system". When John Major made the RAF release the Inquiry, and the external investigations started, the result was that far from "protecting" the MOD and the RAF from the results of their decision to operate the aircraft, a management decision that on investigation some might feel was negligent, or even grossly negligent, this verdict has, sadly along with other avoidable airworthiness and fitness for purpose related accidents, really opened Pandora's box. Not just on the unjust verdict for the Chinook pilots but on the wider issues, including, of course, the RAF's attitude, as it then appears to have been, to their "duty of care". Add in the totally different conclusions that the same Reviewing Officers, commenting at the same time, reached on the Glen Ogle Tornado accident in September 1994, where there were no doubts as to what had happened or the serviceability of the aircraft, and, IMHO, you also have to question the (in)consistency and (un)fairness of "RAF justice" at the time.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 31st Dec 2010 at 16:05.