Baston:
That is not fair, and you know it. I have always been against the "Gross" negligence verdict - but I do find it amazing that they apparently accepted, and flew, in an aircraft that they were unhappy with - for whatever reason. Pressure from above? Lack of gumption to say "no way"? Who knows.
Never in my time did I ever accept an aircraft that I was worried about. Why did they? They patently were worried about it, for why did they ask for a Mk 1?
I ask again - did this Mark 2 have the ability to fly itself into a nearby lump of rock without the pilots having any input whatsoever?
It is not the only aircraft in the world with FADEC or equivalent systems in place.
I'll start by saying two things. Firstly, you have been consistent in your determination that this affair was not the result of "gross negligence" on the part of the crew and secondly, that you do keep "going on about" the circumstances and talking as if the crew simply flew the airframe, willy nilly, into a hillside. I believe you'll find that's what niggles people about your continuous posting here - I've said it before and I'm quite happy to say it again - you come across as a troll.
That aside, there is clear evidence that these two pilots were unhappy with the aircraft they were tasked to fly and asked for another. It's quite obvious that, for whatever reason, their misgivings were over-ridden or assuaged. I accept that you never accepted an airframe you were not happy with flying but I'll ask you to answer honestly - how many airframes of a new mark number that were of questionable reliability were you asked to fly when there were serviceable airframes of the lesser mark number available that were pretty much proven to be safe? There is a huge difference and I don't know why or whether these two, clearly very professional pilots, chose to take the Mk 2 or were pressured into taking it did so - we'll never know.
It is, I believe, more unfair of you to not understand or accept that, for whatever reason, these pilots chose to fly an airframe they were clearly unhappy with than it is for you to cry "foul" on Chugs for questioning your debating technique...
I think there were many aircrew that flew the Mk 1 that were not entirely happy with some of it's "idiosyncrasies" let alone crews that were unhappy with the Mk 2. I think I can say that with some authority, (I might be incorrect regarding others - though I lived and worked closely with many of them), since I was almost certainly the first to simply refuse to fly a Mk 1.
Yes, you're correct. The RAF and I parted ways - but not until their psychiatrist had given me and F-Med 7, (I think that's what it was), which is a certificate of sanity.... The Chinook, in my opinion, has always been a bloody dangerous airframe. The Mk 2 sounds like an accident designed to happen... I lost several friends on the Mk 1 because it failed to do what it was supposed to do. I see no reason why the Mk 2, with all its documented problems should have got RTS in the first place - especially knowing the failings of the Mk 1.
The argument seems to be that the crew were "grossly negligent" in that they flew an airframe into a hillside. Surely, since they asked for a Mk 1 and were clearly not accommodated does not the negligence, (were there any to be found), get moved up a layer of command to the person who refused to provide the Mk 1 airframe?