Tandemrotor
The list you speak of is comprehensive, but under RNS252 it simply says "See Racal report". As I said, AAIB were obviously told that was the authoritative (and clearly fully independent
) source document. You mention Mr Cable, but he was not the AAIB investigator for this aspect. As such, I think it significant that he made a point of highlighting this unexplained conflict. He is indeed truly impressive and I hope Lord Philip asks him his professional opinion on the many aspects ignored by the BoI and MoD.
Regarding the RNS252 report, do people not find it odd that Racal were permitted to decide what functions, data, switch positions etc were "
considered relevant to the investigation" (their words) and determined the content of the report. So, for example, they did not mention the on/off switch when one would expect them to explain given the fact that it was found OFF. I'm afraid if I were on the BoI I'd jump and demand full evidence and explanations.
The report, rightly, studiously avoids claiming the unit was powered until impact, merely using the term "power down". It does not, to my mind, satisfactorily explain the statement that RNS252 "powered down" 26 seconds before GPS (or 34.2 seconds, depending on which part of the report you read, but who am I to argue with 8.2 seconds). A period of time some may think very close to the time taken to get from Waypoint acceptance to point of impact. That alone warrants a proper explanation, not mere speculation.