Yes, in denial and still bleating I'm afraid, Walter. You may put what interpretation you wish on the so called evidence produced by this BoI. It did its job in such a dilatory and slanted way that I do not take any of its evidence as objective or reliable, let alone the conclusions that it came to. Some seem to think that this BoI did as good a job as it could in the circumstances, accept its findings, and only cavil at the revised finding of Messrs W&D. I am not so sanguine I'm afraid and think that it served the deceased, their loved ones, the Chinook HC2 force, and the RAF itself very poorly. Merely not finding the pilots negligent, let alone grossly, is faint praise indeed for what purported to be a Military Air Accident Investigation.
This accident cries out for a professional third party investigation, even this late in the day, to determine what were facts and what were not, what was omitted, and what in particular was the technical state of this aircraft, not only during this flight but from when it was Released To Service into the RAF. Such an inquiry should accept all the evidence pertinent to its job, no matter whether the MOD considers it old, new, true or false. It might indeed wish to consider whether gated switches at OFF in the wreckage, with sooting evidence that they were set thus before the crash, were indeed set then, or by the forces of impact, or by "someone" after the crash but before the sooting occurred. Good luck with that one Walter!
I don't question that the switch's position was irrelevant to the STANS operating. I question the switch's position being seen as irrelevant to the circumstances immediately preceding the crash. As I have said before it seems to me to be a tangible clue left by the pilots themselves. Time that clue was fully considered properly and the message about the HC2 it carries.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 29th Mar 2011 at 19:07.