dalek
<<Equipment fitted does not mean equipment used.>>
My analysis predicted the use of such kit before I had it confirmed that it was fitted (from several sources now, Tuc); the mentioning of routine NAVEXs was to remind you all that it would not be unusual to stick an exercise into such a flight; I sat in the FAI for a time and the question of duty time most certainly did come up (when CO Aldergrove being questioned); Flt Lt Tapper did do some persuading (Stangroom? - apologies can't look it up just now) where he stated something like his crew had trained/planned "extensively" for it - further, a witness at one of the other inquiries referred to it as a training flight only to blurt out that all flights could have an element of training when surprise was expressed that any training would be undertaken with such passengers on board; it was an ideal location and conditions were ideal to demonstrate CPLS utility; there were personnel stationed at Mac at the time who were well versed with PRC112 handsets and so would be ideal to help out with demo; of course, someone higher up would have to have put it together and we wait eagerly for that person to come forward or otherwise be identified.
SFFP
The proof is the interpretation of the available data which I could not get smaller than an 80+ page report and supporting illustrating video lasting 50+ minutes - if you go through my posts you may see how several particular points are justified - otherwise you may have to wait for the public release of the report (after inquiry has finished).