On a positive note for those who would like to develop understanding of the crash, hopefully to contribute one day to a determination of its cause, this achievement of the original raison d'etre for this thread should free up debate for those who were genuinely concerned that too much digging may complicate or even compromise that aim – even if there is to be no longer a “sticky” thread, the topic should continue, perhaps with the same title?
To kick things off, there are some matters arising from what has gone before, to name but a few:
the weather – given that it was predictable with forecasts at that time of day and time of year with a strong onshore wind blowing, that all accounts were consistent with this, and that apparently a video was available showing the localised weather taken only minutes before the crash confirming this expected local weather, why has it not been widely recognised (in inquiries and the media) that they were not in “thick fog” until the last moments, that they would have been able to be aware of the presence of the landmass from a long way off, and that the only problem that it would have presented to them would have been judgement of distance off if for whatever reason they had to approach it very closely;
the classified equipment not hitherto addressed by any inquiry/review whose existence and use had predicted by analysis of the available data with consideration to practical airmanship in advance of its fit being confirmed – after 17 years and being “outed”, the excuse that CPLS cannot be discussed because it was “classified” no longer is acceptable – its use has been shown as a possible cause of this crash consistent with all the known data;
the engine states, rotor RPM, and control positions at the time of impact indicating both meaningful positions and sudden demands consistent with sudden awareness of closure with terrain – this data, objectively analysed, is inconsistent with any perceived possible fault that the airworthiness considerations covered.
Do not be satisfied with just the pilots names being cleared – the original verdict could have been shown to have been baseless years ago had you all been more open and forthcoming contributing to the analysis etc – the data points to a planned approach to a particular point and so you should be concerned with what reason was this for, who would have approved it, etc – even if it was just a case of an exercise gone wrong, whoever was responsible for the concept, planning, and execution should be brought to account.
It should not do that their names were cleared on just a technicality – the verdict of gross negligence was equivalent to their being guilty of manslaughter of their passengers – whoever else stuffed up this exercise by error or malice is surely also guilty of manslaughter - how can this tragedy been signed off while it is probable that they themselves were victims of manslaughter? How can you think that the families have closure?