JP
You evade the thrust of our argument yet again.
Arkroyal: The rules in force at the time included this definition of Negligence 'The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'. Try that on the actions of the Chinook crew.
What part of this do you think I fail to understand?
I ask you once again to produce a shred of
proof positive that the pilots omitted to 'do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'.
Can't you and hoverstop see that the requirement of such a high level of proof
is essential before finding the dead guilty.
In general fellas, please let us stick to the facts we have, draw objective conclusions from them and be careful with (sometimes) wild speculations.
exactly!